In this Review, Rambow et al. use melanoma as a model to present a series of theoretical arguments coupled to recent experimental evidence.,The authors discuss key roles for nongenetic state switching at various steps of the evolution of disease progression and therapy resistance.,An incomplete view of the mechanisms that drive metastasis, the primary cause of cancer-related death, has been a major barrier to development of effective therapeutics and prognostic diagnostics.,Increasing evidence indicates that the interplay between microenvironment, genetic lesions, and cellular plasticity drives the metastatic cascade and resistance to therapies.,Here, using melanoma as a model, we outline the diversity and trajectories of cell states during metastatic dissemination and therapy exposure, and highlight how understanding the magnitude and dynamics of nongenetic reprogramming in space and time at single-cell resolution can be exploited to develop therapeutic strategies that capitalize on nongenetic tumor evolution.
Nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (NIVO1+IPI3) is approved for first-line treatment of patients with advanced melanoma in several countries.,We conducted a phase IIIb/IV study (CheckMate 511) to determine if nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg (NIVO3+IPI1) improves the safety profile of the combination.,Patients (N = 360) age 18 years or older with previously untreated, unresectable stage III or IV melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to NIVO3+IPI1 or NIVO1+IPI3 once every 3 weeks for four doses.,After 6 weeks, all patients received NIVO 480 mg once every 4 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.,The primary end point was a comparison of the incidence of treatment-related grade 3 to 5 adverse events (AEs) between groups.,Secondary end points included descriptive analyses of objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival.,The study was not designed to formally demonstrate noninferiority of NIVO3+IPI1 to NIVO1+IPI3 for efficacy end points.,At a minimum follow-up of 12 months, incidence of treatment-related grade 3 to 5 AEs was 34% with NIVO3+IPI1 versus 48% with NIVO1+IPI3 (P = .006).,In descriptive analyses, objective response rate was 45.6% in the NIVO3+IPI1 group and 50.6% in the NIVO1+IPI3 group, with complete responses in 15.0% and 13.5% of patients, respectively.,Median progression-free survival was 9.9 months in the NIVO3+IPI1 group and 8.9 months in the NIVO1+IPI3 group.,Median overall survival was not reached in either group.,The CheckMate 511 study met its primary end point, demonstrating a significantly lower incidence of treatment-related grade 3-5 AEs with NIVO3+IPI1 versus NIVO1+IPI3.,Descriptive analyses showed that there were no meaningful differences between the groups for any efficacy end point, although longer follow up may help to better characterize efficacy outcomes.