Background Recent evidence suggested a potential correlation between overweight and the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in cancer patients. Patients and methods We conducted a retrospective study of advanced cancer patients consecutively treated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, in order to compare clinical outcomes according to baseline BMI levels as primary analysis. Based on their BMI, patients were categorized into overweight/obese (≥ 25) and non-overweight (< 25). A gender analysis was also performed, using the same binomial cut-off. Further subgroup analyses were performed categorizing patients into underweight, normal weight, overweight and obese. Results Between September 2013 and May 2018, 976 patients were evaluated. The median age was 68 years, male/female ratio was 663/313. Primary tumors were: NSCLC (65.1%), melanoma (18.7%), renal cell carcinoma (13.8%) and others (2.4%). ECOG-PS was ≥2 in 145 patients (14.9%). PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors were administered as first-line treatment in 26.6% of cases. Median BMI was 24.9: 492 patients (50.6%) were non-overweight, 480 patients (50.4%) were overweight/obese. 25.2% of non-overweight patients experienced irAEs of any grade, while 55.6% of overweight/obese patients ( p < 0.0001). ORR was significantly higher in overweight/obese patients compared to non-overweight (p < 0.0001). Median follow-up was 17.2 months. Median TTF, PFS and OS were significantly longer for overweight/obese patients in univariate (p < 0.0001, for all the survival intervals) and multivariate models ( p = 0.0009, p < 0.0001 and p < 0.0001 respectively). The significance was confirmed in both sex, except for PFS in male patients ( p = 0.0668). Conclusions Overweight could be considered a tumorigenic immune-dysfunction that could be effectively reversed by ICIs. BMI could be a useful predictive tool in clinical practice and a stratification factor in prospective clinical trials with ICIs. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s40425-019-0527-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Although these findings need to be confirmed and validated, we suggest that a neutrophil-based index may help risk-group stratification and assist disease-management strategies. Furthermore, the potential predictive value of this index for response to ipilimumab should be investigated in randomized clinical trials.

Background:Ipilimumab improves the survival of metastatic melanoma patients. Despite documented, durable objective responses, a significant number of patients fails to benefit from treatment. The aim of this study was to identify an upfront marker for treatment benefit.Methods:A total of 187 metastatic melanoma patients treated in three Italian Institutions with 3 mg kg−1 ipilimumab, and 27 patients treated with 10 mg kg−1 ipilimumab, were evaluated. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) was calculated from pre-therapy full blood counts. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using the Kaplan–Meier method, and multivariate Cox models were applied, adjusting for confounders and other prognostic factors.Results:In the training cohort of 69 patients treated at European Institute of Oncology, pre-therapy NLR was identified as the strongest and independent marker for treatment benefit in multivariate analyses. Patients with baseline NLR<5 had a significantly improved PFS (HR=0.38; 95% CI: 0.22–0.66; P=0.0006) and OS (HR=0.24; 95% CI: 0.13–0.46; P<0.0001) compared with those with a NLR⩾5. Associations of low NLR with improved survival were confirmed in three validation cohorts of patients.Conclusion:Our findings show that baseline NLR is strongly and independently associated with outcome of patients treated with ipilimumab, and may serve to identify patients most likely to benefit from this therapy.

Background Patients with a history of autoimmune diseases (AIDs) have not usually been included in clinical trials with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Materials and Methods Consecutive patients with advanced cancer, treated with anti‐programmed death‐1 (PD‐1) agents, were evaluated according to the presence of pre‐existing AIDs. The incidence of immune‐related adverse events (irAEs) and clinical outcomes were compared among subgroups. Results A total of 751 patients were enrolled; median age was 69 years. Primary tumors were as follows: non‐small cell lung cancer, 492 (65.5%); melanoma, 159 (21.2%); kidney cancer, 94 (12.5%); and others, 6 (0.8%). Male/female ratio was 499/252. Eighty‐five patients (11.3%) had pre‐existing AIDs, further differentiated in clinically active (17.6%) and inactive (82.4%). Among patients with pre‐existing AIDs, incidence of irAEs of any grade was significantly higher when compared with patients without AIDs (65.9% vs. 39.9%). At multivariate analysis, both inactive (p = .0005) and active pre‐existing AIDs (p = .0162), female sex (p = .0004), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status <2 (p = .0030) were significantly related to a higher incidence of irAEs of any grade. No significant differences were observed regarding grade 3/4 irAEs and objective response rate among subgroups. Pre‐existing AIDs were not significantly related with progression‐free survival and overall survival. Conclusion This study quantifies the increased risk of developing irAEs in patients with pre‐existing AIDs who had to be treated with anti‐PD‐1 immunotherapy. Nevertheless, the incidence of grade 3/4 irAEs is not significantly higher when compared with control population. The finding of a greater incidence of irAEs among female patients ranks among the “hot topics” in gender‐related differences in immuno‐oncology. Implications for Practice Patients with a history of autoimmune diseases (AIDs) have not usually been included in clinical trials with immune checkpoint inhibitors but are frequent in clinical practice. This study quantifies the increased risk of developing immune‐related adverse events (irAEs) in patients with pre‐existing AIDs who had to be treated with anti‐programmed death‐1 immunotherapy. Nevertheless, their toxicities are mild and the incidence of grade 3/4 irAEs is not significantly higher compared with those of controls. These results will help clinicians in everyday practice, improving their ability to offer a proper counselling to patients, in order to offer an immunotherapy treatment even to patients with pre‐existing autoimmune disease.

