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
- PMID: 28981385
- PMCID: PMC6075852
- DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2017.73.7379
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
Abstract
Purpose We evaluated the combination of talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma in a phase II study. To our knowledge, this was the first randomized trial to evaluate addition of an oncolytic virus to a checkpoint inhibitor. Methods Patients with unresectable stages IIIB to IV melanoma, with no more than one prior therapy if BRAF wild-type, no more than two prior therapies if BRAF mutant, measurable/injectable disease, and without symptomatic autoimmunity or clinically significant immunosuppression were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab or ipilimumab alone. Talimogene laherparepvec treatment began in week 1 (first dose, ≤ 4 mL × 106 plaque-forming units/mL; after 3 weeks, ≤ 4 mL × 108 plaque-forming units/mL every 2 weeks). Ipilimumab (3 mg/kg every 3 weeks; up to four doses) began week 1 in the ipilimumab alone arm and week 6 in the combination arm. The primary end point was objective response rate evaluated by investigators per immune-related response criteria. Results One hundred ninety-eight patients were randomly assigned to talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab (n = 98), or ipilimumab alone (n = 100). Thirty-eight patients (39%) in the combination arm and 18 patients (18%) in the ipilimumab arm had an objective response (odds ratio, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.5 to 5.5; P = .002). Responses were not limited to injected lesions; visceral lesion decreases were observed in 52% of patients in the combination arm and 23% of patients in the ipilimumab arm. Frequently occurring adverse events (AEs) included fatigue (combination, 59%; ipilimumab alone, 42%), chills (combination, 53%; ipilimumab alone, 3%), and diarrhea (combination, 42%; ipilimumab alone, 35%). Incidence of grade ≥ 3 AEs was 45% and 35%, respectively. Three patients in the combination arm had fatal AEs; none were treatment related. Conclusion The study met its primary end point; the objective response rate was significantly higher with talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone. These data indicate that the combination has greater antitumor activity without additional safety concerns versus ipilimumab.
Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01740297.
Figures





Similar articles
-
Economic Evaluation of Talimogene Laherparepvec Plus Ipilimumab Combination Therapy vs Ipilimumab Monotherapy in Patients With Advanced Unresectable Melanoma.JAMA Dermatol. 2019 Jan 1;155(1):22-28. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2018.3958. JAMA Dermatol. 2019. PMID: 30477000 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab alone in advanced melanoma (CheckMate 067): 4-year outcomes of a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial.Lancet Oncol. 2018 Nov;19(11):1480-1492. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30700-9. Epub 2018 Oct 22. Lancet Oncol. 2018. PMID: 30361170 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.J Immunother Cancer. 2023 May;11(5):e006270. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2022-006270. J Immunother Cancer. 2023. PMID: 37142291 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Combining talimogene laherparepvec with immunotherapies in melanoma and other solid tumors.Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2017 Jun;66(6):683-695. doi: 10.1007/s00262-017-1967-1. Epub 2017 Feb 25. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2017. PMID: 28238174 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Practical clinical guide on the use of talimogene laherparepvec monotherapy in patients with unresectable melanoma in Europe.Eur J Dermatol. 2018 Dec 1;28(6):736-749. doi: 10.1684/ejd.2018.3447. Eur J Dermatol. 2018. PMID: 30698145 Review.
Cited by
-
Engineering approaches for innate immune-mediated tumor microenvironment remodeling.Immunooncol Technol. 2023 Oct 6;21:100406. doi: 10.1016/j.iotech.2023.100406. eCollection 2024 Mar. Immunooncol Technol. 2023. PMID: 38213392 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Cutaneous melanoma and the immunotherapy revolution (Review).Int J Oncol. 2020 Sep;57(3):609-618. doi: 10.3892/ijo.2020.5088. Epub 2020 Jun 25. Int J Oncol. 2020. PMID: 32582963 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Intratumoral Injection of Immunotherapeutics: State of the Art and Future Directions.Radiology. 2024 Jul;312(1):e232654. doi: 10.1148/radiol.232654. Radiology. 2024. PMID: 39078294 Review.
-
Trial Watch: Oncolytic viro-immunotherapy of hematologic and solid tumors.Oncoimmunology. 2018 Aug 27;7(12):e1503032. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2018.1503032. eCollection 2018. Oncoimmunology. 2018. PMID: 30524901 Free PMC article. Review.
-
The efficacy and safety of oncolytic viruses in the treatment of intermediate to advanced solid tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Transl Cancer Res. 2021 Oct;10(10):4290-4302. doi: 10.21037/tcr-21-905. Transl Cancer Res. 2021. PMID: 35116288 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Antonia SJ, Larkin J, Ascierto PA: Immuno-oncology combinations: A review of clinical experience and future prospects. Clin Cancer Res 20:6258-6268, 2014 - PubMed
-
- YERVOY, ipilimumab. Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, 2015
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Associated data
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Research Materials
Miscellaneous