Missing content? – Request curation!
Request curation for specific Genes, variants, or PubMed publications.
Have questions, comments or suggestions? - Let us know!
Email us at : email@example.com
|Ref Type||Journal Article|
|Authors||Amaria RN, Reddy SM, Tawbi HA, Davies MA, Ross MI, Glitza IC, Cormier JN, Lewis C, Hwu WJ, Hanna E, Diab A, Wong MK, Royal R, Gross N, Weber R, Lai SY, Ehlers R, Blando J, Milton DR, Woodman S, Kageyama R, Wells DK, Hwu P, Patel SP, Lucci A, Hessel A, Lee JE, Gershenwald J, Simpson L, Burton EM, Posada L, Haydu L, Wang L, Zhang S, Lazar AJ, Hudgens CW, Gopalakrishnan V, Reuben A, Andrews MC, Spencer CN, Prieto V, Sharma P, Allison J, Tetzlaff MT, Wargo JA|
|Title||Neoadjuvant immune checkpoint blockade in high-risk resectable melanoma.|
|Date||2018 Oct 08|
|Abstract Text||Preclinical studies suggest that treatment with neoadjuvant immune checkpoint blockade is associated with enhanced survival and antigen-specific T cell responses compared with adjuvant treatment1; however, optimal regimens have not been defined. Here we report results from a randomized phase 2 study of neoadjuvant nivolumab versus combined ipilimumab with nivolumab in 23 patients with high-risk resectable melanoma ( NCT02519322 ). RECIST overall response rates (ORR), pathologic complete response rates (pCR), treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) and immune correlates of response were assessed. Treatment with combined ipilimumab and nivolumab yielded high response rates (RECIST ORR 73%, pCR 45%) but substantial toxicity (73% grade 3 trAEs), whereas treatment with nivolumab monotherapy yielded modest responses (ORR 25%, pCR 25%) and low toxicity (8% grade 3 trAEs). Immune correlates of response were identified, demonstrating higher lymphoid infiltrates in responders to both therapies and a more clonal and diverse T cell infiltrate in responders to nivolumab monotherapy. These results describe the feasibility of neoadjuvant immune checkpoint blockade in melanoma and emphasize the need for additional studies to optimize treatment regimens and to validate putative biomarkers.|
|Molecular Profile||Treatment Approach|
|Gene Name||Source||Synonyms||Protein Domains||Gene Description||Gene Role|
|Therapy Name||Drugs||Efficacy Evidence||Clinical Trials|
|Drug Name||Trade Name||Synonyms||Drug Classes||Drug Description|
|Gene||Variant||Impact||Protein Effect||Variant Description||Associated with drug Resistance|
|Molecular Profile||Indication/Tumor Type||Response Type||Therapy Name||Approval Status||Evidence Type||Efficacy Evidence||References|
|Unknown unknown||melanoma||not applicable||Ipilimumab + Nivolumab||Phase II||Actionable||In a Phase II trial, the combination of Opdivo (nivolumab) and Yervoy (ipilimumab) resulted in improved overall response rate (ORR) and pathologic complete response rate (pCR) compared to Opdivo (nivolumab) monotherapy in patients with stage III or IV melanoma, with a ORR of 73% (8/11) and pCR of 45% (5/11), however, demonstrated higher toxicity (PMID: 30297909; NCT02519322).||30297909|
|Unknown unknown||melanoma||not applicable||Nivolumab||Phase II||Actionable||In a Phase II trial, Opdivo (nivolumab) monotherapy resulted an overall response rate (ORR) of 25% (3/12) and pathologic complete response rate (pCR) of 25% (3/12) in patients with stage III or IV melanoma, compared to a ORR of 73% (8/11) and pCR of 45% (5/11) with the combination of Opdivo (nivolumab) and Yervoy (ipilimumab), but demonstrated lower toxicity than the combination therapy (PMID: 30297909; NCT02519322).||30297909|