Evidence Hub

Efficacy and safety of lifileucel, an autologous tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte cell therapy, and pembrolizumab in patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor-naive unresectable or metastatic melanoma: Updated results from IOV-COM-202 cohort 1A.

S. Thomas, Helen J. Gogas, Y. Hong, G. In, Bernard Doger de Spéville Uribe, A. Furness, Almudena García Castaño, S. Haefliger et al.

Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2024

22 citations

Abstract

9505 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are front-line standard-of-care treatment (tx) for advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma. Despite recent advances in front-line tx, a majority of patients (pts) do not achieve long-term benefit. Lifileucel, a one-time autologous tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) cell therapy, potentially induces durable responses in pts with advanced melanoma previously treated with ICI. This study evaluates lifileucel combined with anti-PD-1 therapy in front-line advanced melanoma. Methods: IOV-COM-202 (NCT03645928) Cohort 1A assesses the efficacy and safety of lifileucel and pembrolizumab (pembro) in pts with ICI-naive unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Pts may have received BRAF/MEK inhibitor tx if BRAF mutation-positive. Eligible pts must have ≥1 resectable lesion (≥1.5 cm diameter) for 22-day cryopreserved lifileucel manufacturing, and ≥1 measurable lesion for response assessment per RECIST v1.1. The tx regimen consists of pembro, nonmyeloablative lymphodepletion (cyclophosphamide and fludarabine), a single lifileucel infusion (1 × 109 – 150 × 109 cells), ≤6 doses of IL-2 (600,000 IU/kg IV), and continued pembro until disease progression, or unacceptable toxicity for ≤24 months. The endpoints are investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) and incidence of grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE). Results: As of 22-Dec-2023, 22 pts with a median (range) age of 48.5 (18–68) years received lifileucel and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free