In a phase 1 dose-escalation study, combined inhibition of T-cell checkpoint pathways by nivolumab and ipilimumab was associated with a high rate of objective response, including complete responses, among patients with advanced melanoma. In this double-blind study involving 142 patients with metastatic melanoma who had not previously received treatment, we randomly assigned patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) combined with either nivolumab (1 mg per kilogram) or placebo once every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) or placebo every 2 weeks until the occurrence of disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The primary end point was the rate of investigator-assessed, confirmed objective response among patients with BRAF V600 wild-type tumors. Among patients with BRAF wild-type tumors, the rate of confirmed objective response was 61% (44 of 72 patients) in the group that received both ipilimumab and nivolumab (combination group) versus 11% (4 of 37 patients) in the group that received ipilimumab and placebo (ipilimumab-monotherapy group) (P<0.001), with complete responses reported in 16 patients (22%) in the combination group and no patients in the ipilimumab-monotherapy group. The median duration of response was not reached in either group. The median progression-free survival was not reached with the combination therapy and was 4.4 months with ipilimumab monotherapy (hazard ratio associated with combination therapy as compared with ipilimumab monotherapy for disease progression or death, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.23 to 0.68; P<0.001). Similar results for response rate and progression-free survival were observed in 33 patients with BRAF mutation–positive tumors. Drug-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported in 54% of the patients who received the combination therapy as compared with 24% of the patients who received ipilimumab monotherapy. Select adverse events with potential immunologic causes were consistent with those in a phase 1 study, and most of these events resolved with immune-modulating medication. The objective-response rate and the progression-free survival among patients with advanced melanoma who had not previously received treatment were significantly greater with nivolumab combined with ipilimumab than with ipilimumab monotherapy. Combination therapy had an acceptable safety profile. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01927419.)

Cancer immunotherapies, including checkpoint inhibitors and adoptive cell therapy, manipulate the immune system to recognize and attack cancer cells. These therapies have the potential to induce durable responses in multiple solid and hematologic malignancies and thus have transformed treatment algorithms for numerous tumor types. Cancer immunotherapies lead to unique toxicity profiles distinct from the toxicities of other cancer therapies, depending on their mechanism of action. These toxicities often require specific management, which can include steroids and immune‐modulating therapy and for which consensus guidelines have been published. This review will focus on the toxicities of checkpoint inhibitors and chimeric antigen receptor T cells, including pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Cutaneous melanoma have been significantly revised over the past few years in response to emerging data on immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies and BRAF-targeted therapy. This article summarizes the data and rationale supporting extensive changes to the recommendations for systemic therapy as adjuvant treatment of resected disease and as treatment of unresectable or distant metastatic disease.

PURPOSE: BRAF^V600 mutations are commonly found in melanoma and thyroid cancers and to a lesser degree in other tumor types. Subprotocol H (EAY131-H) of the NCI-MATCH platform trial sought to investigate the selective BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib and the MEK1/2 inhibitor trametinib in patients with solid tumors, lymphomas, or multiple myeloma whose tumors harbored a BRAF^V600 mutation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: EAY131-H is an open-label, single-arm study. Patients with melanoma, thyroid, or colorectal cancer were excluded; patients with non–small-cell lung cancer were later excluded in an amendment. Patients received dabrafenib 150 mg twice per day and trametinib 2 mg per day continuously until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary end point was centrally assessed objective response rate (ORR); secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), 6-month PFS, and overall survival. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were enrolled, and 29 were included in the primary efficacy analysis as prespecified in the protocol. Median age was 59 years, and 45% of the patients had received ≥ 3 lines of therapy. The confirmed ORR was 38% (90% CI, 22.9% to 54.9%) with P < .0001 against a null rate of 5%, and PFS was 11.4 months (90% CI, 8.4 to 16.3 months); responses were seen in 7 distinct tumor types. Seven patients had a duration of response of > 12 months, including 4 patients with a duration of response of > 24 months. An additional 8 patients had a PFS > 6 months. The median overall survival was 28.6 months. Reported adverse events were comparable to those noted in previously reported profiles of dabrafenib and trametinib. CONCLUSION: This study met its primary end point, with an ORR of 38% ( P < .0001) in this mixed histology, pretreated cohort. This promising activity warrants additional investigations in BRAF^V600-mutated tumors outside of currently approved indications.