Tumor treating fields (TTFields), a new modality of cancer treatment, are electric fields transmitted transdermally to tumors. The FDA has approved TTFields for the treatment of glioblastoma multiforme and mesothelioma, and they are currently under study in many other cancer types. While antimitotic effects were the first recognized biological anticancer activity of TTFields, data have shown that tumor treating fields achieve their anticancer effects through multiple mechanisms of action. TTFields therefore have the ability to be useful for many cancer types in combination with many different treatment modalities. Here, we review the current understanding of TTFields and their mechanisms of action.

Background: The optimal treatment sequence for patients with advanced BRAF V600 mutant melanoma is unknown. BRAF/MEK inhibition (BRAF/MEKi), single agent anti‐PD‐1 (aPD‐1) antibodies and combination immune checkpoint inhibition with nivolumab and ipilimumab (niv/ipi) are all approved; however, they have not been prospectively compared. Therefore, we sought to compare overall survival of patients with advanced BRAF mutant melanoma treated with either front‐line BRAF/MEKi, aPD‐1, or niv/ipi.Methods: Patients with advanced BRAF mutant melanoma who had received BRAF/MEKi, niv/ipi, or aPD‐1 in the front‐line setting were identified from a nationwide database comprising de‐identified patient‐level structured and unstructured data derived from electronic health records. Survival was compared using Kaplan‐Meier curves and log‐rank analysis. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression models were used to measure the effect of front‐line treatment, age (>64 or not), LDH (elevated or not), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (>1 or not) on survival.Results: Five hundred and sixty seven patients with advanced disease and treated with front‐line aPD‐1 (n = 162), BRAF/MEKi (n = 297) or niv/ipi (n = 108) were identified. With a median follow‐up of 22.4 months, median overall survival (OS) for patients treated with front‐line niv/ipi was not reached (NR) while median OS for patients treated with aPD‐1 or BRAF/MEKi was 39.5 months and 13.2 months, respectively. Front‐line treatment with PD‐1 and niv/ipi were associated with statistically longer survival than BRAF/MEKi in multivariate analyses.Conclusions: In our real‐world retrospective analysis, patients with advanced BRAF mutant melanoma treated with front‐line niv/ipi or aPD‐1 had longer survival compared to those treated with front‐line BRAF/MEKi.

Background: Pembrolizumab (P) and nivolumab (N) are commonly used therapies for advanced melanoma. However, their effectiveness has never been directly compared, leaving little guidance for clinicians to select the best therapy. Therefore, we sought to retrospectively compare the overall survival of patients with metastatic melanoma treated with front line P or N in the real-world setting. Material and methods: This study included patients with advanced melanoma, diagnosed between 1 January 2011 and 31 July 2018, treated with frontline P or N who were included in a nationwide, longitudinal de-identified electronic health record (EHR)-derived database. Overall survival (OS) was estimated for each treatment group using Kaplan–Meier curves with a log-rank test. Comparison of OS was estimated using an inverse probability weighting model to reduce bias between the groups. The model was adjusted using age, sex, ECOG, LDH (elevated or not), BRAF (mutated or not), Kit (mutated or not), NRAS (mutated or not), PD-L1 expression (0% or greater), Body Mass Index, and primary site. Results: 888 patients with advanced disease who received treatment with frontline P (n = 486) or N (n = 402) were identified. Median OS for all patients treated with P was 22.6 months (m) and was 23.9 m for those treated with N (p = 0.91). In the inverse probability weight analysis there was no difference in survival between patients treated with P or N 1.06 (95% CI 0.84–1.33). Concluding Statement: In our retrospective, real-world analysis of patients with advanced melanoma, no statistical difference in OS was noted between patients treated with frontline P compared to N. This supports the current practice of choosing either P or N based on patient and provider preference.

Background Despite progress in cancer therapeutics, there remains an unmet need for treatment of advanced solid tumors. The cGAS-cGAMP-STING pathway plays a pivotal role in innate antitumor immunity processes. IMSA101 is a small molecule analog of cGAMP and a potent STING agonist. Preclinical studies demonstrate antitumor activity of IMSA101 alone and in combination with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Methods IMSA101-101 was an open-label, multicenter, phase 1 first-in-human dose-escalation study to establish a recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of IMSA101 both as monotherapy and in combination with a programmed death ligand 1 (PD-(L)1)-ICI. Secondary objectives were to evaluate safety, tolerability and antitumor activity, and to characterize pharmacokinetics. Adult patients with advanced solid tumors with ≥2 Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors evaluable lesions, at least one of these suitable for injection, were enrolled. IMSA101 was administered by intratumoral injection with weekly injections for the first 3 weeks, followed by biweekly injections. The dose escalation explored doses of 100–1,200 µg (monotherapy) and 800–2,400 µg (combination therapy with ICI) in a 3+3 design. No formal statistical analysis was planned for this study. Results 40 patients (22 monotherapy, 18 combination therapy) received at least one dose of IMSA101. IMSA101 1,200 µg (monotherapy) and 2,400 µg (combination therapy) doses, well-tolerated and associated with signs of antitumor activity, were selected as provisional RP2Ds. The most common IMSA101-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were injection site pain (8 (36.4%)) and fatigue (4 (18.2%)) for monotherapy and chills (3 (16.7%)), injection site pain (2 (11.1%)), and fever (2 (11.1%)) for combination therapy. No clear dose-response relationship between IMSA101 and occurrence of TEAEs was observed. The elimination half-life of plasma IMSA101 was approximately 1.5–2 hours, with no reported plasma accumulation. With monotherapy, no patients achieved complete response (CR) or partial response (PR), so overall response rate (ORR) was not determined; 17 (77.3%) patients had progressive disease (PD) and one patient (4.5%, 400 µg cohort) had stable disease (SD) as best response. With combination therapy, ORR was 5.6%; remaining patients had PD (10 (55.6%)) and SD (2 (11.1%)) as their best response. Conclusions IMSA101 doses of 1,200 µg (monotherapy arm) and 2,400 µg (combination therapy arm) were well tolerated but demonstrated minimal signals of antitumor activity in patients with advanced solid tumors. Trial registration number NCT04020185.

