Treatment for Advanced Melanoma

#### **Chapter 6**

## Immunotherapy of Metastatic Melanoma

*Dan-Corneliu Jinga and Maria-Ruxandra Jinga*

#### **Abstract**

Immunotherapy is part of the new treatments that significantly improved the prognostic of metastatic melanoma patients. The article reviews briefly the old immunotherapeutic approaches e.g., interferon-2 and interleukin-2, and focuses on immune checkpoint inhibitors such as anti-CTLA-4 inhibitors and anti-PD-1 inhibitors in monotherapy or in combination (dual immune blockade). We detailed the results from CheckMate and KEYNOTTE clinical trials that lead to US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency approvals of the new agents for the treatment of advanced melanoma. The chapter concentrates on the algorithms for BRAF wild-type and BRAF mutated metastatic melanoma treatments, according to American (NCCN) and European (ESMO) guidelines. We underlined the first line, second line, and subsequent lines of treatment for both melanoma subtypes and for particular cases, such as in-transit metastasis or brain metastasis. A special attention was paid to treatment options for early and late disease progression (primary and acquired resistance after adjuvant therapy). Unfortunately, the new immune agents produce a higher toxicity rate, mainly immune adverse events. Also, these drugs can interact with the gut microbiome and with antibiotics, decreasing the efficacy of immune therapy. Finally, we review the new directions for immune therapy e.g., new immune combinations, the association of immune and targeted therapies, and adoptive cellular therapy with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, interleukin-2, and anti-PD-1.

**Keywords:** BRAF wild-type, BRAF mutated metastatic melanoma, immunotherapy, anti-CTLA-4, anti-PD-1, immune checkpoint inhibitors, dual immune blockade combination, immune-mediated adverse events, targeted therapy, primary resistance, acquired resistance, adoptive cellular therapy

#### **1. Introduction**

For more than a century, it is a known fact that cancer is an inflammatory disease and that immunotherapy (IT) can be used as a strategy for fighting it. Coley's toxin, utilized as early as 1893, can be considered the first IT approach in cancer [1].

At the beginning, the research was focused on the activation of the immune response using antitumor vaccines or direct stimulation with recombinant cytokines, e.g., interferons and interleukin-2 [2, 3].

Interferon alpha-2 (IFN-2) was the first immunotherapeutic agent approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1995, for adjuvant treatment of stages IIB-III melanoma patients, based on the results of the ECOG EST 1684 trial [4]. Previous outcomes of phase I/II studies demonstrated a tumor response rate of ~16%, but with a modest median duration of response (of ~4 months) for the treatment of disseminated melanoma [5, 6]. A meta-analysis of 13 trials published in 2018 showed a median relapse-free survival of 2.2 years (1.2–3.3 years) for the patients who received different IFN-2b regimens, compared with 1.9 months for the patients that did not receive any adjuvant treatment for stages II and III [7].

The second cytokine approved by FDA in 1998 for the treatment of metastatic melanoma was Interleukin 2 (IL-2), due to its proven potential for durable disease control [8]. The administration of two cycles of high-dose IL-2 (HD-IL-2), each of them receiving 600,000 to 720,000 IU/Kg/per dose intravenously, every 8 hours, for up to a maximum of 14 doses per cycle, leads to clinical responses in ~16% of patients, including ~6% who had complete responses [9].

Unfortunately, the responses were infrequent and associated with severe side effects, especially for HD-IL-2, such as capillary leak syndrome (with hypotension, pulmonary edema, and renal failure), hepatic, gastrointestinal, endocrine, and cutaneous toxicities, arrhythmias, and psychiatric disturbances [10]. These toxicities generally resolve in a few days after stopping HD-IL-2 therapy, but the mortality rate related to this treatment is 1–2% [11].

The combination of cytokines, IFN- and/or IL-2, with chemotherapeutic agents (e.g., cisplatin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine), also named bio-chemotherapy, can enhance the response rates, but at the cost of significantly increased toxicity. Multiple prospective randomized clinical trials failed to demonstrate significant improvement in survival compared to chemotherapy alone [12].

The understanding of the mechanisms through which the immune system fights against cancer represents one of the greatest breakthroughs in medicine over the last 15 years [13].

The interaction between Cytotoxic T Lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) and Programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) receptors and their ligands, discovered by the teams that won the 2018 Nobel Prize for Medicine, led by James Allison [14, 15] and Tasuku Honjo [16, 17], became the foundation of the development of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI).

Immune checkpoints (IC) are negative regulators of T-cell activation. Along with co-stimulatory molecules, they have an important role in maintaining self-tolerance.

#### **2. CTLA-4 inhibitors**

The anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) ipilimumab, a fully human IgG1, and tremelimumab, a fully human IgG2, were the first IC blocking drugs to enter clinical trials in oncology; however, the only one approved by FDA for metastatic melanoma was ipilimumab, in March 2011, initially as a single-therapy.

The approval of ipilimumab as monotherapy for unresectable stage III or stage IV melanoma was based on the results of two clinical trials, CA 184–002 [18] and CA 184–024 [19]. The first trial compared ipilimumab 3 mg/Kg, 4 cycles at 3-weeks interval, single-agent therapy or in combination with glycoprotein (gp-100) peptide vaccine, with gp-100 vaccine monotherapy [18]. The second trial compared ipilimumab 10 mg/Kg, 4 cycles at 3-weeks interval, in combination with dacarbazine, with dacarbazine alone until week 22; the responders (patients with stable disease or patients with an objective response, and no unresolved adverse events) received

#### *Immunotherapy of Metastatic Melanoma DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.105585*

ipilimumab or placebo every 12 weeks thereafter as maintenance therapy [19]. The results of both trials showed, for the patients who received ipilimumab, an improved response rate and an increase in the duration of the response, in addition to better results for PFS (progression-free survival) and OS (overall survival) for both previously treated [18] or untreated advanced melanoma patients [19]. The CA 184–169 clinical trial compared the standard and high doses of ipilimumab; the survival results were not significantly different [20].

Pooled data from several phases II and phase III trials demonstrate a median survival time of 11.4 months for ipilimumab monotherapy [21]. The survival curves reached a plateau after 3 years and appeared stable even after 10 years [21]. In CA 184–024 trial, approximately 20% of the patients treated with ipilimumab showed longer overall survival compared with chemotherapy (18.2% 5-year OS for ipilimumab in combination with dacarbazine versus 8.8% for dacarbazine alone) [22].

The real-world data from the Expanded Access Program for Ipilimumab confirmed the efficacity of this therapy for previously treated metastatic melanoma patients [23–30]. More than 1600 patients were treated with single-agent ipilimumab 3 mg/Kg, 4 cycles at 3-weeks interval (induction phase). The median PFS and median OS were similar between 6 European countries and South Africa (**Table 1**).

