Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2023 May;11(5):e006270.
doi: 10.1136/jitc-2022-006270.

Talimogene laherparepvec in combination with ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone for advanced melanoma: 5-year final analysis of a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase II trial

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Talimogene laherparepvec in combination with ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone for advanced melanoma: 5-year final analysis of a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase II trial

Jason A Chesney et al. J Immunother Cancer. 2023 May.

Abstract

Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) plus ipilimumab has demonstrated greater antitumor activity versus ipilimumab alone, without additional toxicity, in patients with advanced melanoma. Here, we report the 5-year outcomes from a randomized phase II study. These data provide the longest efficacy and safety follow-up for patients with melanoma treated with a combination of an oncolytic virus and a checkpoint inhibitor.Eligible patients with unresectable stage IIIB‒IV melanoma were randomized 1:1 to receive T-VEC plus ipilimumab or ipilimumab alone. T-VEC was administered intralesionally at 106 plaque-forming units (PFU)/mL in week 1, followed by 108 PFU/mL in week 4 and every 2 weeks thereafter. Ipilimumab (3 mg/kg every 3 weeks; ≤4 doses) was administered intravenously starting at week 1 in the ipilimumab arm and week 6 in the combination arm. The primary end point was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per immune-related response criteria; key secondary end points included durable response rate (DRR), duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety.Overall, 198 patients were randomized to receive the combination (n=98) or ipilimumab (n=100). The combination improved the ORR versus ipilimumab (35.7% vs 16.0%; OR 2.9; 95% CI 1.5 to 5.7; p=0.003). DRR was 33.7% and 13.0% (unadjusted OR 3.4; 95% CI 1.7 to 7.0; descriptive p=0.001), respectively. Among the objective responders, the median DOR was 69.2 months (95% CI 38.5 to not estimable) with the combination and was not reached with ipilimumab. Median PFS was 13.5 months with the combination and 6.4 months with ipilimumab (HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.09; descriptive p=0.14). Estimated 5-year OS was 54.7% (95% CI 43.9 to 64.2) in the combination arm and 48.4% (95% CI 37.9 to 58.1) in the ipilimumab arm. Forty-seven (48.0%) and 65 (65.0%) patients in the combination and ipilimumab arms, respectively, received subsequent therapies. No new safety signals were reported.At the 5-year follow-up, the improved response rates observed with T-VEC plus ipilimumab were durable. This is the first randomized controlled study of the combination of an oncolytic virus and a checkpoint inhibitor that meets its primary end point.Trial registration number: NCT01740297.

