Marlana Orloff

Background: Treatment options are limited, and outcomes remain poor for patients with metastatic uveal melanoma (MUM). We conducted an investigator-initiated, prospective, single-arm, single-institution, phase II study evaluating the combination of an FAK inhibitor (defactinib) with a RAF/MEK inhibitor (avutometinib) for the treatment of MUM. Methods: From February 2021 through January 2023, 12 patients with MUM were treated with the combination of defactinib and avutometinib. Defactinib was given 200 mg twice daily, and avutometinib was given 3.2 mg twice a week. Both drugs were given for 3 weeks on and 1 week off (28-day cycle). Disease control rate was the primary endpoint of this study. Results: Median lines of prior therapies for the patients were two. After two cycles, six patients achieved stable disease while six patients developed progressive disease (disease control rate of 50%). With a median follow-up of 20.0 months, the median progression-free survival was 3.0 months and the median overall survival was 20.0 months. The combination was quite tolerable for patients, with no patients requiring dose reduction or discontinuation. Trial enrollment was stopped early by study sponsors before the anticipated accrual of 18 patients due to no patients having a significant reduction in disease. Conclusions: This is the first study reporting on the use of an FAK inhibitor combination in MUM. Further research should seek to elucidate an optimal combination treatment strategy for MUM, such as FAK and PKC inhibitors, for improved blockade of the signaling pathways downstream of GNAQ/GNA11 driver mutations.

Background: Uveal melanoma (UM) is a rare subtype of melanoma with distinct clinical and molecular features compared to other melanoma subtypes. UM tumors are frequently detected with mutations in GNA11, GNAQ, EIF1AX, BAP1, and SF3B1 instead of the typical mutations associated with cutaneous melanoma. Although hereditary UM is rare, germline BAP1 loss predisposes patients to UM and various other cancers. The CHEK2 (Checkpoint kinase 2) gene that encodes the protein CHK2, a serine-threonine kinase, is a cell cycle checkpoint regulator that acts as a tumor suppressor. CHK2 is involved in DNA repair, cell cycle arrest, or apoptosis in response to DNA damage. CHEK2 mutations have been linked to various cancers. While there is no strong evidence that CHEK2 mutations increase the risk of melanoma, two cases of germline CHEK2 mutations in UM patients have been reported. However, the incidence of CHEK2 variants in metastatic UM (MUM) has not been investigated. Thus, we conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with MUM and CHEK2 variants to understand this link better. Methods: We collected MUM cases from 2016 to 2024 from institutional databases. Tissues underwent analyses of molecular and genomic features, including tumor mutational burden, and were performed by a Clinically Certified Laboratory. Next-generation sequencing and variant calling were conducted to identify CHEK2 variants. Results: In this study, we reported ten patients with CHEK2 variants among 740 metastatic UM patients (1.4%) and four primary UM patients with CHEK2 germline mutations. Conclusions: Although rare, UM patients with an abnormal ATM–CHEK2 axis might receive clinical benefits from medications that target DNA repair mechanisms.

The 2023 Cure Ocular Melanoma (CURE OM) Global Science Meeting was held in Philadelphia on November 6, 2023. There is increased awareness and dedicated research in uveal melanoma (UM), but unmet needs remain in the prevention, detection, and treatment of UM. The purpose of this meeting was to provide an international forum for the exchange of research ideas, to allow for discussion of basic science as well as clinical research on UM, and to gather input about advocacy and patient needs.

Mucosal melanoma remains a rare cancer with high mortality and a paucity of therapeutic options. This is due in significant part to its low incidence leading to limited patient access to expert care and downstream clinical/basic science data for research interrogation. Clinical challenges such as delayed and at times inaccurate diagnoses, and lack of consensus tumor staging have added to the suboptimal outcomes for these patients. Clinical trials, while promising, have been difficult to activate and accrue. While individual institutions and investigators have attempted to seek solutions to such problems, international, national, and local partnership may provide the keys to more efficient and innovative paths forward. Furthermore, a mucosal melanoma coalition would provide a potential network for patients and caregivers to seek expert opinion and advice. The Melanoma Research Foundation Mucosal Melanoma Meeting (December 16, 2022, New York, USA) highlighted the current clinical challenges faced by patients, providers, and scientists, identified current and future clinical trial investigations in this rare disease space, and aimed to increase national and international collaboration among the mucosal melanoma community in an effort to improve patient outcomes. The included proceedings highlight the clinical challenges of mucosal melanoma, global clinical trial experience, basic science advances in mucosal melanoma, and future directions, including the creation of shared rare tumor registries and enhanced collaborations.

