Gotistobart in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced melanoma who have progressed on PD-1 inhibitors with or without CTLA-4 inhibitors.

S Siwen Hu-Lieskovan (Huntsman Cancer Institute at The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT) K Kari Lynn Kendra (Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH) K Kai He B Bently Patrick Doonan (Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL) E Eric S. Schaefer (Highlands Oncology Group, Fayetteville, AR) E Edward Arrowsmith (Tennessee Oncology, Chattanooga, TN) K Ki Young Chung (PRISMA Health Cancer Institute, Institute for Translational Oncology Research, Boiling Springs, SC) E Eric D. Whitman (Atlantic Health System, Morristown, NJ) U Ulka N. Vaishampayan (Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI) S Svetlana Shpyro (BioNTech SE, Mainz, Germany) Q Qiong Wang J Juanjuan Su (Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Synthetic Biology, Key Laboratory of Photoelectric Conversion and Utilization of Solar Energy, Qingdao Institute of Bioenergy and Bioprocess Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences) C Chris Leung (OncoC4 Inc, Rockville, MD) K Kazuharu Kai (OncoC4, Rockville, MD) Y Yang Liu P Pan Zheng (Key Laboratory of Superlight Materials & Surface Technology of Ministry of Education, College of Material Sciences and Chemical Engineering, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin 150001, P. R. China) T Tianhong Li

Abstract

9551 Background: Patients with advanced melanoma who progress on PD-1 and CTLA-4 inhibitors (IO-R/R) have poor prognosis. Gotistobart is a pH-sensitive anti-CTLA-4 mAb and we hypothesized that gotistobart in combination with pembrolizumab (pembro) could improve outcomes for ipilimumab plus nivolumab (ipi/nivo) treatment failure. PRESERVE-001 (NCT04140526) is a phase 1/2 study that evaluates safety and efficacy of gotistobart with pembro in patients with IO-R/R advanced melanoma. Methods: Patients with IO-R/R advanced melanoma were treated with 3 mg/kg or 6 mg/kg gotistobart plus 200 mg of pembro, Q3W. Treatment beyond progression was allowed at the physician’s discretion. Primary endpoints were ORR (RECIST 1.1) and safety. Exploratory endpoints included OS and an ad-hoc analysis of next-treatment free survival (NTFS; next treatment was identified as initiation of a new antineoplastic agent). Results: As of December 19, 2024, 33 and 34 patients received 3 mg/kg and 6 mg/kg gotistobart plus pembro, with median follow up associated with OS of 14.7 and 10.7 months, respectively. Of these, 67% (22/33) and 68% (23/34) had progressed on ipi/nivo. 30% (20/67) had tumors ≥10cm at study entry. Unconfirmed ORR (uORR) was 25.0% (8/32) and 26.5% (9/34), respectively, with 2 patients achieving CR in the 6 mg/kg group. Of patients who had prior ipi/nivo, uORR was 23.8% (5/21) and 21.7% (5/23), respectively. Efficacy was noted regardless of BRAF mutation status. NTFS rates at 12 months were 45.3% (95% CI 26.0–62.7) and 38.5% (95% CI 20.3–56.4), respectively. OS rates at 18 months were 61.7% (95% CI 40.1–77.5) and 51.9% (29.3–70.4), respectively. Grade ≥ 3 TRAEs were observed in 51.5% and 61.8% of patients in the 3 mg/kg and 6 mg/kg groups, respectively, with colitis/diarrhea or AST/ALT increase being most common. 30.3% and 32.4% of patients, respectively, were able to continue treatment after dose reduction. Conclusions: Gotistobart 3 mg/kg or 6 mg/kg plus pembro 200 mg, Q3W, provided durable response and clinically meaningful OS benefit, regardless of prior ipi treatment, with nearly half of patients being next-treatment free at one year follow up. To our knowledge,this is one of the largest cohorts ever studied in patients with advanced melanoma R/R to ipi/nivo. Clinical trial information: NCT04140526 . Additional parameters Gotistobart 3 mg/kg (N = 33) Gotistobart 6 mg/kg (N=34) Median age (range) 62 (29–83) 66 (24–81) Female n (%)/Male n (%)) 12 (36%)/21 (64%) 12 (35%)/22 (65%) ECOG score = 1 (of 0 or 1) 18 (55%) 16 (47%) Prior treated with ipi/nivo 22 (67%) 23 (68%) Gotistobart treatment duration in weeks, median (range) 19.0 (3–96) 8.9 (3–130) uORR % (n) 25.0% (8/32) 26.5% (9/34) uORR in patients prior treated with ipi/nivo % (n) 23.8% (5/21) 21.7 (5/23) DCR % (95% CI) 50 (31.9, 68.1) 50 (32.4, 67, 6) NTFS rates at 12 months % (95% CI) 45.3 (26.0, 62.7) 38.5 (20.3, 56.4) OS rate at 18 months % (95% CI) 61.7 (40.1–77.5) 51.9 (29.3–70.4)

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 43, Issue 16_suppl
Published June 01, 2025
Pages 9551-9551
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (17)

S

Siwen Hu-Lieskovan

Huntsman Cancer Institute at The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT

K

Kari Lynn Kendra

Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH

K

Kai He

B

Bently Patrick Doonan

Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL

E

Eric S. Schaefer

Highlands Oncology Group, Fayetteville, AR

E

Edward Arrowsmith

Tennessee Oncology, Chattanooga, TN

K

Ki Young Chung

PRISMA Health Cancer Institute, Institute for Translational Oncology Research, Boiling Springs, SC

E

Eric D. Whitman

Atlantic Health System, Morristown, NJ

U

Ulka N. Vaishampayan

Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

S

Svetlana Shpyro

BioNTech SE, Mainz, Germany

Q

Qiong Wang

J

Juanjuan Su

Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Synthetic Biology, Key Laboratory of Photoelectric Conversion and Utilization of Solar Energy, Qingdao Institute of Bioenergy and Bioprocess Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences

C

Chris Leung

OncoC4 Inc, Rockville, MD

K

Kazuharu Kai

OncoC4, Rockville, MD

Y

Yang Liu

P

Pan Zheng

Key Laboratory of Superlight Materials & Surface Technology of Ministry of Education, College of Material Sciences and Chemical Engineering, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin 150001, P. R. China

T

Tianhong Li