Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2017 UpToDate, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

Medline ® Abstract for Reference 33

of 'Immunotherapy of advanced melanoma with immune checkpoint inhibition'

Randomized, Open-Label Phase II Study Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Talimogene Laherparepvec in Combination With Ipilimumab Versus Ipilimumab Alone in Patients With Advanced, Unresectable Melanoma.
Chesney J, Puzanov I, Collichio F, Singh P, Milhem MM, Glaspy J, Hamid O, Ross M, Friedlander P, Garbe C, Logan TF, Hauschild A, LebbéC, Chen L, Kim JJ, Gansert J, Andtbacka RHI, Kaufman HL
J Clin Oncol. 2017;
Purpose We evaluated the combination of talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma in a phase II study. To our knowledge, this was the first randomized trial to evaluate addition of an oncolytic virus to a checkpoint inhibitor. Methods Patients with unresectable stages IIIB to IV melanoma, with no more than one prior therapy if BRAF wild-type, no more than two prior therapies if BRAF mutant, measurable/injectable disease, and without symptomatic autoimmunity or clinically significant immunosuppression were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab or ipilimumab alone. Talimogene laherparepvec treatment began in week 1 (first dose,≤4 mL×10(6) plaque-forming units/mL; after 3 weeks,≤4 mL×10(8) plaque-forming units/mL every 2 weeks). Ipilimumab (3 mg/kg every 3 weeks; up to four doses) began week 1 in the ipilimumab alone arm and week 6 in the combination arm. The primary end point was objective response rate evaluated by investigators per immune-related response criteria. Results One hundred ninety-eight patients were randomly assigned to talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab (n = 98), or ipilimumab alone( n = 100). Thirty-eight patients (39%) in the combination arm and 18 patients (18%) in the ipilimumab arm had an objective response (odds ratio, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.5 to 5.5; P = .002). Responses were not limited to injected lesions; visceral lesion decreases were observed in 52% of patients in the combination arm and 23% of patients in the ipilimumab arm. Frequently occurring adverse events (AEs) included fatigue (combination, 59%; ipilimumab alone, 42%), chills (combination, 53%; ipilimumab alone, 3%), and diarrhea (combination, 42%; ipilimumab alone, 35%). Incidence of grade≥3 AEs was 45% and 35%, respectively. Three patients in the combination arm had fatal AEs; none were treatment related. Conclusion The study met its primary end point; the objective response rate was significantly higher with talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone. These data indicate that the combination has greater antitumor activity without additional safety concerns versus ipilimumab.
Jason Chesney, J. Graham Brown Cancer Center, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY; Igor Puzanov, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo; Philip Friedlander, Mt Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY; Frances Collichio, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; Parminder Singh, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ; Mohammed M. Milhem, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA; John Glaspy, University of California Los Angeles School of Medicine; Omid Hamid, The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles; Lisa Chen, Jenny J. Kim, and Jennifer Gansert, Amgen, Thousand Oaks, CA; Merrick Ross, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Claus Garbe, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen; Axel Hauschild, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany; Theodore F. Logan, Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Celeste Lebbé, Assistance Publique-Hôpital De Paris Dermatology and CIC Hôpital Saint Louis University Paris Diderot Sorbonne, Institut Nation