Background Despite improved outcomes in advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma, many patients progress after ICI,^1-3 and have low response rates to subsequent therapy.^4-7 Lifileucel, a one-time autologous TIL cell therapy, demonstrated an investigator-assessed ORR of 36% in Cohort 2 (C2), which enrolled 66 patients who progressed post-ICI and appropriate targeted therapy.^8,9 We now report outcomes of 153 patients enrolled across C2 and C4 (NCT02360579), representing the largest phase 2 study of cell therapy in melanoma. Methods Eligibility criteria were identical for C2 and C4. Patients had ≥1 lesion(s) resected (~1.5 cm in diameter postresection) and shipped to a central GMP facility for 22-day lifileucel manufacturing. All patients received a nonmyeloablative lymphodepletion (NMA-LD) regimen, a single lifileucel infusion, and up to 6 doses of high-dose IL-2. Primary endpoint was IRC-assessed ORR (RECIST v1.1). Results The full analysis set included 153 patients (C2: n=66; C4: n=87) treated with lifileucel, with a median of 3 prior lines of therapy (range: 1-9) and substantial baseline disease burden (>3 target and non-target lesions: 76%; median target lesion SOD: 97.8 mm; LDH >ULN: 54%). ORR was 31% (95% CI: 24.1%-39.4%) (C2: 35%; C4: 29%), with 8 CRs and 40 PRs (figure 1). At median study follow-up of 27.6 months, median DOR was not reached (NR). Forty-two percent of responses extended ≥18 months, and 40% (19/48) of responses were ongoing at time of datacut (figure 2). In multivariable analyses adjusted for ECOG PS, elevated LDH and target lesion SOD >median were independently correlated with ORR (p=0.008); normal LDH and SOD < median were associated with higher odds of response than either (OR=2.08) or both (OR=4.42) risk factors. The median OS was 13.9 months (95% CI: 10.6-17.8. In an analysis of survival by response at first assessment (1.5 months post-lifileucel infusion), median OS in responders was NR (95% CI: 22.5 months-NR). The most common (≥30%) G3/4 TEAEs were thrombocytopenia (77%), anemia (50%), and febrile neutropenia (42%). TEAEs were consistent with known safety profiles of NMA-LD and IL-2, and their incidence decreased within the first 2 weeks post-lifeucel infusion, characteristic of one-time treatment. Conclusions Lifileucel demonstrated clinically meaningful and durable activity (ORR: 31%; mDOR: NR) in heavily pretreated patients with advanced melanoma and high tumor burden after ICI (and targeted therapy, where appropriate). Favorable safety profile and sustained responses support the potential benefit of one-time lifileucel TIL cell therapy as a novel treatment option for patients without approved therapies post-ICI. Acknowledgements Medical writing support was provided by Second City Science, with funding from Iovance Biotherapeutics. Trial Registration NCT02360579 References Long GV, Robert C, Butler MO, et al. Standard-dose pembrolizumab plus alternate-dose ipilimumab in advanced melanoma: KEYNOTE-029 cohort 1C, a phase 2 randomized study of two dosing schedules. Clin Cancer Res. 2021;27:5280–5288. Tawbi HA, Schadendorf D, Lipson EJ, et al. Relatlimab and nivolumab versus nivolumab in untreated advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:24–34. Postow MA, Goldman DA, Shoushtari AN, et al. Adaptive dosing of nivolumab + ipilimumab immunotherapy based upon early, interim radiographic assessment in advanced melanoma (The ADAPT-IT study). J Clin Oncol. 2022;40:1059–1067. Ribas A, Puzanov I, Dummer R, et al. Pembrolizumab versus investigator-choice chemotherapy for ipilimumab-refractory melanoma (KEYNOTE-002): A randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:908–918. Weichenthal M, Ugurel S, Leiter UM, et al. Salvage therapy after failure from anti-PD-1 single agent treatment: A study by the German ADOReg melanoma registry. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(suppl 15):9505. Weber JS, D’Angelo SP, Minor D, et al. Nivolumab versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma who progressed after anti–CTLA-4 treatment (CheckMate 037): A randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:375–384. Goldinger SM, Buder-Bakhaya K, Lo SN, et al. Chemotherapy after immune checkpoint inhibitor failure in metastatic melanoma: A retrospective multicentre analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2022;162:22–23. Sarnaik AA, Hamid O, Khushalani NI, et al. Lifileucel, a tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte therapy, in metastatic melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:2656–2666. Larkin J, Sarnaik A, Chesney JA, et al. Lifileucel (LN-144), a cryopreserved autologous tumor infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapy in patients with advanced melanoma: Evaluation of impact of prior anti–PD-1 therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(suppl 15):abstract 9505. Ethics Approval The study was approved by the institutional review board at each site and was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice guidelines of the International Conference on Harmonisation. All patients provided written informed consent. Best percentage change from baseline in target lesion SOD Time to first response, duration of response, and time on efficacy assessment for confirmed responders (PR or better)

Purpose of Review This study aims to review the clinical experience of melanoma treatments in patients with advanced age. Recent Findings During the last decade, the treatment paradigm for melanoma has changed dramatically with the use of checkpoint inhibitors, oncolytic viruses, and targeted therapies. We reviewed both the clinical trial and real-world experience of these therapies in patients of advanced age, and discuss how a personalized approach should be taken for these patients with consideration of incidence and management of side effects. Summary Although special consideration should be taken, immunotherapy, oncolytic viruses, and targeted therapy have shown efficacy and tolerability in older patients with melanoma.

Uveal melanoma is a rare subtype of melanoma that once metastatic portends a poor prognosis. Likely due to the distinct differences in biology, metastatic potential, and immunologic profile as compared to cutaneous melanoma, uveal melanoma’s response to immune checkpoint inhibition has been disappointing. Bi-specific fusion protein therapies (T cell engagers) are a novel strategy to forcibly bridge the immune system with a target on a cancer cell. This approach has been explored in a number of cancer types and has recently demonstrated success in uveal melanoma. Tebentafusp, a first in class ImmTAC (Immune-mobilizing monoclonal TCRs against cancer), has now shown an overall survival benefit when compared to investigator’s choice. This review aims to summarize the experience with this first in class bi-specific T cell engager as well as highlight bi-specifics as a novel treatment strategy in uveal melanoma.