Search

Abstract Background Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is the treatment of choice in advanced rectal cancer, even though there are many patients who will not benefit from it. There are still no effective methods for predicting which patients will respond or not. The present study aimed to define the genomic profile of rectal tumors and to identify alterations that are predictive of response in order to optimize therapeutic strategies. Methods Forty-eight candidates for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were recruited and their pretherapy biopsies analyzed by array Comparative Genomic Hybridization (aCGH). Pathologic response was evaluated by tumor regression grade. Results Both Hidden Markov Model and Smoothing approaches identified similar alterations, with a prevalence of DNA gains. Non responsive patients had a different alteration profile from responsive ones, with a higher number of genome changes mainly located on 2q21, 3q29, 7p22-21, 7q21, 7q36, 8q23-24, 10p14-13, 13q12, 13q31-34, 16p13, 17p13-12 and 18q23 chromosomal regions. Conclusions This exploratory study suggests that an in depth characterization of chromosomal alterations by aCGH would provide useful predictive information on response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and could help to optimize therapy in rectal cancer patients. The data discussed in this study are available on the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus [GEO: GSE25885].

Abstract Background Engagement of CD40 promotes survival of undifferentiated nasopharyngeal carcinoma (UNPC) cells and similar effects are induced by the EBV oncoprotein LMP-1 that is expressed in a fraction of cases. Considering that CD40 may be activated also by the soluble isoform of CD40L (sCD40L), we investigated the serum levels of sCD40L in a series of 61 UNPC patients from Italy, a non-endemic area for this disease. Results At diagnosis, serum samples of UNPC patients contained significantly higher levels of sCD40L than age-matched healthy controls (p < 0.001). High levels of sCD40L (i.e., >18 ng/ml) were more frequently found in patients + lymphoid cells admixed to neoplastic UNPC cells were detected in cases with high serum levels of sCD40L, suggesting that sCD40L is probably produced within the tumor mass. Conclusion sCD40L may contribute to CD40 activation in UNPC cells, particularly of LMP-1-negative cases, further supporting the crucial role of CD40 signalling in the pathogenesis of UNPC. sCD40L levels may be useful to identify UNPC patients with occult distant metastases at presentation.

We reviewed the clinical results of a dendritic cell-based phase II clinical vaccine trial in stage IV melanoma and analyzed a patient subgroup treated with standard therapies after stopping vaccination. From 2003 to 2009, 24 metastatic melanoma patients were treated with mature dendritic cells pulsed with autologous tumor lysate and keyhole limpet hemocyanin and low-dose interleukin-2. Overall response (OR) to vaccination was 37.5% with a clinical benefit of 54.1%. All 14 responders showed delayed type hypersensitivity positivity. Median overall survival (OS) was 15 months (95% CI, 8-33). Eleven patients underwent other treatments (3 surgery, 2 biotherapy, 2 radiotherapy, 2 chemotherapy, and 4 biochemotherapy) after stopping vaccination. Of these, 2 patients had a complete response and 5 a partial response, with an OR of 63.6%.Median OS was 34 months (range 16-61). Our results suggest that therapeutic DC vaccination could favor clinical response in patients after more than one line of therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND Nivolumab combined with ipilimumab resulted in longer progression-free survival and a higher objective response rate than ipilimumab alone in a phase 3 trial involving patients with advanced melanoma. We now report 3-year overall survival outcomes in this trial. METHODS We randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, patients with previously untreated advanced melanoma to receive nivolumab at a dose of 1 mg per kilogram of body weight plus ipilimumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks; nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks plus placebo; or ipilimumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses plus placebo, until progression, the occurrence of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. Randomization was stratified according to programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status, BRAF mutation status, and metastasis stage. The two primary end points were progressionfree survival and overall survival in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and in the nivolumab group versus the ipilimumab group. RESULTS At a minimum follow-up of 36 months, the median overall survival had not been reached in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and was 37.6 months in the nivolumab group, as compared with 19.9 months in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio for death with nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.55 [P<0.001]; hazard ratio for death with nivolumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.65 [P<0.001]). The overall survival rate at 3 years was 58% in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 52% in the nivolumab group, as compared with 34% in the ipilimumab group. The safety profile was unchanged from the initial report. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 59% of the patients in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group, in 21% of those in the nivolumab group, and in 28% of those in the ipilimumab group. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with advanced melanoma, significantly longer overall survival occurred with combination therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or with nivolumab alone than with ipilimumab alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The impact of the order of treatment with checkpoint inhibitors or BRAF/MEK inhibitors on the development of brain metastases in patients with metastatic unresectable BRAF V600-mutant melanoma is unknown. The SECOMBIT trial examined the impact of the order of receipt of these treatments in such patients., Methods: In this three-arm trial, we reviewed patients without brain metastases who received the BRAF/MEK inhibitors encorafenib and binimetinib until they had progressive disease followed by the immune checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab and nivolumab (arm A); or treatment with ipilimumab and nivolumab until they had progressive disease followed by encorafenib and binimetinib (arm B); or treatment with encorafenib and binimetinib for 8 weeks followed by ipilimumab and nivolumab until they had progressive disease followed by retreatment with encorafenib arm binimetinib (arm C)., Results: Brain metastases were discovered during the trial in 23/69 patients in arm A, 11/69 in arm B, and 9/68 in arm C. At a median follow-up of 56 months, the 60-month brain metastases-free survival rates were 56% for arm A, 80% for arm B (hazard ratio [HR] vs. A: 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23 to 0.58), and 85% for arm C (HR vs. A: 0.35, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.76)., Conclusions: In patients with unresectable metastatic melanoma, the treatment sequence of immune checkpoint inhibition followed by BRAF/MEK inhibitors was associated with longer periods of new brain metastases-free survival than the reverse sequence. A regimen in which immune checkpoint inhibition was sandwiched between BRAF/MEK inhibition also appeared to be protective against brain metastases. (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02631447.).

Background: Previous results from this trial showed longer overall survival after treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or with nivolumab monotherapy than with ipilimumab monotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma. Given that patients with advanced melanoma are living longer than 7.5 years, longer-term data were needed to address new clinically relevant questions., Methods: We randomly assigned patients with previously untreated advanced melanoma, in a 1:1:1 ratio, to one of the following regimens: nivolumab (1 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks; nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks plus placebo; or ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 3 weeks for four doses plus placebo. Treatment was continued until the occurrence of disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. Randomization was stratified according to BRAF mutation status, metastasis stage, and programmed death ligand 1 expression. Here, we report the final, 10-year results of this trial, including results for overall survival and melanoma-specific survival, as well as durability of response., Results: With a minimum follow-up of 10 years, median overall survival was 71.9 months with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, 36.9 months with nivolumab, and 19.9 months with ipilimumab. The hazard ratio for death was 0.53 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44 to 0.65) for nivolumab plus ipilimumab as compared with ipilimumab and was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.76) for nivolumab as compared with ipilimumab. Median melanoma-specific survival was more than 120 months with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (not reached, with 37% of the patients alive at the end of the trial), 49.4 months with nivolumab, and 21.9 months with ipilimumab. Among patients who had been alive and progression-free at 3 years, 10-year melanoma-specific survival was 96% with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, 97% with nivolumab, and 88% with ipilimumab., Conclusions: The final trial results showed a continued, ongoing survival benefit with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and with nivolumab monotherapy, as compared with ipilimumab monotherapy, in patients with advanced melanoma. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 067 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844505.)., (Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Glioblastoma (GBM) is a poor prognosis grade 4 glioma. After surgical resection, the standard therapy consists of concurrent radiotherapy (RT) and temozolomide (TMZ) followed by TMZ alone. Our previous data on melanoma patients showed that Dendritic Cell vaccination (DCvax) could increase the amount of intratumoral-activated cytotoxic T lymphocytes., Methods: This is a single-arm, monocentric, phase II trial in two steps according to Simon's design. The trial aims to evaluate progression-free survival (PFS) at three months and the safety of a DCvax integrated with standard therapy in resected GBM patients. DCvax administration begins after completion of RT-CTwith weekly administrations for 4 weeks, then is alternated monthly with TMZ cycles. The primary endpoints are PFS at three months and safety. One of the secondary objectives is to evaluate the immune response both in vitro and in vivo (DTH skin test)., Results: By December 2022, the first pre-planned step of the study was concluded with the enrollment, treatment and follow up of 9 evaluable patients. Two patients had progressed within three months after leukapheresis, but none had experienced DCvax-related G3-4 toxicities Five patients experienced a positive DTH test towards KLH and one of these also towards autologous tumor homogenate. The median PFS from leukapheresis was 11.3 months and 12.2 months from surgery., Conclusions: This combination therapy is well-tolerated, and the two endpoints required for the first step have been achieved. Therefore, the study will proceed to enroll the remaining 19 patients. (Eudract number: 2020-003755-15 https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2020-003755-15/IT)., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision., (Copyright © 2024 Ridolfi, Gurrieri, Riva, Bulgarelli, De Rosa, Guidoboni, Fausti, Ranallo, Calpona, Tazzari, Petrini, Granato, Pancisi, Foca, Dall'Agata, Bondi, Amadori, Cortesi, Zani, Ancarani, Gamboni, Polselli, Pasini, Bartolini, Maimone, Arpa and Tosatto.)

Third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors are the first-line gold standard in treating advanced non-small-cell lung cancer bearing common EGFR mutations, but data documenting clinical efficacy in uncommon mutations are currently limited. In this paper, we describe the case of a patient bearing uncommon compound EGFR mutations in exon 20, who experienced a near-complete response to third-line Osimertinib, with metabolic complete response of pulmonary, nodal and ostheolytic lesions. This radiological assessment corresponded to an ECOG PS improvement (from three to one) and a substantial clinical benefit for the patients. Out of two mutations, S768I was associated with poor response to third-generation TKI and V774M had unknown clinical significance, highlighting the complexity of the correct management of these kinds of mutations. We reviewed the literature to document the up-to-date preclinical and clinical data concerning third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors for the treatment of patients bearing uncommon EGFR mutations.

Oligometastatic patients at [ 18 F]F-Fluorocholine ( 18 F-choline) PET/CT may be treated with metastasis-directed therapy (MDT). The aim of this study was to combine radiomic parameters extracted from 18 F-choline PET/CT and clinical data to build machine learning (ML) models able to predict MDT efficacy., Methods: Oligorecurrent patients (≤5 lesions) at 18 F-choline PET/CT and treated with MDT were collected. A per-patient and per-lesion analysis was performed, using 2-year biochemical recurrence (BCR) after MDT as the standard of reference. Clinical parameters and radiomic features (RFts) extracted from 18 F-choline PET/CT were used for training five ML Models for both CT and PET images. The performance metrics were calculated (i.e., Area Under the Curve-AUC; Classification Accuracy-CA)., Results: A total of 46 metastases were selected and segmented in 29 patients. BCR after MDT occurred in 20 (69%) patients after 2 years of follow-up. In total, 73 and 33 robust RFTs were selected from CT and PET datasets, respectively. PET ML Models showed better performances than CT Models for discriminating BCR after MDT, with Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) being the best model (AUC = 0.95; CA = 0.90)., Conclusion: ML Models built using clinical parameters and CT and PET RFts extracted via 18 F-choline PET/CT can accurately predict BCR after MDT in oligorecurrent PCa patients. If validated externally, ML Models could improve the selection of oligorecurrent PCa patients for treatment with MDT.

Background: The primary analysis of the phase III NIBIT-M2 study showed a 41% 4-year overall survival (OS) of melanoma patients with asymptomatic brain metastases treated with ipilimumab plus nivolumab., Methods: Here, we report the 7-year efficacy outcomes and the Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) analyses of the NIBIT-M2 study., Results: As of May 1, 2023, at a median follow-up of 67 months (mo), the median OS was 8.5 (95% CI: 6.6-10.3), 8.2 (95% CI: 2.1-14.3) and 29.2 (95% CI: 0-69.9) mo for the fotemustine (F) Arm A, ipilimumab plus fotemustine Arm B, and ipilimumab plus nivolumab Arm C, respectively. The 7-year OS rate was 10.0% (95% CI: 0-22.5) in Arm A, 10.3% (95% CI: 0-22.6) in Arm B, and 42.8% (95% CI: 23.4-62.2) in Arm C. HRQoL was preserved in all treatment arms. Most functional scales evaluated from baseline to W12 were preserved, with a lower mean score decrease for EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ)-C30 and an increase for EORTC QLQ-Brain neoplasm (BN20) in patients receiving ipilimumab plus nivolumab., Conclusions: With the longest follow-up available to date in melanoma patients with asymptomatic brain metastases, the NIBIT-M2 study continues to show persistent therapeutic efficacy of I ipilimumab plus nivolumab while preserving HRQoL., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest AMDG has served as a consultant and/or advisor to Incyte, Pierre Fabre, Glaxo Smith Kline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp Dohme, Sunpharma, Immunocore and Sanofi and has received compensated educational activities from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp Dohme, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi; VCS has served as advisor to Merk Serono, Novartis, and Pierre Fabre and has received travel accommodation from Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Pierre Fabre and has received personal fees as invited speaker from Sanofi, Merck Sharp Dohme, and Pierre Fabre; MDV has served as consultant and/or advisor to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, and Roche; PFF has served as consultant and/or advisor to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Merck Sharp Dohme, Roche and Novartis; MG has served as a consultant and/or advisor to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp Dohme, and Novartis; PQ has served as consultant and/or advisor to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp Dohme, Novartis, Roche, Pierre Fabre, and Igea and has received personal fees as invited speaker from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp Dohme, Novartis, Roche, Pierre Fabre, and Igea; M Guidoboni has served as consultant and/or advisor to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and has received grant support from Merck Sharp Dohme; PM has served as a consultant and/or advisor to Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck Sharp Dohme, AstraZeneca and has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck Sharp Dohme, AstraZeneca, Boehringer, Celgene, and Roche; LC has served as consultant and/or advisor to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, and Merck Sharp Dohme, and has received compensated educational activities from Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca and Sanofi; RD has served as a consultant and/or advisor to Merck Serono, Sciclone Pharmaceuticals, and has received compensated educational activities from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp Dohme, Pierre Fabre; MM has served as consultant and/or advisor to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Merck Serono, Sanofi Aventis and Novartis, and has received grant support from Novartis; M Maio has served as a consultant and/or advisor to Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp Dohme, Incyte, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Eli Lilly, Glaxo Smith Kline, Sciclone, Sanofi, Alfasigma, and Merck Serono; M Maio, RC, and AC own shares in Epigen Therapeutics, Srl. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

No prospective data were available prior to 2021 to inform selection between combination BRAF and MEK inhibition versus dual blockade of programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) and cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) as first-line treatment options for BRAFV600-mutant melanoma. SECOMBIT (NCT02631447) was a randomized, three-arm, noncomparative phase II trial in which patients were randomized to one of two sequences with immunotherapy or targeted therapy first, with a third arm in which an 8-week induction course of targeted therapy followed by a planned switch to immunotherapy was the first treatment. BRAF/MEK inhibitors were encorafenib plus binimetinib and checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab plus nivolumab. Primary outcome of overall survival was previously reported, demonstrating improved survival with immunotherapy administered until progression and followed by BRAF/MEK inhibition. Here we report 4-year survival outcomes, confirming long-term benefit with first-line immunotherapy. We also describe preliminary results of predefined biomarkers analyses that identify a trend toward improved 4-year overall survival and total progression-free survival in patients with loss-of-function mutations affecting JAK or low baseline levels of serum interferon gamma (IFNy). These long-term survival outcomes confirm immunotherapy as the preferred first-line treatment approach for most patients with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma, and the biomarker analyses are hypothesis-generating for future investigations of predictors of durable benefit with dual checkpoint blockade and targeted therapy., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Brain metastases (BM) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels above the upper limit of normal (ULN) are associated with poor prognosis in patients with melanoma. Although treatment with the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib and the MEK inhibitor trametinib have demonstrated long-term clinical benefit in patients with melanoma, data on their efficacy in patients with BM are limited., Methods: DESCRIBE Italy is an observational, retrospective, real-world study evaluating dabrafenib plus trametinib in 499 patients with BRAF V600 -mutant stage III unresectable or stage IV melanoma from various sites across Italy. Here, we analyzed the clinical outcomes for the subgroup of patients receiving first-line treatment and presenting with BM at diagnosis and assessed the impact of predictive factors such as LDH levels and the presence of other metastases on median progression-free survival (mPFS)., Results: Overall, 325 evaluable patients were on first-line therapy and are the focus of this analysis; of these, 76 patients (23.4%) had BM at baseline. mPFS was lower for patients with BM at baseline compared with overall patients (8.7 months vs 9.3 months, respectively). Patients with BM at diagnosis and LDH >ULN had a considerably shorter mPFS compared with patients with LDH ⩽ULN (5.3 months vs 9.9 months, respectively). mPFS was noticeably longer for patients with cerebral metastases only compared with patients with cerebral and other metastases (15.0 months vs 8.7 months, respectively)., Conclusions: Dabrafenib plus trametinib showed effectiveness in a real-world population of patients with advanced BRAF V600 -mutated melanoma and BM at baseline, supporting its use in this population with poor outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: MA has received research funding from AstraZeneca and Pharmamar; has received consulting fees from Bayer, BMS, Merck and Novartis; and has received travel support from BMS, Merck and Tesaro. VC-S has received honoraria from MDS, Merck Serono and Novartis; has received travel support from BMS, Novartis and Pierre Fabre; and has participated in advisory boards for Pierre Fabre. MGuidoboni has received consulting fees from BMS and Novartis; has received honoraria from BMS and Pierre Fabre; has received travel support from Pierre Fabre; and has participated in advisory boards for BMS. RD has received honoraria from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi. AM has received honoraria from Merck, Pierre Fabre and Sun Pharma, and has participated in advisory boards for BMS, MSD, Novartis and Pierre Fabre. FC has received honoraria from BMS, Merck, Novartis and Pierre Fabre, and has participated in advisory boards for BMS, Merck and Novartis. PAA has received research funding from BMS, Pfizer, Roche-Genentech and Sanofi; has received consulting fees from 