Safety results showed a high risk, 10–15%, of severe (grade 3 and 4) immunemediated adverse events (irAEs) for standard dose ipilimumab monotherapy [18], 30% for high-dose ipilimumab monotherapy [20], and 38% risk of severe irAEs for ipilimumab combined with dacarbazine [19]. The study CA 184–002 reported seven deaths caused by immune-mediated AEs [18].

As a result, clinical guidelines do not recommend the association of ipilimumab with dacarbazine due to high risk for severe adverse events, and the FDArecommended dose of ipilimumab is now 3 mg/Kg instead of 10 mg/Kg, 4 cycles at 3-weeks interval (induction therapy) [31].

The second anti-CTLA-4 antibody, tremelimumab, also generated promising anticancer responses in early clinical trials [32]. Unfortunately, a phase III clinical trial of tremelimumab versus standard-of-care chemotherapy in advanced melanoma was stopped early due to a lack of survival benefits [33].


#### **Table 1.**

*The efficacity of ipilimumab monotherapy; results from expanded access program in 6 European countries and South-Africa (23–30).*

#### **3. PD-1 inhibitors**

The anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab, humanized immunoglobulins (IgG4), were both approved as single-agent therapies by FDA in 2014 for unresectable advanced or metastatic melanoma.

Pembrolizumab is administered intravenously at 2 mg/Kg body weight, or 200 mg fixed dose every 3 weeks until progression of the disease or until a severe toxicity develops. The treatment can be administered continuously, over a period of 1–2 years, depending on the response of the disease and the tolerance of the treatment. However, the optimal treatment duration has not been established until now [34].

The initial results from the phase I KEYNOTE-001 clinical trial showed a response rate of 34% and a median OS of 25.9 months for ipilimumab refractory metastatic melanoma [35]. The KEYNOTE-002 clinical trial compared two pembrolizumab doses (2 mg/Kg and 10 mg/Kg every 3 weeks) with chemotherapy for the same population as the previous study [36]. Long-term follow-up showed that both doses of pembrolizumab provide higher response rates (22–28%) and longer duration of response along with improvements in progression-free survival (16–22% PFS 2-year rate), compared with chemotherapy (4% response rate and < 1% PFS 2-year rate) [37]. Furthermore, pembrolizumab therapy was better tolerated than chemotherapy [38].

In the end, the results of phase III KEYNOTE-006 clinical trial support the recommendation of American (NCCN) and European (ESMO) guidelines that pembrolizumab should be considered as first-line therapy in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma [39, 40]. The clinical trial compared two pembrolizumab regimens (10 mg/Kg every 2 or every 3 weeks) with ipilimumab for the patients with metastatic melanoma previously untreated with ICI [41, 42]. All the study endpoints aligned: 36–37% response rate for pembrolizumab compared with 13% for ipilimumab (statistically significant), 28–31% PFS 2-year rate versus 14% for ipilimumab (statistically significant), and a trend to improve the OS 2-year rate for pembrolizumab [42].

The kinetics of the response to pembrolizumab reflects the response to immunotherapy. Long-term follow-up during clinical trials showed a late response to pembrolizumab therapy, more than a year after the start of the treatment; in addition, some partial responders may become complete responders over time [37, 41, 43].

Nivolumab is administered intravenously at 3 mg/Kg body weight or 240 mg fixed dose every 2 weeks, or 480 mg fixed dose every 4 weeks until progression of the disease or until a severe toxicity develops.

The phase III study CheckMate 037 compared nivolumab with chemotherapy for the patients with ipilimumab-refractory metastatic melanoma (BRAF wild-type) and for the patients with ipilimumab and BRAF inhibitors refractory metastatic melanoma (BRAF mutated) [44]. Immunotherapy improved the response rate (27% versus 10%) and the duration of the response compared with chemotherapy, but after 2 years, it did not improve neither median PFS (3.1 versus 3.7 months) nor median OS (15.7 versus 14.7 months) [44, 45].

The subsequent phase III CheckMate 066 and 067 clinical trials demonstrated nivolumab efficacy in unresectable stage III and metastatic stage IV melanoma. In CheckMate 066, nivolumab monotherapy was compared with chemotherapy [46, 47]. The response rate (40% versus 13.9%), median PFS (5.1 versus 2.2 months), and median OS (37.5 versus 11.2 months) were statistically significant in favor of immunotherapy [46, 47]. Nivolumab therapy led to long-term survival in up to 40% of patients, as the survival curves suggest [47].

In the CheckMate 067 clinical trial, the dual immune combination of CTLA-4 and PD-1 inhibitors was compared with nivolumab (monotherapy) and with ipilimumab (monotherapy) as first-line treatments for metastatic melanoma; the results demonstrated the superiority of dual immune combination and also of single-agent PD-1 inhibitor over ipilimumab monotherapy [48–50]. In monotherapy, nivolumab was superior to ipilimumab in terms of response rate (45% versus 19%), median PFS (6.9 versus 2.9 months), and median OS (36.9 versus 19.9 months) [48–50].

The kinetics of the response to nivolumab, ipilimumab, and pembrolizumab was almost identical, with late complete response seen more than a year after the start of the treatment [45, 48, 50]. Across clinical trials, response to nivolumab tends to persist after the discontinuation of the drug [48, 50].

#### **4. Dual immune blockade (CTLA-4 and PD-1 Inhibitors)**

Preclinical studies demonstrated that dual immune blockade with anti-CTLA-4 combined with anti-PD-1 was more effective than with either alone [51]. A phase I study of immune combination therapies found that the maximum tolerated dose of concurrent administration is 3 mg/Kg q3w for ipilimumab and 1 mg/Kg for nivolumab q3w; in this study, the overall response rate was 40% and the grade 3–4 AEs rate was 53% [52].

The nivolumab and ipilimumab combination arms from CheckMate 067 and CheckMate 069 clinical trials showed higher response rates (58% vs. 19%, p < 0.001 for CheckMate 067 and 59% vs. 11% for CheckMate 069), prolonged response durations, longer time to subsequent therapies, prolonged median PFS (11.5 vs. 2.9 months, p < 0.001 for CheckMate 067 and not reached vs. 3.0 months in CheckMate 069), and larger median OS compared with single-agent ipilimumab [50, 53]. These effects persisted during long-term follow-up, with 4-year survival rates of 53% for the combination arm compared with 46% for single-agent nivolumab and with 30% for single-agent ipilimumab in the CheckMate 067 study [48]. For a subgroup of patients with high levels of PD-L1 expression, the median OS and median PFS were similar for single-agent nivolumab compared with the ipilimumab and nivolumab combination, but the number of toxicities was smaller for monotherapy [48].

