TY - JOUR
T1 - 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
AU - Chesney, Jason
AU - Puzanov, Igor
AU - Collichio, Frances
AU - Singh, Parminder
AU - Milhem, Mohammed M.
AU - Glaspy, John
AU - Hamid, Omid
AU - Ross, Merrick
AU - Friedlander, Philip
AU - Garbe, Claus
AU - Logan, Theodore F.
AU - Hauschild, Axel
AU - Lebbé, Celeste
AU - Chen, Lisa
AU - Kim, Jenny J.
AU - Gansert, Jennifer
AU - Andtbacka, Robert H.I.
AU - Kaufman, Howard L.
N1 - Funding Information:
We thank Meghan Johnson and Ali Hassan at Complete Healthcare Communications (West Chester, PA), a CHC Group company, whose work was funded by Amgen, for medical writing assistance in the preparation of this article. We also thank the patients who participated in this study; the clinical trial personnel including Stacy Baum, Cynthia Swartz, and Katie Golladay at the University of Louisville; and the clinical protocol office staff at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, especially Diana Wallack.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.
PY - 2018/6/10
Y1 - 2018/6/10
N2 - 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 3 106 plaque-forming units/mL; after 3 weeks, # 4 mL 3 108 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.
AB - 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 3 106 plaque-forming units/mL; after 3 weeks, # 4 mL 3 108 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85045068631&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85045068631&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1200/JCO.2017.73.7379
DO - 10.1200/JCO.2017.73.7379
M3 - Article
C2 - 28981385
AN - SCOPUS:85045068631
SN - 0732-183X
VL - 36
SP - 1658
EP - 1667
JO - Journal of Clinical Oncology
JF - Journal of Clinical Oncology
IS - 17
ER -