4SC, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Idera, Immunocore, Italfarmaco, iTeos, Lunaphore, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Nektar, Nouscom, Novartis, Oncosec, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Roche-Genentech, Sandoz, Sanofi, Seagen and Sun Pharma; and has received travel support from MSD. RM has received consulting fees from BMS, Ipsen, MSD, Novartis and Pierre Fabre; has received honoraria from BMS, Ipsen, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi; has received travel support from BMS, Ipsen, MSD and Novartis; has participated in advisory boards for BMS, Ipsen, MSD, Novartis and Pierre Fabre. VF has received honoraria from BMS, MSD, Novartis and Pierre Fabre; has received travel support from BMS and Pierre Fabre; and has participated in advisory boards for BMS, MSD and Novartis. MT has received institutional research funding from Novartis; has received honoraria from BMS, Novartis and Pierre Fabre; has received travel support from MSD; and has participated in advisory boards for Novartis. GT has received honoraria from Molteni, Novartis and Pharmamar. MGuida has participated in advisory boards for BMS, Merck, Novartis and Pierre Fabre. MDV has received consulting fees from BMS, Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi; has received honoraria from BMS, Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi; has received travel support from BMS, Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi; and has participated in advisory boards for BMS, Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi. IGM is a Novartis employee. PQ has received consulting fees from BMS, Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche and Sanofi; has received honoraria from BMS, Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche and Sanofi; has received travel support from BMS, Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche and Sanofi; and has participated in advisory boards for BMS, Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche and Sanofi. MB, PF, RG, GLR, and GR have no conflict of interest to declare.

Introduction: The CheckMate 238 randomised study demonstrated the relevant benefit in terms of recurrence-free survival (RFS) of nivolumab versus ipilimumab in resected stage IIIB-C or IV melanoma patients with a tolerable safety profile., Materials and Methods: From November 2018 to June 2019, 611 patients with stage III and IV resected melanoma were enroled to receive nivolumab as part of an Italian Expanded Access Programme (EAP). According to stages, 77% were stage III while 141 (23%) were stage IV with no evidence of disease (NED). Among stage III, 121 patients had IIIA (19.8%)., Results: After a median follow-up of 23 months, the RFS in the Intention-to-Treat (ITT) population was 76.6% at 1 year and 59.6% at 2 years; 1- and 2-year distant metastasis-free survival were 83.7% and 71.2%, respectively. The overall survival rate in the ITT population was 93.8% at 1 year and 85.5% at 2 years. No significant differences in RFS were observed according to BRAF status. Treatment-related adverse events of grades 3-4 occurred in 11.5% of patients., Conclusion: This paper reports the results of the Italian Nivolumab EAP in the adjuvant setting of stage III and IV NED melanoma patients. Our results confirm in a real-life setting the clinical activity and safety of nivolumab reported in the CheckMate238 registrative/pivotal. The enroled cohort of 611 patients highlights the relevant clinical need in this setting, also confirmed by the very short accrual time, representing one of the largest series reported as adjuvant EAP with the longest follow-up., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To address the paucity of data in patients with historically poor outcomes, we conducted the single-arm phase IIIb CheckMate 401 study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab monotherapy in clinically diverse patient populations with advanced melanoma., Methods: Treatment-naive patients with unresectable stage III-IV melanoma received nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks (four doses) followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg (240 mg following a protocol amendment) once every 2 weeks for ≤24 months. The primary end point was the incidence of grade 3-5 select treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Overall survival (OS) was a secondary end point. Outcomes were evaluated in subgroups defined by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS), brain metastasis status, and melanoma subtype., Results: In total, 533 patients received at least one dose of study drug. Grade 3-5 select TRAEs affecting the GI (16%), hepatic (15%), endocrine (11%), skin (7%), renal (2%), and pulmonary (1%) systems occurred in the all-treated population; similar incidence rates were observed across all subgroups. At 21.6 months' median follow-up, 24-month OS rates were 63% in the all-treated population, 44% in the ECOG PS 2 subgroup (including patients with cutaneous melanoma only), 71% in the brain metastasis subgroup, 36% in the ocular/uveal melanoma subgroup, and 38% in the mucosal melanoma subgroup., Conclusion: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab monotherapy was tolerable in patients with advanced melanoma and poor prognostic characteristics. Efficacy was similar between the all-treated population and patients with brain metastases. Reduced efficacy was observed in patients with ECOG PS 2, ocular/uveal melanoma, and/or mucosal melanoma, highlighting the continued need for novel treatment options for these difficult-to-treat patients.

Background: Following the increased survival of patients with metastatic melanoma thanks to immunotherapy and targeted therapy, neoadjuvant approaches are being investigated to address the unmet needs of unresponsive and intolerant patients. We aim to investigate the efficacy of neoadjuvant plus adjuvant combined or sequenced vemurafenib, cobimetinib and atezolizumab in patients with high-risk, resectable BRAF -mutated and wild-type melanoma., Methods: The study is a phase II, open-label, randomized non-comparative trial in patients with stage IIIB/C/D surgically resectable, BRAF -mutated and wild-type melanoma, with three possible treatments: (1) vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily from day 1 to 42; (2) vemurafenib 720 mg twice daily from day 1 to 42; (3) cobimetinib 60 mg once daily from day 1 to 21 and from day 29 to 42; and (4) atezolizumab 840 mg for two cycles (day 22 and day 43).Patients will be randomized to three different arms: A) BRAF -mutated patients will receive over 6 weeks (1) + (3); B) BRAF -mutated patients will receive over 6 weeks (2) + (3) + (4); C) BRAF wild-type patients will receive over 6 weeks (3) + (4). All patients will also receive atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks for 17 cycles after surgery and after a second screening period (up to 6 weeks)., Discussion: Neoadjuvant therapy for regional metastases may improve operability and outcomes and facilitate the identification of biomarkers that can guide further lines of treatment. Patients with clinical stage III melanoma may especially benefit from neoadjuvant treatment, as the outcomes of surgery alone are very poor. It is expected that the combination of neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment may reduce the incidence of relapse and improve survival., Clinical Trial Registration: eudract.ema.europa.eu/protocol.htm, identifier 2018-004841-17., Competing Interests: PA has/had a consultant/advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Merck Serono, Pierre-Fabre, AstraZeneca, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Sandoz, Immunocore, 4SC, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Oncosec, Nouscom, Lunaphore, Seagen, iTeos, Medicenna, Bio-Al Health, ValoTX, Replimmune. He also received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Pfizer, Sanofi. Travel support by Pfizer; Vanna Chiaron Sileni: Travel support for medical congress for Bristol Myers-Squibb, lectures fees and Advisory Board for Merck Sharp & Dohme, participation to advisory board for Novartis, Pierre Fabre; PiQ: speaker fees e advisory boards for BMS, MSD, Pierre-Fabre, Novartis, Roche; FS: Honoraria: BMS, Roche, Novartis, MSD, Sanofi, Merck, Sunpharma, Pierre-Fabre. Advisory Board: MSD, Novartis, Sunphama, Pierre Fabre; Massimo Guidoboni Consulting or Advisory Role: BMS, Novartis, Pierre Fabre Speakers’ Bureau: BMS, Novartis, Pierre Fabre Research Funding; MV: reports research finding to their institution for clinical studies from MSD and honoraria as consultant or advisor for Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, and Pierre Fabre; KP reports advisory board roles with Abbvie, LEO Pharma, Janssen, Almirall, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, and Sanofi; PaQ: advisory and consultant role for Roche, BMS, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi; DM has received honoraria for professional services and consultancy for Novartis, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Pierre-Fabre, Sanofi Genzyme, MSD Italia S.r.l., Roche, Skyline Dx B.V, Diatech Pharmacogenetics. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Ascierto, Cioli, Chiarion-Sileni, Quaglino, Spagnolo, Guidoboni, Del Vecchio, Peris, Queirolo, Fioretto, Caracò, Paone, Sorrentino, Capone, Giannarelli, Ferrara, Massi and Trojaniello.)