Background Davoceticept (ALPN-202) is an Fc fusion of a CD80 variant immunoglobulin domain designed to mediate programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-dependent CD28 co-stimulation while inhibiting the PD-L1 and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) checkpoints. The safety and efficacy of davoceticept monotherapy and davoceticept and pembrolizumab combination therapy in adult patients with advanced solid tumors were explored in NEON-1 and NEON-2, respectively. Methods In NEON-1 (n=58), davoceticept 0.001–10 mg/kg was administered intravenous either once weekly (Q1W) or once every 3 weeks (Q3W). In NEON-2 (n=29), davoceticept was administered intravenously at 2 dose levels (0.1 or 0.3 mg/kg) Q1W or Q3W with pembrolizumab (400 mg once every 6 weeks). In both studies, primary endpoints included incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLT); type, incidence, and severity of adverse events (AEs) and laboratory abnormalities; and seriousness of AEs. Secondary endpoints included antitumor efficacy assessed using RECIST v1.1, pharmacokinetics, anti-drug antibodies, and pharmacodynamic biomarkers. Results The incidence of treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) and immune-related adverse events (irAEs) was 67% (39/58) and 36% (21/58) with davoceticept monotherapy, and 62% (18/29) and 31% (9/29) with davoceticept and pembrolizumab combination, respectively. The incidence of ≥grade (Gr)3 TRAEs and ≥Gr3 irAEs was 12% (7/58) and 5% (3/58) with davoceticept monotherapy, and 24% (7/29) and 10% (3/29) with davoceticept and pembrolizumab combination, respectively. One DLT of Gr3 immune-related gastritis occurred during davoceticept monotherapy 3 mg/kg Q3W. During davoceticept combination with pembrolizumab, two Gr5 cardiac DLTs occurred; one instance each of cardiogenic shock (0.3 mg/kg Q3W, choroidal melanoma metastatic to the liver) and immune-mediated myocarditis (0.1 mg/kg Q3W, microsatellite stable metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma), prompting early termination of both studies. Across both studies, five patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) exhibited evidence of clinical benefit (two partial response, three stable disease). Conclusions Davoceticept was generally well tolerated as monotherapy at intravenous doses up to 10 mg/kg. Evidence of clinical activity was observed with davoceticept monotherapy and davoceticept in combination with pembrolizumab, notably in RCC. However, two fatal cardiac events occurred with the combination of low-dose davoceticept and pembrolizumab. Future clinical investigation with davoceticept should not consider combination with programmed death-1-inhibitor anticancer mechanisms, until its safety profile is more fully elucidated. Trial registration number NEON-1 (NCT04186637) and NEON-2 (NCT04920383).

A 66-year-old female with a history of two renal transplants due to recurrent thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura presented to clinic with multiple lesions identified to be non-metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC). The patient previously underwent multiple Mohs procedures and radiation therapy treatment but continued to develop CSCC lesions with increasing frequency. After discussing multiple treatment options, it was elected to pursue treatment with Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) given the systemic immune responses it can cause, with low theoretical risk of graft rejection. After starting intratumoral T-VEC injections, treated lesions began to decrease in size, and a reduction in the rate of new CSCC lesions was observed. Treatment was held due to unrelated renal complications during which time new CSCCs developed. Patient was restarted on T-VEC therapy with no recurrent renal issues. Upon reinitiating treatment, injected and non-injected lesions showed reduction in size, and the development of new lesions again ceased. One injected lesion was resected via Mohs micrographic surgery due to its size and discomfort. On sectioning, this demonstrated an exuberant lymphocytic perivascular infiltrate which was consistent with treatment response to T-VEC, with little active tumor. With high rates of non-melanoma skin cancer in renal transplant patients, their transplant status significantly limits treatment options, specifically with regards to anti-PD-1 therapy. This case suggests T-VEC can generate local and systemic immune responses in the setting of immunosuppression and that T-VEC may be a beneficial therapeutic option for transplant patients with CSCC.