Ipilimumab and nivolumab plus UV1, an anticancer vaccination against telomerase, in advanced melanoma.

Paul Lorigan,Theresa Medina,Marta Nyakas,Annemie Rutten,Lynn G. Feun,Charles Lance Cowey,Miranda Payne,Israr Hussain,Timothy Kuzel,Steven O'Day,Amna Sheri,Philip Adam Friedlander,Satish Kumar,Jens Bjorheim,Oliver Edgar Bechter
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.17_suppl.lba9519
IF: 45.3
2024-06-06
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Abstract:LBA9519 Background: The combination of ipilimumab (IPI) and nivolumab (NIVO) remains a standard of care for patients with advanced melanoma, especially those with poor prognostic factors, albeit with a significant risk of toxicity. Therapeutic cancer vaccines are ideally positioned to improve outcomes without significantly increasing toxicity. UV1 is a therapeutic cancer vaccine generating T-cell responses against the universal cancer antigen telomerase. In a Phase I trial in melanoma (N = 30), UV1 plus pembrolizumab demonstrated a tolerable safety profile, a complete response rate of 33%, median PFS of 18.9 months, and 2-year OS rate of 73.3%. Recently, results from a randomized Phase II trial indicated a longer overall survival and a higher response rate for previously treated patients with advanced mesothelioma receiving UV1 in combination with IPI-NIVO (1). Methods: In this Phase II, open-label, multicenter study, we randomly assigned treatment-naïve patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma (stage IIIb-IIId or IV) to IPI 3mg/kg + NIVO 1mg/kg for 4 cycles, followed by NIVO 480 mg as maintenance, with or without 8 intradermal injections of 300 μg UV1 (+GM-CSF). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR) according to RECIST 1.1. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), duration of response, and safety. Results: A total of 156 patients underwent randomization; 78 patients were assigned to the IPI-NIVO-UV1 arm and 78 patients to the IPI-NIVO arm. The median age was 60, 48% had M1C or D disease, 38% had LDH >upper limit of normal, and 42% had a positive BRAF mutation status. With a minimum follow-up of 18 months, the 12-month PFS rate was 57% in both arms (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.59-1.55, p value 0.845). The ORR was similar with IPI-NIVO-UV1 compared to IPI-NIVO, at 60% vs 59%, respectively (Odds ratio 1.12, 95% CI 0.58-2.16, p value 0.867). The 12-month OS rate was 87% and 88%, respectively (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.60-2.20, p value 0.674). The occurrence of grade >3 adverse events was similar in both treatment arms. Conclusion: UV1 did not improve on outcomes of IPI-NIVO, in terms of PFS. Longer follow-up is required for the accurate assessment of OS. No significant toxicity increases were observed with the addition of UV1. Data from a biomarker driven cohort are awaited. 1. Helland et al, Eur J Cancer 2024. Clinical trial information: NCT04382664 .
oncology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?