Long-term follow-up (6.5 years) in the CheckMate 067 study showed a longer median OS of 72.1, 36.9, and 19.9 months in the combination arm compared with nivolumab and ipilimumab monotherapy [54].

CheckMate 067 and 069 showed significantly increased toxicity of dual immune blockade versus monotherapy [50, 53]. The rate of grade 3–4 related adverse events (AEs) in CheckMate 067 was 59% for the ipilimumab and nivolumab arm compared with 21% for nivolumab alone and with 28% for ipilimumab monotherapy [50]. In CheckMate 069 the rate of AEs for the combination was 54%, compared with 20% for ipilimumab monotherapy [53].

A pooled analysis of the immune combination trials found that response rates, PFS, and OS of the patients who discontinued the treatment in the induction phase due to the AE, were similar to those of the patients who completed the treatment [55].

The kinetics of the response to combination therapy includes a late complete response (CR) that was seen more than a year after the start of treatment, with a double rate of CR, and increased response duration [48, 49].

Subgroup analysis, in both CheckMate clinical studies, demonstrated improved efficacy with nivolumab and ipilimumab combination therapy, regardless of BRAF mutation status [48–50, 53].

In order to identify a possible biomarker that could predict the response to immunotherapy, the researchers assessed PD-L1 expression in tumor samples from the patients included in CheckMate and KEYNOTE trials [45, 47–50, 56]. In these randomized clinical studies, the improved response rate, PFS, and OS for anti-PD-1 therapy had a statistically significant correlation with increased PD-L1 expression, [45, 46, 48–50, 56].

However, it was not possible to identify an expression level cutoff for PD-L1 with a cert prognostic value. Furthermore, in these clinical trials, there were patients who experienced durable responses to anti-PD-1 inhibitors, regardless of the PD-L1 expression in biopsy specimens [56].

At the present time, we know the following [39]:


**Treatment for stage III In-transit melanoma** represents a real challenge for medical oncologists, dermatologists, and surgeons. Local therapy (e.g., intralesional injections) can be combined with regional therapy (e.g., Isolated Limb Perfusion and Infusion) and systemic therapy [39].

Talimogen laherparepvec (T-VEC), an agent that uses a modified herpes simplex virus to induce tumor cell lysis and deliver a localized expression of GM-CSF is the main intralesional agent approved for this indication, according to the results of a phase 3 clinical study [57]. T-VEC produced local durable response rates (16.3% versus 2.1% for injection of GM-CSF) and remission of oligometastatic disease (bystander effect). The overall response rate was superior for intralesional T-VEC compared with intralesional GM-CSF (26.4% vs. 5.7%, p < 0.001) with higher rates of complete response (11% vs. 1%) [57].

The AEs rate produced by T-VEC injection was 20%, with 11% serious-AEs (grade 3–4). The most frequent AEs were local, e.g., injection-site reactions (cellulitis, pain, and peripheral edema), but also systemic toxicities appeared (fatigue, chills, pyrexia, and other flu-like symptoms) [57].

**Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors combined with T-VEC intralesional injections** represent a new approach in clinical ongoing trials. At first, the combination ipilimumab with T-VEC was tested, with a spectacular reduction of tumor burden for the injected lesions and also for some distant lesions [58]. However, the good clinical

*Immunotherapy of Metastatic Melanoma DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.105585*

response did not engender longer PFS, and the rate of AEs was higher for the combination, compared with both agents in monotherapy. The phase 3 MASTERKEY-265 trial combined pembrolizumab with T-VEC in order to improve previous results by reducing toxicities [59]. The anti-PD-1 and T-VEC combination demonstrated a 43% CR with 4-year PFS and OS rates of 55.9 and 71.4%, respectively [59].

#### **5. Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICI) and Brain Metastasis (BM)**

Treatment of melanoma BM is a real challenge for oncologists and radiotherapists. Clinical studies confirmed that immune therapy can be used safely and efficiently, especially in asymptomatic patients with BM. The CA 184–042 study demonstrates the superiority of HD-ipilimumab in asymptomatic patients (compared with symptomatic patients) in terms of response rate (16% vs. 5%), median PFS (2.6 vs. 1.3 months), and median OS (7.0 months vs. 3.7 months). Interestingly, good response rates were obtained for both intracranial and extracranial disease [60]. The patients with asymptomatic BM from the CA 184–169 trial had the same median OS for HD-ipilimumab and for standard ipilimumab doses [20].

For PD-1 inhibitors, used in the asymptomatic BM population, clinical studies showed good response rates, 30% for pembrolizumab [61] and 29% for nivolumab [62], and also high median OS (17 months for pembrolizumab and 18.5 months for nivolumab) [61, 62]. In the subset of patients with symptomatic BM and leptomeningeal disease, usually with bad prognostic, the CA 209–170 study finds a comparable response rate (25%), to the response rate (29%) for asymptomatic BM, but with much lower median OS (5.1 vs. 18. months) [62].

The real impact on asymptomatic BM patients was seen in the CA 209–170 clinical trial arm treated with a dual combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab, with 57% response rate for extracranial disease and 46% for intracranial disease; the median OS was not reached for immune combination, compared with 18.5 months for nivolumab monotherapy [62]. The good results for dual combination were confirmed by the CheckMate 204 clinical trial, with a more than 50% response rate for both extra and intracranial disease and with median OS not reached [63].

NCCN and ESMO guidelines concluded that ipilimumab and nivolumab combination is superior to anti-PD-1 monotherapy and that anti-PD-1 therapy provides higher response rates and better median OS compared with ipilimumab monotherapy, especially for asymptomatic BM melanoma patients [39, 40].

Accordingly, whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) is now reserved, only with palliative intent, for symptomatic BM patients [40]. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has replaced WBRT for non-bulky (< 3 cm), <5–10 asymptomatic BM, as upfront therapy. For more advanced disease, guidelines recommend first-line systemic therapy, mainly combination immune therapy; in this case, SRS will be used as salvage therapy for disease progression [40]. SRS and immune therapy can be administered simultaneously, but with close MRI evaluation, as a result of the increased risk for asymptomatic radio-necrosis (15% of patients) [64].

#### **6. The algorithm for BRAF wild-type (wt) melanoma treatment**

The current first-line standard therapies for inoperable stage III and IV BRAF wt melanoma are the PD-1 blockade (nivolumab or pembrolizumab) and the dual blockade CTLA-4 and PD-1 (ipilimumab and nivolumab) (**Table 2**) [39, 40].

