1328PContinental differences in pathologic response with neoadjuvant ipilimumab (IPI) plus nivolumab (NIVO) in patients with macroscopic stage III melanoma in the phase II OpACIN-neo trial

• Published in: Annals of oncology Vol. 30; no. Supplement_5
• Main Authors: Reijers, I L M, Rozeman, E A, Menzies, A M, Versluis, J M, van de Wiel, B A, Sikorska, K, Eriksson, H, Shannon, K, Bierman, C, van Tinteren, H, Gonzalez, M, Spillane, A J, Saw, R P, Scolyer, R A, van Akkooi, A C J, Hansson, J, Long, G V, Blank, C U
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford University Press 01.10.2019
• ISSN: 0923-7534; 1569-8041
• DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdz255.017

Abstract Background In the multi-center investigator-initiated OpACIN-neo trial, patients (pts) with macroscopic stage III melanoma were randomized (stratified by center) to 3 different dosing schemes of neoadjuvant (neoadj) IPI+NIVO. Two cycles IPI 1mg/kg + NIVO3 mg/kg was identified as the most favorable regimen with 20% grade 3-4 adverse events and a pathological response rate (pRR) of 77%. After a median follow-up (FU) of 8.3 months (mo) none (0/86) of the pts with a pathologic (path) response had relapsed, while 9/21 (43%) without a path response relapsed. Post-hoc analyses were conducted to investigate potential differences between pts treated in Europe (EU) and in Australia (AUS). Methods Baseline patient characteristics, safety and efficacy in terms of path response were evaluated in pts treated in EU (n = 48) and AUS (n = 38). Multivariate analyses were performed using logistic regression method. Median FU was 9.3mo for EU pts and 6.9mo for AUS pts. Results Baseline characteristics (AUS vs EU) differed in age (median 60 vs 53 year [yr], p = 0.017) and AUS pts were more likely to be male (65.8 vs 50.0%, p = 0.142) and have an unknown primary melanoma (36.8 vs 20.8%, p = 0.100); no difference in PD-L1 expression was observed. There was a trend to a higher pRR for AUS pts than for EU pts (84.2% vs 68.1%, OR 2.50, p = 0.092). pRR was also higher for pts >60 yr compared to £60 yr (91.2% vs 64.7%, OR 5.64, p = 0.010) and males vs females (83.7% vs 63.9%, OR 2.90, p = 0.041). Multivariate analysis including continent, age and gender showed an adjusted OR for path response of 1.85 (p = 0.289) for AUS vs EU pts, an OR of 4.89 (p = 0.021) for pts >60yrs vs £60yrs and an OR of 2.50 (p = 0.095) for males vs females. The frequency of high grade toxicity was the same in pts <60 compared to pts >60 yr (42.3% vs 32.4%, p = 0.353). Conclusions The continental difference in path response appears mostly driven by differences in age and gender. It remains to be elucidated whether the higher pRRs in elderly pts and pts from AUS can be explained by differences in mutational burden (analysis in progress and will be presented). Our data also indicate that neoadj IPI+NIVO is safe and highly effective in the elderly. Clinical trial identification NCT02977052. Legal entity responsible for the study Netherlands Cancer Institute. Funding BMS. Disclosure E.A. Rozeman: Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: MSD; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: NanoString. A.M. Menzies: Advisory / Consultancy: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre. R.A. Scolyer: Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Neracare; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis. A.C.J. van Akkooi: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Amgen; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck-Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: 4SC. J. Hansson: Advisory / Consultancy: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis. G.V. Long: Advisory / Consultancy: Aduro; Advisory / Consultancy: Amgen; Advisory / Consultancy: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Mass-Array; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche. C.U. Blank: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Lilly; Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre; Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: GSK; Advisory / Consultancy: GenMab; Research grant / Funding (institution): NanoString. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.