Introduction

Endogenous granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), identified by its ability to support differentiation of hematopoietic cells into several types of myeloid cells, is now known to support maturation and maintain the metabolic capacity of mononuclear phagocytes including monocytes, macrophages, and dendritic cells. These cells sense and attack potential pathogens, present antigens to adaptive immune cells, and recruit other immune cells. Recombinant human (rhu) GM-CSF (e.g., sargramostim [glycosylated, yeast-derived rhu GM-CSF]) has immune modulating properties and can restore the normal function of mononuclear phagocytes rendered dysfunctional by deficient or insufficient endogenous GM-CSF.

Methods

We reviewed the emerging biologic and cellular effects of GM-CSF. Experts in clinical disease areas caused by deficient or insufficient endogenous GM-CSF examined the role of GM-CSF in mononuclear phagocyte disorders including autoimmune pulmonary alveolar proteinosis (aPAP), diverse infections (including COVID-19), wound healing, and anti-cancer immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

Results

We discuss emerging data for GM-CSF biology including the positive effects on mitochondrial function and cell metabolism, augmentation of phagocytosis and efferocytosis, and immune cell modulation. We further address how giving exogenous rhu GM-CSF may control or treat mononuclear phagocyte dysfunction disorders caused or exacerbated by GM-CSF deficiency or insufficiency. We discuss how rhu GM-CSF may augment the anti-cancer effects of immune checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy as well as ameliorate immune-related adverse events.

Discussion

We identify research gaps, opportunities, and the concept that rhu GM-CSF, by supporting and restoring the metabolic capacity and function of mononuclear phagocytes, can have significant therapeutic effects. rhu GM-CSF (e.g., sargramostim) might ameliorate multiple diseases of GM-CSF deficiency or insufficiency and address a high unmet medical need.

We conducted a randomized phase III trial to evaluate whether adjuvant pembrolizumab for one year (647 patients) improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) or overall survival (OS) in comparison with high-dose IFNα-2b for one year or ipilimumab for up to three years (654 patients), the approved standard-of-care adjuvant immunotherapies at the time of enrollment for patients with high-risk resected melanoma. At a median follow-up of 47.5 months, pembrolizumab was associated with significantly longer RFS than prior standard-of-care adjuvant immunotherapies [HR, 0.77; 99.62% confidence interval (CI), 0.59-0.99; P = 0.002]. There was no statistically significant association with OS among all patients (HR, 0.82; 96.3% CI, 0.61-1.09; P = 0.15). Proportions of treatment-related adverse events of grades 3 to 5 were 19.5% with pembrolizumab, 71.2% with IFNα-2b, and 49.2% with ipilimumab. Therefore, adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved RFS but not OS compared with the prior standard-of-care immunotherapies for patients with high-risk resected melanoma.

Significance

Adjuvant PD-1 blockade therapy decreases the rates of recurrence, but not survival, in patients with surgically resectable melanoma, substituting the prior standard-of-care immunotherapies for this cancer. See related commentary by Smithy and Shoushtari, p. 599. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 587.

Importance

Use of prognostic gene expression profile (GEP) testing in cutaneous melanoma (CM) is rising despite a lack of endorsement as standard of care.

Objective

To develop guidelines within the national Melanoma Prevention Working Group (MPWG) on integration of GEP testing into the management of patients with CM, including (1) review of published data using GEP tests, (2) definition of acceptable performance criteria, (3) current recommendations for use of GEP testing in clinical practice, and (4) considerations for future studies.

Evidence review

The MPWG members and other international melanoma specialists participated in 2 online surveys and then convened a summit meeting. Published data and meeting abstracts from 2015 to 2019 were reviewed.

Findings

The MPWG members are optimistic about the future use of prognostic GEP testing to improve risk stratification and enhance clinical decision-making but acknowledge that current utility is limited by test performance in patients with stage I disease. Published studies of GEP testing have not evaluated results in the context of all relevant clinicopathologic factors or as predictors of regional nodal metastasis to replace sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). The performance of GEP tests has generally been reported for small groups of patients representing particular tumor stages or in aggregate form, such that stage-specific performance cannot be ascertained, and without survival outcomes compared with data from the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition melanoma staging system international database. There are significant challenges to performing clinical trials incorporating GEP testing with SLNB and adjuvant therapy. The MPWG members favor conducting retrospective studies that evaluate multiple GEP testing platforms on fully annotated archived samples before embarking on costly prospective studies and recommend avoiding routine use of GEP testing to direct patient management until prospective studies support their clinical utility.

Conclusions and relevance

More evidence is needed to support using GEP testing to inform recommendations regarding SLNB, intensity of follow-up or imaging surveillance, and postoperative adjuvant therapy. The MPWG recommends further research to assess the validity and clinical applicability of existing and emerging GEP tests. Decisions on performing GEP testing and patient management based on these results should only be made in the context of discussion of testing limitations with the patient or within a multidisciplinary group.

Background

Whether pembrolizumab given both before surgery (neoadjuvant therapy) and after surgery (adjuvant therapy), as compared with pembrolizumab given as adjuvant therapy alone, would increase event-free survival among patients with resectable stage III or IV melanoma is unknown.

Methods

In a phase 2 trial, we randomly assigned patients with clinically detectable, measurable stage IIIB to IVC melanoma that was amenable to surgical resection to three doses of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab, surgery, and 15 doses of adjuvant pembrolizumab (neoadjuvant-adjuvant group) or to surgery followed by pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for a total of 18 doses) for approximately 1 year or until disease recurred or unacceptable toxic effects developed (adjuvant-only group). The primary end point was event-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Events were defined as disease progression or toxic effects that precluded surgery; the inability to resect all gross disease; disease progression, surgical complications, or toxic effects of treatment that precluded the initiation of adjuvant therapy within 84 days after surgery; recurrence of melanoma after surgery; or death from any cause. Safety was also evaluated.

Results

At a median follow-up of 14.7 months, the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group (154 patients) had significantly longer event-free survival than the adjuvant-only group (159 patients) (P = 0.004 by the log-rank test). In a landmark analysis, event-free survival at 2 years was 72% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64 to 80) in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 49% (95% CI, 41 to 59) in the adjuvant-only group. The percentage of patients with treatment-related adverse events of grades 3 or higher during therapy was 12% in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 14% in the adjuvant-only group.

Conclusions

Among patients with resectable stage III or IV melanoma, event-free survival was significantly longer among those who received pembrolizumab both before and after surgery than among those who received adjuvant pembrolizumab alone. No new toxic effects were identified. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and Merck Sharp and Dohme; S1801 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03698019.).