Different regimens and doses from clinical guidelines are underlined in **Table 3**. T-VEC is also an option for in-transit unresectable melanoma.

For second-line treatment and beyond, ESMO guidelines [40] recommend clinical trials if available, or ICI rechallenge.

Immune therapy rechallenge includes at least 3 options [40]:


Two clinical trials demonstrated that immune therapy with ipilimumab or with the dual combination ipilimumab and anti-PD-1 should be considered a viable


#### **Table 2.**

*Algorithm for inoperable stage III/IV melanoma treatment (IT – Immune therapy; TT – Targeted therapy; BSC – Best supportive care).*


#### **Table 3.**

*Immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment regimens.*

treatment option after failure of anterior PD-1 therapy [65, 66]. The combination appeared to be highly effective in terms of response rate, duration of the response, and median OS compared with ipilimumab monotherapy (20.4 vs. 8.8 months for median OS) [66]. The grade 3–5 toxicities for both groups were the same [66].

The NCCN guidelines have additional recommendations [39]:


The combination of anti-PD-1 (pembrolizumab) with VEGF inhibitor (lenvatinib) produces a higher overall response rate of 48% compared with pembrolizumab alone, in a small phase I/II trial [67].

In particular cases, other options can be considered, such as imatinib for tumors with activating mutations of Kit, larotrectinib, and entrectinib for NTRK gene fusion-positive tumors [68] and cytotoxic agents.

#### **7. The algorithm for BRAF mutated melanoma treatment**

The current first-line treatment for inoperable stage III and IV BRAF-mutated melanoma is also immune therapy (IT), or the dual combination of BRAF inhibitors with MEK inhibitors (TT, Targeted Therapy) (**Table 2**). The best sequence of IT and TT is currently unknown [69]. No direct randomized comparison exists between IT and TT, but one meta-analysis suggests a better outcome after 1 year in favor of IT [70, 71], despite a very good response rate to TT in the first 12 months [72]. The main advantage of immune therapy as a first option is long-term/durable disease control even after treatment is ended [73].

There are several ongoing trials that study the optimal sequence for the first-line treatment, TT-IT or IT-TT (SECOMBIT, DREAMseq). Randomized three-arm phase 2 study (SECOMBIT / NCT02631447) revealed a better trend for OS and total PFS at 2 and 3 years for the arm with upfront ipilimumab and nivolumab combination and for the arm with short targeted therapy followed by immune combination therapy, compared with upfront targeted therapy with BRAFi + MEKi [74]. A randomized DREAMseq trial was designed to compare the efficacy and toxicity of the sequence IT-TT (Ipilimumab + nivolumab – dabrafenib + trametinib) with the sequence TT-IT. OS and duration of overall response (DOR) were better for upfront immune combination therapy (2-year OS of 72% vs. 52% p = 0.0095 and median DOR not reached for upfront immune therapy, and 12.7 months for targeted therapy) [75].

ESMO recommendation [76]:


First-line therapy selection for BRAF-mutated melanoma should be based on treatment goals (short-term benefit or long-term benefit), on the clinical characteristics of the disease (LDH level, organs involved, number of metastases or tumor burden, disease progression kinetics), on co-morbidities and performance status of the patient, and on the patient's preference and compliance for oral or iv agents [76]. However, it seems prudent to start with immune therapy for the cases with tumors that do not progress very quickly and do not immediately threaten an important organ or function [40].

ESMO recommendation [76]:


• Finally, after using all options, rechallenge with the drugs that showed the best response should be considered.

As a second-line treatment, NCCN and ESMO guidelines recommend the switch from one treatment to another, depending on the previously used first-line therapy (**Table 2**) [39, 40].

Subsequent lines are not well established; as an option, clinical trials or rechallenge with both TT and IT can be considered. Another option can be chemotherapy with single-agent DTIC or Temozolomide, and Paclitaxel + Carboplatin combination, with palliative intent or as "bridging therapy" (**Table 2**).

#### **8. Stopping immunotherapy in metastatic melanoma treatment**

ESMO recommendation [76]:


Sixty-seven patients from KEYNOTE-001 trial stopped the pembrolizumab therapy after complete response (CR) was confirmed by radiological evaluation and after completing minimum 6 months of treatment [43]. The 2-years DFS from the time of CR was ~90% [43]. In KEYNOTE-006 the patients stopped the treatment after 2 years and 85.4% did not suffer a relapse after 5 years of follow-up [77].

Both CheckMate 067 and KEYNOTE-006 trials revealed a good Hazard Ratio (HR) for progressive disease (PD) after 2 years with anti-PD-1 monotherapy (nivolumab, respectively pembrolizumab) for responders (partial response – PR and stable disease – SD) [43, 48].

#### **9. Treatment for patients with disease progression after adjuvant therapy**

ESMO recommendation [76]:


**Primary resistance** (disease progression during the 12-months adjuvant therapy or < 6 months from the treatment ending): it is unlikely to have a clinical benefit from using the same agent [76, 78].

**Acquired resistance** (disease progression >6 months from the treatment ending): it is possible to use the same agent or an alternative agent from the same class [76, 79].

A multicenter randomized clinical study with 300 metastatic melanoma patients (56% BRAF wt and 44% BRAF mutated) evaluated the treatment for the patients who stopped responding after the initial response (acquired resistance) [78]. The most commonly used agent after the first progression was anti-PD-1 (51% of patients from the cohort study), followed by targeted therapy (19%), dual immune combination CTLA-4 and PD-1 (12%), investigational drugs (11%), and ipilimumab monotherapy (6%). The ORR was 46% for anti-PD-1 monotherapy, 67% for TT, 56% for immune combination therapy, 20% for the investigational agent, and 0% for CTLA-4 monotherapy, but no difference in OS after about 2 years of follow up was observed [78]. Another clinical trial demonstrated a higher response rate for the patients treated with the immune dual combination, compared with ipilimumab monotherapy for patients with progressive metastatic melanoma after first-line anti-PD-1 therapy (31% vs. 13%) [66].

A multicenter randomized clinical trial, that focused on the treatment of recurrence after adjuvant therapy, demonstrated a very good response to immune checkpoint inhibitors, similar to the response rate for the patients treated by first-line immune therapy; the three-year OS was 79% for anti-PD-1 based therapy (monotherapy or dual immune combination), 55% for targeted therapy rechallenge, and 25% for ipilimumab monotherapy [80].

#### **10. Immune adverse events iAEs**

The current treatments for melanoma produce high-grade toxicity rates, with 55–59% for ipilimumab and nivolumab combination, 20% for nivolumab alone, and 27% for ipilimumab alone [78]. The most common AEs associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors are autoimmune (iAEs). The most frequent immune toxicities to ICI, across all options (anti-PD-1 monotherapy, anti-CTLA-4 monotherapy, or dual immune combination), were cutaneous (pruritus, maculopapular rash, and vitiligo), gastrointestinal (diarrhea/colitis) and fatigue [39]. The most common high-grade, potentially life-threatening iAEs were endocrinopathies (hypophysitis, adrenal insufficiency, and hypo- or hyperthyroidism), pancreatitis, and hepatic AEs (elevated ALT, AST, hepatitis) [39]. Other potentially lethal iAEs were nephritis, pneumonitis, and myocarditis.

A retrospective study from the WHO pharmacovigilance database identified 613 fatal ICI toxic events, reported from 2009 to 2018. The most death-related AEs were pneumonitis, hepatitis, and neurotoxic effects, for the dual immune combination and colitis for anti-CTLA-4 treatment [81]. A meta-analysis of 112 trials showed higher toxicity-related fatality rates for CTLA-4 and PD-1 combination (1.23%) and for anti-CTLA-4 monotherapy (1.08%), compared with single-agent anti-PD-1 (0.36%) [81].

The treatment with ICI requires a routine monitoring for immune toxicities, with physical examination, anamnesis for autoimmune or infectious diseases (screening for HIV, hepatitis A, B, and C), complete blood count, comprehensive metabolic panel, cardiac evaluation with ECG and measurements of oxygen saturation, and endocrine evaluation (TSH, FT4 and serum cortisone), at baseline and periodically, for the entire treatment duration [82]. The NCCN elaborated a comprehensive guideline for the management of immunotherapy-related toxicities [82].

*Immunotherapy of Metastatic Melanoma DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.105585*

The kinetics of iAEs is different for different types of immune-related toxicities. The first toxicities that become evident are skin-related AEs (median time to onset 3 weeks), but the risk persists throughout treatment. Later, gastrointestinal (median time to onset 7 weeks) and hepatic toxicities appear, and finally pulmonary, endocrine, and renal AEs may develop [83, 84]. The patients who experienced AEs of any grade had a significantly higher objective response rate [83]. Most treatment-related AEs resolve completely after specific treatment, with the exception of endocrinopathies, which require long-term hormone replacement therapy [84]. Median time to resolution for grade 3–4 iAEs was under 5 weeks, apart from endocrinopathies excepted [84].

#### **11. Immune checkpoint inhibitors and their impact on intestinal flora**

ESMO recommendation [76]:

• Restrictive use of empirical antibiotics in melanoma patients treated by immune checkpoint inhibitors

Specific species of gut microbiome or microbiota can influence antitumoral responses, either through innate or adaptive immune pathways. In severely immunocompromised patients, the modification of intestinal flora through diet or fecal microbiota transplants could improve the response to ICI [85].

On the other hand, the excessive use of antibiotics decreases the diversity of gut microbiome and eliminates the most immunogenic bacteria, having thus a negative impact on patients treated with ICI [86].

#### **12. New directions for immune therapy**

#### **12.1 Anti-LAG-3 and Anti-PD-1 immune combination**

Lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3) is a cell-surface receptor on activated CD4+ T cells and represents an alternate immune checkpoint [87]. The anti-LAG-3 agent relatlimab and anti-PD-1 agent nivolumab were combined in phase II/ III RELATIVITY-047 clinical study [88]. The study compared the dual immune combination relatlimab and nivolumab with nivolumab monotherapy, favoring the immune combination in terms of median PFS (10.1 months for combination vs. 4.6 months for monotherapy, with HR for progression or death of 0.75). The obtained results were better for a subgroup of patients with positive LAG-3 expression (≥ 1%). The rate of AEs was 18.9% for the combination and 9.7% for the monotherapy group [88].

In the CheckMate 067 clinical trial, PFS for the nivolumab and ipilimumab combination, the current first-line indication for stage III and IV inoperable melanoma, was 11.5 months, with a 59% rate of AEs [48]. If the first results of the RELATIVITY-047 clinical study will be supported also by better overall survival rates, it would give good grounds for the expectation that the relatlimab and nivolumab combination will replace the ipilimumab and nivolumab combination in the first-line treatment of metastatic melanoma [89].

#### **12.2 Other Novel ICIs**

Anti-VISTA small molecule ICI (CA 170) combined with nivolumab and anti-Tim-3 antibody combined with spartalizumab (anti-PD-1) are among the most promising immune combinations for the treatment of advanced melanoma [90, 91]. V-domain immunoglobulin suppressor of T-cell activation (VISTA) is a negative regulator of T-cell function; anti-VISTA agents show synergistic effects with anti-PD-1 agents [90]. T-cell immunoglobulin and mucin domain 3 (Tim-3) is a cell surface molecule expressed on lymphocytes, dendritic cells, and tumor cells (including melanoma cells) that breaks off T-cell activation and diminishes antitumor immunity [91]. Anti-Tim-3 monoclonal antibody stops T-cell inhibition and amplifies tumor cell disintegration.

Other potential new immune combinations are the associations between anti-PD-1 inhibitors with agonists of IL-2 described in the PIVOT-02 phase II clinical trial [92], or between anti-PD-1 agents and different oncolytic viruses (e.g., polio, coxsackie, herpes simplex or poxvirus) [93].

#### **12.3 Adoptive cellular therapy (ACT)**

ACT with the use of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) can be a future option for solid tumors, including metastatic melanoma [69, 94]. The clinical development of TILs started more than 40 years ago, but it was not approved by FDA for melanoma treatment, despite the good response rates [93]. The combination of TILs with chemotherapy and IL-2 was associated with a 24% CR and with 55% ORR among patients with disease recurrence after previous systemic treatment [94]. Because of high rates of potentially lethal AEs, this therapy can be safely administered only in a high-facility oncological center, trained for IL-2 administration.

One of the pivotal multicenter clinical trials was designed to evaluate TILs administration (lifileucel, an autologous, centrally manufactured TILs) in conjunction with IL-2, followed by sequential ICI, in patients with solid tumors, including melanoma (NCT 02360579) [95]. The ORR was 36%, with 2 from 66 patients with CR and 22 from 66 patients with PR. Median duration of response was not reached after 18.7 months of median follow-up. This treatment could be used as salvage therapy for metastatic melanoma patients, refractory to anti-PD-1 and targeted therapy [95].

Systemic treatment for metastatic melanoma improved dramatically in the last 10 years with enhanced long-term survival of these patients. Immune therapy is part of the change of the treatment paradigm in melanoma; shifting from direct cytotoxic tumor destruction to increasing the immune system activity in order to destroy the cancer cells. Undoubtedly, the near future will be the time of different dual immune combinations, with or without new targeted therapy approaches.

*Immunotherapy of Metastatic Melanoma DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.105585*

#### **Author details**

Dan-Corneliu Jinga1 \* and Maria-Ruxandra Jinga<sup>2</sup>

1 Department of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Neolife Bucharest Medical Center, Romania

2 Medical School, Newcastle University, United Kingdom

\*Address all correspondence to: danjinga2002@yahoo.com

© 2022 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] Coley WB. The treatment of malignant tumors by repeated inoculations of erysipelas. With a report of ten original cases. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 1991;**262**:3-11

[2] Harris SJ, Brown J, Lopez J, Yap TA. Immuno-oncology combinations: Raising the tail of the survival curve. Cancer Biology & Medicine. 2016;**13**(2):171-193

[3] Moreira RS, Bicker J, Musicco F, et al. Anti-PD-1 immunotherapy in advanced metastatic melanoma: State of the art and future challenges. Life Science. 2020;**240**:117433

[4] Kirkwood JM, Strawderman MH, Ernstoff MS, et al. Interferon alfa-2b adjuvant therapy of high-risk resected cutaneous melanoma: The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Trial EST 1684. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 1996;**14**:7-17

[5] Creagan ET, Ahmann DL, Frytak S, et al. Recombinant leukocyte A interferon (rIFN-aA) in the treatment of disseminated malignant melanoma. Analysis of complete and longterm responding patients. Cancer. 1986;**58**:2576-2578

[6] Tarhini AA, Gogas H, Kirkwood JM. IFN-α in the treatment of melanoma. Journal of Immunology. 2012;**189**(8):3789-3793

[7] Suciu S, Eggermont AMM, Lorigan P, et al. Relapse-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in the evaluation of stage II-III Melanoma Adjuvant Therapy. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2018;**110**:1

[8] Rosenberg SA. IL-2: The first effective immunotherapy for human cancer. Journal of Immunology. 2014;**192**(12):5451-5458

[9] Atkins MB, Lotze MT, Dutcher JP, et al. High-dose recombinant interleukin 2 therapy for patients with metastatic melanoma: Analysis of 270 patients treated between 1985 and 1993. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 1999;**17**(7):2105-2116

[10] Kim DW, Gershenwald JE, Patel SP, Davies MA, Melanoma. In: The MD Anderson Manual of Medical Oncology. 3rd edition. McGraw-Hill Education; 2016. pp. 857-873

[11] Rosenberg SA, Lotze MT, Muul LM, et al. Observations on the systemic administration of autologous lymphokine-activated killer cells and recombinant interleukin-2 to patients with metastatic cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine. 1985;**313**:1485-1492

[12] Garbe C, Eigentler TK, Keilholz U, et al. Systematic review of medical treatment in melanoma: Current status and future prospects. The Oncologist. 2011;**16**(1):5-24

[13] Strub T, Ballotti R, Bertolotto C. The "ART" of epigenetics in melanoma: From histone "Alterations, to Resistance and Therapies". Theranostics. 2020;**10**(4):1777-1797

[14] Gross JA, Callas E, Allison JP. Identification and distribution of the costimulatory receptor CD28 in the mouse. Journal of Immunology. 1992;**149**(2):380-388

[15] Leach DR, Krummel MF, Allison JP. Enhancement of antitumor immunity by CTLA-4 blockade. Science. 1996;**271**(5256):1734-1736

[16] Ishida Y, Agata Y, Shibahara K, Honjo T. Induced expression of PD-1, a *Immunotherapy of Metastatic Melanoma DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.105585*

novel member of the immunoglobulin gene superfamily, upon programmed cell death. The EMBO Journal. 1992;**11**:3887-3895

[17] Agata Y, Kawasaki A, Nishimura H, et al. Expression of the PD-1 antigen on the surface of stimulated mouse T and B lymphocytes. International Immunology. 1996;**8**(5):765-772

[18] Hodi FS, O'Day SJ, McDermott DF, et al. Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2010;**363**(8):711-723

[19] Robert C, Thomas L, Bondarenko I, et al. Ipilimumab plus dacarbazine for previously untreated metastatic melanoma. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2011;**364**(26):2517-2526

[20] Ascierto PA, Del Vecchio M, Robert C, et al. Ipilimumab 10 mg/kg versus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma: A randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial. The Lancet Oncology. 2017;**18**(5):611-622

[21] Schadendorf D, Hodi FS, Robert C, et al. Pooled analysis of longterm survival data from Phase II and Phase III Trials of Ipilimumab in Unresectable or Metastatic Melanoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2015;**33**(17):1889-1894

[22] Maio M, Grob JJ, Aamdal S, et al. Five-year survival rates for treatmentnaive patients with advanced melanoma who received ipilimumab plus dacarbazine in a phase III trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2015;**33**(10):1191-1196

[23] Krajsová I, Arenberger P, Lakomý R, et al. Long-term survival with Ipilimumab: Experience from a National Expanded Access Program for Patients

with Melanoma. Anticancer Research. 2015;**35**(11):6303-6310

[24] Ascierto PA, Simeone E, Sileni VC, et al. Clinical experience with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg: Real-world efficacy and safety data from an expanded access programme cohort. Journal of Translational Medicine. 2014;**7**(12):116

[25] Wilgenhof S, Du Four S, Vandenbroucke F, et al. Single-center experience with ipilimumab in an expanded access program for patients with pretreated advanced melanoma. Journal of Immunotherapy. 2013;**36**(3):215-222

[26] Wiater K, Switaj T, Mackiewicz J, et al. Efficacy and safety of ipilimumab therapy in patients with metastatic melanoma: A retrospective multicenter analysis. Contemp Oncol (Pozn). 2013;**17**(3):257-262

[27] Jinga DC, Ciuleanu T, Negru S, et al. Effectiveness and safety profile of ipilimumab therapy in previously treated patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma - the Romanian Patient Access Program. Journal of BUON. 2017;**22**(5):1287-1295

[28] Berrocal A, Arance A, Lopez Martin JA, et al. Ipilimumab for advanced melanoma: Experience from the Spanish Expanded Access Program. Melanoma Research. 2014;**24**(6):577-583

[29] Rapoport BL, Vorobiof DA, Dreosti LM, et al. Ipilimumab in pretreated patients with advanced malignant melanoma: Results of the South African Expanded-Access Program. Journal of Global Oncology. 2016;**3**(5):515-523

[30] Ahmad SS, Qian W, Ellis S, et al. Ipilimumab in the real world: The UK expanded access programme experience in previously treated advanced melanoma patients. Melanoma Research. 2015;**25**(5):432-442