Keywords: immunotherapy; melanoma; oncolytic virotherapy; oncolytic viruses.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: JAC: research funding: Amgen, Replimune, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb; patents, royalties, other intellectual property: University of Louisville US Patents. IP: stock and other ownership interests: Celldex; consulting or advisory role: Amgen, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Merck, Roche, Nouscom, Seneca Therapeutics, Nektar, Oncorus. FAC: research funding: Amgen and Replimune. PS: consulting fees: Aveo, EMD Serono, Janssen, Bayer; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureau, manuscript writing, or educational events: CURIO Sciences; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: Aveo, EMD Serono, Janssen, Bayer. MMM: consulting: Syneos, Exicure, Novartis, Immunocore, Biontech, Blueprints Medicine, Amgen, Array, Trieza. JG: funding for this trial: Amgen. OH: consultant advisor: Aduro, Akeso, Amgen, BeiGene, BioAtla, BMS, Roche Genentech, GSK, Immunocore, Idera, Incyte, Janssen, Merck, NextCure, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi/Regeneron, Seattle Genetics, Tempus, Zelluna; speaker bureau: BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi/Regeneron; contracted research (for institution): Arcus, Aduro, Akeso, Amgen, BioAtla, BMS, CytomX, Exelixis, Roche Genentech, GSK, Immunocore, Idera, Incyte, Iovance, Merck, Moderna, Merck-Serono, NextCure, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi/Regeneron, Seattle Genetics, Torque, Zelluna. MR: honoraria: Merck and Amgen; advisory board: Merck and Amgen; research funding: Amgen and Provectus; travel funding: Merck, Amgen, Provectus, Novartis and Castle Biosciences. PF: consultant: DBV Technologies; travel to and participation on the advisory board: Castle Biosciences; stock or stock options: Gilead, Iovance. CG: personal fees: Amgen, MSD, Philogen; grants and personal fees: Novartis, NeraCare, BMS, Roche, Sanofi, outside of the submitted work. TL: funding for this trial: Amgen; grants or contracts: Abbott, Abraxis, Acceleron, Amgen, Argos, AstraZeneca, Aveo, Biovex, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Immatics, Roche, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Synta, Thershold, Millenium, Tracon, Cerulean, EMD Serono, Prometheus, Macrogenics, Peloton, Iovance, MedImmune, Dynavax, NiKang; consulting fees: Prometheus; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureau, manuscript writing, or educational events: SITC Advances in Cancer Immunotherapy program, organizer and presented for local program in Indianapolis. Two separate programs. AH: grants and personal fees: Amgen, BMS, Eisai, Immunocore, Pfizer, MSD/Merck, Novartis Pharma, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Replimune, Immunocore, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Seagen, outside the submitted work. CL: Honoraria: Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Amgen, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Incyte; consulting or advisory role: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Amgen, Roche, Merck Serono, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre; speakers bureau: Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Amgen, MSD; research funding: Roche (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst); travel, accommodations, expenses: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre; other relationship: Avantis Medical Systems, InflaRx. HJ: employee: Parexel. WS: employee and stockholder: Amgen. JMM: stock and other ownership interests: Pfizer; honoraria: EMD Serono, Pfizer/EMD Serono; consulting or advisory role: Merck Sharp and Dohme, Celldey, Sanofi/Regeneron, Bristol Myers Squibb, Seattle Genetics, Eisai, Novartis; research funding: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Kinnate, Macrogenics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, Regeneron; travel, accommodations, expenses: EMD Serono, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Array BioPharma, Bristol Myers Squibb.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(A) Kaplan-Meier estimate of PFS in the intent-to-treat population. (B) Forest plot for PFS in subgroups. *p value is descriptive. Vertical lines indicate censoring. LCL and UCL denote the lower and upper limits of 95% CI, respectively. The intent-to-treat analysis set included all randomized patients regardless of whether they received study treatment. PFS was defined as the time from randomization to the first confirmed disease progression per modified immune-related response criteria, or death, whichever occurred earlier. Patients without documented death or disease progression were censored at their last evaluable tumor assessment date. CRF, case report form; LCL, lower confidence limit; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; NE, not estimable; PD-1, programmed cell death-1; PD-L1, programmed death-ligand 1; PFS, progression-free survival; SPD, sum of the products of the two largest perpendicular diameters; T-VEC, talimogene laherparepvec; UCL, upper confidence limit; ULN, upper limit of normal.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(A) Kaplan-Meier estimate of OS in the intent-to-treat population. (B) Forest plot for OS in subgroups. *p value is descriptive. Vertical lines indicate censoring. LCL and UCL denote the lower and upper limits of 95% CI, respectively. The intent-to-treat analysis set included all randomized patients regardless of whether they received study treatment. OS was defined as the time from randomization to death from any cause. Patients without documented death at the time of analysis were censored on the date that they were last known to have been alive. One month=365.25/12 days. CRF, case report form; LCL, lower confidence limit; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; NE, not estimable; OS, overall survival; PD-1, programmed cell death-1; PD-L1, programmed death-ligand 1; SPD, sum of the products of the two largest perpendicular diameters; T-VEC, talimogene laherparepvec; UCL, upper confidence limit; ULN, upper limit of normal.

References

    1. Postow MA, Chesney J, Pavlick AC, et al. Nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab in untreated melanoma. N Engl J Med 2015;372:2006–17. 10.1056/NEJMoa1414428 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Larkin J, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R, et al. Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab or monotherapy in untreated melanoma. N Engl J Med 2015;373:23–34. 10.1056/NEJMoa1504030 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dummer R, Ascierto PA, Gogas HJ, et al. Encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma (columbus): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2018;19:603–15. 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30142-6 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Larkin J, Ascierto PA, Dréno B, et al. Combined vemurafenib and cobimetinib in BRAF-mutated melanoma. N Engl J Med 2014;371:1867–76. 10.1056/NEJMoa1408868 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Long GV, Stroyakovskiy D, Gogas H, et al. Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition versus BRAF inhibition alone in melanoma. N Engl J Med 2014;371:1877–88. 10.1056/NEJMoa1406037 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data