Background Tislelizumab is an investigational, humanized, IgG4 monoclonal antibody with high affinity and binding specificity for programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) that was engineered to minimize binding to FcγR on macrophages in order to abrogate antibody-dependent phagocytosis, a mechanism of T-cell clearance and potential resistance to anti-PD-1 therapy. Methods The purpose of this phase 1/2, open-label, non-comparative study was to examine the safety, tolerability, and antitumor activity of tislelizumab in adult (≥18 years) Chinese patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced solid tumors with measurable disease. The phase 1 portion of the study consisted of a dose-verification study and a pharmacokinetic (PK) substudy; phase 2 was an indication-expansion study including 11 solid tumor cohorts. Patients previously treated with therapies targeting PD-1 or its ligand, programmed cell death ligand-1 were excluded. During dose-verification, dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were monitored; safety and tolerability were examined and the previously determined recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) was verified. The primary endpoint of phase 2 was investigator-assessed objective response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors V.1.1. Results As of December 1, 2018, 300 patients were treated with tislelizumab 200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks (Q3W). Median duration of follow-up was 8.1 months (range 0.2–21.9). No DLTs were reported during the phase 1 dose-verification study and the RP2D was confirmed to be 200 mg intravenously Q3W. Most treatment-related adverse events (62%) were grade 1 or 2, with the most common being anemia (n=70; 23%) and increased aspartate aminotransferase (n=67; 22%). Of the 251 efficacy evaluable patients, 45 (18%) achieved a confirmed clinical response, including one patient from the PK substudy who achieved a complete response. Median duration of response was not reached for all except the nasopharyngeal carcinoma cohort (8.3 months). Antitumor responses were observed in multiple tumor types. Conclusions Tislelizumab was generally well tolerated among Chinese patients. Antitumor activity was observed in patients with multiple solid tumors. Trial registration number CTR20160872.

https://jitc.bmj.com/content/jitc/8/1/e000437.full.pdf

Tislelizumab in Chinese patients with advanced solid tumors: an open-label, non-comparative, phase 1/2 study.

Anti-PD1 checkpoint inhibitor therapy in acral melanoma: a multicenter study of 193 Japanese patients.

Background:Inhibitors targeting programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) have unprecedented effects in cancer treatment. However, the objective response rates (ORRs), pr...

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1758835920937612

Efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 blockade monotherapy in clinical trials.

Acral and mucosal melanomas are extremely rare in Caucasians; however, they are the predominant melanoma subtypes in Asians and other non-Caucasian populations. Acral and mucosal melanomas share many clinicopathological features, including aggressive phenotypes, similar genetic landscapes, and grim prognoses. In spite of advances in melanoma management, patients with acral and mucosal melanomas show limited benefit from current therapies. The rarity of these subtypes of melanoma is a significant factor contributing to the poor understanding of these pathological subtypes and the lack of effective interventions. Furthermore, the mechanisms contributing to disparities between different types of melanoma remain largely unclear. Herein, we comprehensively review current knowledge on the clinicopathological characteristics and mutational landscapes of acral and mucosal melanomas, as well as providing an overview of current therapies for patients with these aggressive melanoma subtypes, focusing on available immunotherapeutic interventions. We also discuss pathological differences between different melanoma subtypes and summarize current knowledge on melanoma disparities between Asians and Caucasians. Finally, we discuss emerging immunotherapeutic strategies for the treatment of acral and mucosal melanomas, focusing on combination therapies with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Unraveling the unique features of acral and mucosal melanomas is key for their early diagnosis and for the development of effective therapies.

Immunotherapy in Acral and Mucosal Melanoma: Current Status and Future Directions.

Background Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have significant clinical efficacy in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) of up to 50% has prevented their widespread use. With the increase in the use of ICIs alone or as combination therapy, clinicians are required to have a better understanding of irAEs and be able to manage them systematically. In this study, we aimed to assess the incidence of irAEs associated with ICIs. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Web of Science databases, and also included relevant literature references to widen our search. The relevant data with inclusion criteria were performed using RevMan 3.6.0 for meta-analysis. We undertook a systematic literature search which included published data up to December 2019. Results Overall, 147 articles and 23 761 cancer patients with 11 different ICI treatment-related (grade 1-5 and 3-5) irAEs were included in the study. There were 46 articles on pembrolizumab (6598 patients), 27 on nivolumab (3576 patients), 13 on atezolizumab (2787 patients), 12 on avelumab (3213 patients), 10 on durvalumab (1780 patients), 22 on ipilimumab (4067 patients), eight on tremelimumab (1158 patients), three on JS001 (223 patients), four on camrelizumab (SHR-1210) (178 patients), one on sintilimab (96 patients), and one on cemiplimab (85 patients). Grade 1-5 irAEs were: cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) (82.87%), programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) (71.89%), and programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) (58.95%). Subgroup analysis was: Avelumab (44.53%), durvalumab (66.63%), pembrolizumab (67.25%), atezolizumab (68.77%), nivolumab (76.25%), Ipilimumab (82.18%), and tremelimumab (86.78%). Grade 3-5 irAEs were: CTLA-4 (27.22%), PD-1(17.29%), and PD-L1(17.29%). Subgroup analysis was: Avelumab (5.86%), durvalumab (13.43%), atezolizumab (14.45%), nivolumab (15.72%), pembrolizumab (16.58%), tremelimumab (22.04%), and ipilimumab (28.27%). Conclusions This meta-analysis confirmed that anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 inhibitors had a lower incidence of irAEs compared with anti-CTLA-4 inhibitors.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1759-7714.13541

Meta-analysis of immune-related adverse events of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in cancer patients.

A Phase Ib Study of Pembrolizumab as Second-Line Therapy for Chinese Patients With Advanced or Metastatic Melanoma (KEYNOTE-151).

PURPOSE We evaluated the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab in patients from Asia with previously treated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS In a double-blind, phase III trial, 453 patients with advanced HCC and progression during or after treatment with or intolerance to sorafenib or oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab (200 mg) or placebo once every 3 weeks for ≤ 35 cycles plus best supportive care. The primary end point was overall survival (one-sided significance threshold, P = .0193 [final analysis]). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR; one-sided significance threshold, P = .0134 and .0091, respectively [second interim analysis]; RECIST version 1.1, by blinded independent central review). RESULTS Median overall survival was longer in the pembrolizumab group than in the placebo group (14.6 v 13.0 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.99; P = .0180). Median PFS was also longer in the pembrolizumab group than in the placebo group (2.6 v 2.3 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.92; P = .0032). ORR was greater in the pembrolizumab group (12.7% [95% CI, 9.1 to 17.0]) than in the placebo group (1.3% [95% CI, 0.2 to 4.6]; P < .0001). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 66.9% of patients (grade 3, 12.0%; grade 4, 1.3%; grade 5, 1.0%) in the pembrolizumab group and 49.7% of patients (grade 3, 5.9%; grade 4, 0%; grade 5, 0%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSION In patients from Asia with previously treated advanced HCC, pembrolizumab significantly prolonged overall survival and PFS, and ORR was greater versus placebo.

https://ascopubs.org/doi/pdfdirect/10.1200/JCO.22.00620?role=tab

Pembrolizumab Versus Placebo as Second-Line Therapy in Patients From Asia With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Trial

Yu Zhou

Papers

A Phase Ib Study of Pembrolizumab as Second-Line Therapy for Chinese Patients With Advanced or Metastatic Melanoma (KEYNOTE-151).

Pembrolizumab Versus Placebo as Second-Line Therapy in Patients From Asia With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Trial