[31] Yervoy (Ipilimumab) prescribing information; revised May 2020: https:// www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda\_ docs/label/2020/125377s110lbl.pdf

[32] Ribas A, Camacho LH, Lopez-Berestein G, et al. Antitumor activity in melanoma and anti-self responses in a phase I trial with the anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 monoclonal antibody CP-675,206. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2005;**23**(35):8968-8977

[33] Ribas A, Kefford R, Marshall MA, et al. Phase III randomized clinical trial comparing tremelimumab with standardof-care chemotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2013;**31**(5):616-622

[34] Daud A, Nandoskar P. Pembrolizumab for melanoma-safety profile and future trends. Expert Opinion on Drug Safety. 2016;**15**(6):727-729

[35] Robert C, Ribas A, Wolchok JD, et al. Anti-programmed-death-receptor-1 treatment with pembrolizumab in ipilimumab-refractory advanced melanoma: A randomised dosecomparison cohort of a phase 1 trial. Lancet. 2014;**384**(9948):1109-1117

[36] Ribas A, Puzanov I, Dummer R, et al. Pembrolizumab versus investigatorchoice chemotherapy for ipilimumabrefractory melanoma (KEYNOTE-002): A randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial. The Lancet Oncology. 2015;**16**(8):908-918

[37] Hamid O, Puzanov I, Dummer R, et al. Final analysis of a randomised trial comparing pembrolizumab versus investigator-choice chemotherapy

for ipilimumab-refractory advanced melanoma. European Journal of Cancer. 2017;**86**:37-45

[38] Schadendorf D, Dummer R, Hauschild A, et al. Health-related quality of life in the randomised KEYNOTE-002 study of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in patients with ipilimumab-refractory melanoma. European Journal of Cancer. 2016;**67**:46-54

[39] NCCN. Melanoma: Cutaneous; version 3.2022; April 11, 2022; https:// www.nccn.org/

[40] Michielin O, Akkoi ACJ, Ascierto PA, et al. Cutaneous melanoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Annals of Oncology. 2019;**30**:1184-1901

[41] Robert C, Schachter J, Long GV. et al; KEYNOTE-006 investigators. Pembrolizumab versus Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2015;**372**(26):2521-2532

[42] Schachter J, Ribas A, Long GV, et al. Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab for advanced melanoma: Final overall survival results of a multicentre, randomised, open-label phase 3 study (KEYNOTE-006). Lancet. 2017;**390**(10105):1853-1862

[43] Robert C, Ribas A, Hamid O, et al. Durable complete response after discontinuation of pembrolizumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2018;**36**(17):1668-1674

[44] 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. The Lancet Oncology. 2015;**16**(4):375-384

*Immunotherapy of Metastatic Melanoma DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.105585*

[45] Larkin J, Minor D, D'Angelo S, et al. Overall survival in patients with advanced melanoma who received nivolumab versus Investigator's Choice Chemotherapy in CheckMate 037: A Randomized, Controlled, Open-Label Phase III Trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2018;**36**(4):383-390

[46] Robert C, Long GV, Brady B, et al. Nivolumab in previously untreated melanoma without BRAF mutation. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2015;**372**(4):320-330

[47] Ascierto PA, Long GV, Robert C, et al. Survival outcomes in patients with previously untreated BRAF wildtype advanced melanoma treated with nivolumab therapy: Three-Year Follow-up of a Randomized Phase 3 Trial. JAMA Oncology. 2019;**5**(2):187-194

[48] Hodi FS, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R, et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab alone in advanced melanoma (CheckMate 067): 4-year outcomes of a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial. The Lancet Oncology. 2018;**19**(11):1480-1492

[49] Larkin J, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R, et al. Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab or Monotherapy in Untreated Melanoma. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2015;**373**(1):23-34

[50] Wolchok JD, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R, et al. overall survival with combined nivolumab and ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2017;**377**(14):1345-1356

[51] Curran MA, Montalvo W, Yagita H, Allison JP. PD-1 and CTLA-4 combination blockade expands infiltrating T cells and reduces regulatory T and myeloid cells within B16 melanoma tumors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2010;**107**(9):4275-4280

[52] Wolchok JD, Kluger H, Callahan MK, et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. New England Journal of Medicine. 2013;**369**(2):122-133

[53] Hodi FS, Chesney J, Pavlick AC, et al. Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma: 2-year overall survival outcomes in a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial. The Lancet Oncology. 2016;**17**(11):1558-1568

[54] Wolchok JD, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R, et al. Long-term outcomes with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2022;**40**(2):127-137

[55] Schadendorf D, Wolchok JD, Hodi FS, et al. Efficacy and safety outcomes in patients with advanced melanoma who discontinued treatment with nivolumab and ipilimumab because of adverse events: A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Phase II and III Trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2017;**35**(34):3807-3814

[56] Daud AI, Wolchok JD, Robert C, et al. Programmed deathligand 1 expression and response to the anti-programmed Death 1 Antibody Pembrolizumab in Melanoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2016;**34**(34):4102-4109

[57] Andtbacka RH, Kaufman HL, Collichio F, et al. Talimogene laherparepvec improves durable response rate in patients with advanced melanoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2015;**33**(25):2780-2788

[58] Chesney J, Puzanov I, Collichio F, et al. Randomized, Open-Label Phase II Study Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Talimogene Laherparepvec in Combination With Ipilimumab Versus Ipilimumab Alone in Patients With Advanced, Unresectable Melanoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2018;**36**(17):1658-1667

[59] Long G, Dummer R, Andtbacka R, et al. Follow-up analysis of MASTERKEY-265 Phase 1b (ph1b) trial of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) in combination (combo) with pembrolizumab (pembro) in patients (pts) with unresectable stage IIIB–IVM1c melanoma (MEL). Pigment Cell & Melanoma Research. 2019;**32**:133-134

[60] Margolin K, Ernstoff MS, Hamid O, et al. Ipilimumab in patients with melanoma and brain metastases: An open-label, phase 2 trial. The Lancet Oncology. 2012;**13**(5):459-465

[61] Kluger HM, Chiang V, Mahajan A, et al. Long-term survival of patients with melanoma with active brain metastases treated with pembrolizumab on a Phase II Trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2019;**37**(1):52-60

[62] Long GV, Atkinson V, Lo S, et al. Combination nivolumab and ipilimumab or nivolumab alone in melanoma brain metastases: A multicentre randomised phase 2 study. The Lancet Oncology. 2018;**19**(5):672-681

[63] Tawbi HA, Forsyth PA, Algazi A, et al. Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Melanoma Metastatic to the Brain. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2018;**379**(8):722-730