No abstract

Purpose To investigate the efficacy and safety of concurrent stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and ipilimumab or nivolumab in patients with untreated melanoma brain metastases. Patients and Methods Eighty consecutive patients with 326 melanoma brain metastases receiving SRS in combination with ipilimumab or nivolumab were identified from an institutional database and retrospectively evaluated. Patients started systemic treatment with intravenous nivolumab or ipilimumab within one week of receiving SRS. Nivolumab was given at doses of 3 mg/kg every two weeks. Ipilimumab was administered up to four doses of 10 mg/kg, one every 3 weeks, then patients had a maintenance dose of 10 mg/kg every 12 weeks, until disease progression or inacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint of the study was intracranial progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were extracranial PFS, overall survival (OS), and neurological toxicity. Results Eighty patients were analyzed. Forty-five patients received SRS and ipilimumab, and 35 patients received SRS and nivolumab. With a median follow-up of 15 months, the 6-month and 12-month intracranial PFS rates were 69% (95%CI,54–87%) and 42% (95%CI,24–65%) for patients receiving SRS and nivolumab and 48% (95%CI,34–64%) and 17% (95%CI,5–31%) for those treated with SRS and ipilimumab (p = 0.02), respectively. Extracranial PFS and OS were 37 and 78% in SRS and nivolumab group, respectively, and 17 and 68% in SRS and ipilimumab group, respectively, at 12 months. Sub-group analysis showed significantly better intracranial PFS for patients receiving multi-fraction SRS (3 × 9 Gy) compared to single-fraction SRS (70% versus 46% at 6 months, p = 0.01), especially in combination with nivolumab. Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 11 (24%) patients treated with SRS and ipilimumab and 6 (17%) patients who received SRS and nivolumab. Radiation-induced brain necrosis (RN) occurred in 15% of patients. Conclusions Concurrent SRS and ipilimumab or nivolumab show meaningful intracranial activity in patients with either asymptomatic and symptomatic melanoma brain metastases, although a subset of patients may develop symptomatic RN. The combination of nivolumab with SRS is associated with better intracranial control. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s40425-019-0588-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BRAF inhibitors (BRAFi) have proven clinical benefits in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma. However, acquired resistance eventually arises. The effects of BRAFi on melanoma cell proliferation and survival have been extensively studied, and several mechanisms involved in acquired resistance to the growth suppressive activity of these drugs have been identified. Much less is known about the impact of BRAFi, and in particular of dabrafenib, on the invasive potential of melanoma cells. In the present study, the BRAF-mutant human melanoma cell line A375 and its dabrafenib-resistant subline A375R were analyzed for invasive capacity, expression of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-2, and secretion of VEGF-A and matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-9, under basal conditions or in response to dabrafenib. The consequences of inhibiting the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway on A375R cell responses to dabrafenib were also evaluated. We found that A375R cells were more invasive and secreted higher levels of VEGF-A and MMP-9 as compared with A375 cells. Dabrafenib reduced invasiveness, VEGFR-2 expression and VEGF-A secretion in A375 cells, whereas it increased invasiveness, VEGF-A and MMP-9 release in A375R cells. In these latter cells, the stimulating effects of dabrafenib on the invasive capacity were markedly impaired by the anti-VEGF‑A antibody bevacizumab, or by AKT1 silencing. A375R cells were not cross-resistant to the PI3K/mTOR inhibitor GSK2126458A. Moreover, this inhibitor given in combination with dabrafenib efficiently counteracted the stimulating effects of the BRAFi on invasiveness and VEGF-A and MMP-9 secretion. Our data demonstrate that melanoma cells with acquired resistance to dabrafenib possess a more invasive phenotype which is further stimulated by exposure to the drug. Substantial evidence indicates that continuing BRAFi therapy beyond progression produces a clinical benefit. Our results suggest that after the development of resistance, a regimen combining BRAFi with bevacizumab or with inhibitors of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway might be more effective than BRAFi monotherapy.

Of 93 patients with pretreated, BRAF(V600) mutation-positive advanced melanoma who received vemurafenib or dabrafenib before (n = 45) or after (n = 48) treatment with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, median overall survival (mOS) from first treatment was 9.9 and 14.5 months, respectively. Among patients treated with a BRAF inhibitor first, mOS from the end of BRAF inhibition was 1.2 months for those who did not complete ipilimumab treatment as per protocol, compared with 12.7 months for those who did (p < .001). Prospective, randomized studies are required to determine the optimal sequencing of ipilimumab and BRAF inhibitors in patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma.