Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster Display session 3

4614 - Predictors of Response to Checkpoint Inhibitors in Naïve and Ipilimumab-Refractory Melanoma

Date

30 Sep 2019

Session

Poster Display session 3

Topics

Translational Research

Tumour Site

Melanoma

Presenters

Domenico Mallardo

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2019) 30 (suppl_5): v25-v54. 10.1093/annonc/mdz239

Authors

D. Mallardo1, S. Ong2, M. Capone1, G. Madonna1, S. Warren2, A. Cesano2, J.M. Beechem2, P.A. Ascierto1

Author affiliations

  • 1 Melanoma, Cancer Immunotherapy And Development Therapeutics Unit, Istituto Nazionale Tumori - IRCCS - Fondazione Pascale, 80131 - Napoli/IT
  • 2 Research And Development, NanoString Technologies, 98109 - Seattle/US

Resources

Login to access the resources on OncologyPRO.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 4614

Background

Response to checkpoint inhibitors (CI) is governed by the tumor immune environment and understanding this immune contexture can predict response. Therapeutic intervention can change this environment even in the absence of clinical response. Patients failing initial immunotherapy may respond to a second line of CI; however, these cohorts show lower overall response rates (ORR). This study identifies transcriptional signatures associated with response to first- and second-line CI monotherapy in melanoma.

Methods

CI-naïve or ipilimumab-refractory patients were treated with ipilimumab, nivolumab or pembrolizumab at the Instituto Nazionale Tumori and clinical response was evaluated by irRECIST 1.1 criteria. Pretreatment tumor biopsies (n = 82) from metastatic lesions were collected and RNA was profiled with the NanoString® IO360 gene expression panel.

Results

Compared to CI-naïve cohorts, ipilimumab-refractory cohorts had reduced ORR to nivolumab (naïve: 35%, n = 6; refractory: 20%, n = 10) or pembrolizumab (naive: 67%, n = 6; refractory: 20%, n = 10) with multiple genes differentially expressed between groups. The Tumor Inflammation Signature, an investigational 18 gene signature of suppressed adaptive immune response enriching for pembrolizumab response, was higher in responders versus non-responders in first-line (log2 fold change: 1.56, p = 0.21), but not second-line pembrolizumab (log2 fold change: 0.41, p = 0.60). First-line pembrolizumab responders had elevated MHC2 (log2 fold change: 1.35, p = 0.02) and B cell (log2 fold change: 2.14, p = 0.02) signatures. Upon stratifying the CI-naïve cohort between no prior treatment versus prior targeted/chemotherapy, the latter had increased immune expression suggesting these therapies prime the tumor immune environment.

Conclusions

Correlating patterns of tumor gene expression with clinical response can lead to the development of biomarkers enriching for CI response in both first-line and CI-refractory patients. Utilization of a clinical grade platform such as the NanoString nCounter® may speed the development of diagnostic assays used to predict and monitor patient response to immunotherapy.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

The authors.

Funding

NanoString Technologies.

Disclosure

S. Ong: Full / Part-time employment: NanoString Technologies. S. Warren: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: NanoString Technologies. A. Cesano: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: NanoString Technologies. J.M. Beechem: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: NanoString Technologies. P.A. Ascierto: Advisory / Consultancy: Amgen; Advisory / Consultancy: Array; Advisory / Consultancy: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: Incyte; Advisory / Consultancy: Immunocore; Advisory / Consultancy: MedImmune; Advisory / Consultancy: IDERA; Advisory / Consultancy: Genmab; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: Genentech; Advisory / Consultancy: Sandoz; Advisory / Consultancy: Syndax; Advisory / Consultancy: Sun Pharma; Advisory / Consultancy: Ultimovacs; Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.