[64] Minniti G, Anzellini D, Reverberi C, et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery combined with nivolumab or Ipilimumab for patients with melanoma brain

metastases: Evaluation of brain control and toxicity. Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer. 2019;**7**(1):102

[65] Zimmer L, Apuri S, Eroglu Z, et al. Ipilimumab alone or in combination with nivolumab after progression on anti-PD-1 therapy in advanced melanoma. European Journal of Cancer. 2017;**75**:47-55

[66] Pires da Silva I, Ahmed T, Reijers ILM, et al. Ipilimumab alone or ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 therapy in patients with metastatic melanoma resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy: A multicentre, retrospective, cohort study. The Lancet Oncology. 2021;**22**(6):836-847

[67] Taylor MH, Lee CH, Makker V, et al. Phase IB/II Trial of Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma, endometrial cancer, and other selected advanced solid tumors. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2020;**38**(11):1154-1163

[68] Miranda C, Mazzoni M, Sensi M, Pierotti MA, Greco A. Functional characterization of NTRK1 mutations identified in melanoma. Genes, Chromosomes & Cancer. 2020;**53**:875-880

[69] Curti BD, Faries MB. Recent advances in the treatment of melanoma. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2021;**384**(23):2229-2240

[70] Ugurel S, Röhmel J, Ascierto PA, et al. Survival of patients with advanced metastatic melanoma: The impact of novel therapies. European Journal of Cancer. 2016;**53**:125-134

[71] Pasquali S, Hadjinicolaou AV, Chiarion Sileni V, et al. Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous *Immunotherapy of Metastatic Melanoma DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.105585*

melanoma. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2018;**2**:CD011123

[72] Dummer R, Ascierto PA, Gogas HJ, et al. Encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma (COLUMBUS): A multicentre, openlabel, randomised phase 3 trial. The Lancet Oncology. 2018;**19**(5):603-615

[73] Jansen YJL, Rozeman EA, Mason R, et al. Discontinuation of anti-PD-1 antibody therapy in the absence of disease progression or treatment limiting toxicity: Clinical outcomes in advanced melanoma. Annals of Oncology. 2019;**30**(7):1154-1161

[74] Ascierto PA, Mandala M, Ferrucci PF, et al. SECOMBIT: The best sequential approach with combo immunotherapy [ipilimumab (I) /nivolumab (N)] and combo target therapy [encorafenib (E)/ binimetinib (B)] in patients with BRAF mutated metastatic melanoma: A phase II randomized study; abstract LBA40, presented at ESMO Congress. 2021

[75] Atkins MB, Lee SJ, Chmielowski B, et al. DREAMseq (Doublet, Randomized Evaluation in Advanced Melanoma Sequencing): A phase III trial—ECOG-ACRIN EA6134. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2021;**39**:36

[76] Keilholz U, Ascierto PA, Dummer R, et al. ESMO consensus conference recommendations on the management of metastatic melanoma: Under the auspices of the ESMO Guidelines Committe. Annals of Oncology. 2020;**31**(11):1435-1448

[77] Hamid O, Robert C, Daud A, et al. Five-year survival outcomes for patients with advanced melanoma treated with pembrolizumab in KEYNOTE-001. Annals of Oncology. 2019;**30**(4): 582-588

[78] Hepner A, Versluis JM, Gerard CL, et al. The nature and management of acquired resistance to PD1-based therapy in melanoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2020;**38**:10014-10014

[79] Moreira A, Heinzerling L. Current melanoma treatments: Where do we stand? Cancers. 2021;**13**:221

[80] Bhave P, Pallan L, Long GV, et al. Melanoma recurrence patterns and management after adjuvant targeted therapy: A multicentre analysis. British Journal of Cancer. 2021;**124**:574-580

[81] Wang DY, Salem JE, Cohen JV, et al. Fatal toxic effects associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2021;**4124**:1721-1728

[82] NCCN. Management of Immunotherapy-related toxicities version 1.2022-February 28, 2022; https://www. nccn.org/

[83] Weber JS, Hodi FS, Wolchok JD, et al. Safety profile of nivolumab monotherapy: A pooled analysis of patients with advanced melanoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2017;**35**(7):785-792

[84] Sznol M, Ferrucci PF, Hogg D, et al. Pooled analysis safety profile of nivolumab and ipilimumab combination therapy in patients with advanced melanoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2017;**35**(34):3815-3822

[85] Iida N, Dzutsev A, Stewart CA, et al. Commensal bacteria control cancer response to therapy by modulating the tumor microenvironment. Science. 2013;**342**(6161):967-970

[86] Pinato DJ, Howlett S, Ottaviani D, et al. Association of prior antibiotic treatment with survival and response to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in patients with cancer. JAMA Oncology. 2019;**5**(12):1774-1778

[87] Lythgoe MP, Liu DSK, Annels NE, et al. Gene of the month: Lymphocyteactivation gene 3 (LAG-3). Jpurnal of Clinical Patholhplogy. 2021;**74**:543-547

[88] Tawbi HA, Schadendorf D, Lipson EJ, et al. Relatlimab andnivolumab versus nivolumab in untreated advanced melanoma. New England Journal of Medicine. 2022;**386**:24-34

[89] Frampton AE, Sivakumar S. A new combination immunotherapy in advanced melanoma. New England Journal of Medicine. 2022;**386**:91-92

[90] Powderly J, Patel MR, Lee JJ, et al. CA-170, a first in class oral small molecule dual inhibitor of immune checkpoints PD-L1 and VISTA, demonstrates tumor growth inhibition in pre-clinical models and promotes T cell activation in Phase 1 study. Cancer. 2017;**28**:V405-V406

[91] Acharya N, Sabatos-Peyton C, Anderson AC. Tim-3 finds its place in the cancer immunotherapy landscape. Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer. 2020;**8**(1):e000911

[92] Diab A, Tykodi SS, Daniels GA, et al. Bempegaldesleukin plus nivolumab in first-line metastatic melanoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2021;**39**(26):2914-2925

[93] Switzer B, Puzanov I, Skitzki JJ, et al. Managing metastatic melanoma in 2022: A clinical review. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2022;**18**(5):335-351

[94] Goff SL, Dudley ME, Citrin DE, et al. Randomized, prospective evaluation comparing intensity of lymphodepletion before adoptive transfer of

tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes for patients with metastatic melanoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2016;**34**(20):2389-2397

[95] Sarnaik AA, Hamid O, Khushalani NI, et al. Lifileucel, a tumorinfiltrating lymphocyte therapy, in metastatic melanoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2021;**39**(24):2656-2666

Section 6