Purpose: Limited prospective data are available on sequential immunotherapy and BRAF/MEK inhibition for BRAFV600 -mutant metastatic melanoma., Methods: SECOMBIT is a randomized, three-arm, noncomparative phase II trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02631447). Patients with untreated, metastatic BRAFV600 -mutant melanoma from 37 sites in nine countries were randomly assigned to arm A (encorafenib [450 mg orally once daily] plus binimetinib [45 mg orally twice daily] until progressive disease [PD] -> ipilimumab plus nivolumab [ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks and nivolumab 1 mg/kg once every 3 weeks × four cycles -> nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks]), arm B [ipilimumab plus nivolumab until PD -> encorafenib plus binimetinib], or arm C (encorafenib plus binimetinib for 8 weeks -> ipilimumab plus nivolumab until PD -> encorafenib plus binimetinib). The primary end point was overall survival (OS) at 2 years. Secondary end points included total progression-free survival, 3-year OS, best overall response rate, duration of response, and biomarkers in the intent-to-treat population. Safety was analyzed throughout sequential treatment in all participants who received at least one dose of study medication., Results: A total of 209 patients were randomly assigned (69 in arm A, 71 in arm B, and 69 in arm C). At a median follow-up of 32.2 (interquartile range, 27.9-41.6) months, median OS was not reached in any arm and more than 30 patients were alive in all arms. Assuming a null hypothesis of median OS of ≤ 15 months, the OS end point was met for all arms. The 2-year and 3-year OS rates were 65% (95% CI, 54 to 76) and 54% (95% CI, 41 to 67) in arm A, 73% (95% CI, 62 to 84) and 62% (95% CI, 48 to 76) in arm B, and 69% (95% CI, 59 to 80) and 60% (95% CI, 58 to 72) in arm C. No new safety signals emerged., Conclusion: Sequential immunotherapy and targeted therapy provide clinically meaningful survival benefits for patients with BRAFV600 -mutant melanoma.

Background: The objective of this study was to estimate the relative efficacy and safety of targeted therapies for the treatment of metastatic melanoma using a network meta-analysis (NMA)., Methods: A systematic literature review (SLR) identified studies in Medline, Embase and Cochrane published until November 2020. Screening used prespecified eligibility criteria. Following a transitivity assessment across included studies, Bayesian NMA was conducted., Results: A total of 43 publications reporting 15 targeted therapy trials and 42 reporting 18 immunotherapy trials were retained from the SLR and considered for the NMA. Due to substantial between-study heterogeneity with immunotherapy trials, the analysis considered a network restricted to targeted therapies. Among combination therapies, encorafenib + binimetinib was superior to dabrafenib + trametinib for overall response rate (OR = 1.86; 95 % credible interval [CrI] 1.10, 3.17), superior to vemurafenib + cobimetinib with fewer serious adverse events (SAEs) (OR = 0.51; 95 % CrI 0.29, 0.91) and fewer discontinuations due to AEs (OR = 0.45; 95 % CrI 0.21, 0.96), and superior to atezolizumab + vemurafenib + cobimetinib with fewer SAEs (OR = 0.41; 95 % CrI 0.21, 0.82). Atezolizumab + vemurafenib + cobimetinib and encorafenib + binimetinib were generally comparable for efficacy endpoints. Among double combination therapies, encorafenib + binimetinib showed high probabilities of being better for all efficacy and safety endpoints., Conclusions: This NMA confirms that combination therapies are more efficacious than monotherapies. Encorafenib + binimetinib has a favourable efficacy profile compared to other double combination therapies and a favourable safety profile compared to both double and triple combination therapies., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Advanced therapy medical products (ATMPs) are rapidly growing as innovative medicines for the treatment of several diseases. Hence, the role of quality analytical tests to ensure consistent product safety and quality has become highly relevant. Several clinical trials involving dendritic cell (DC)-based vaccines for cancer treatment are ongoing at our institute. The DC-based vaccine is prepared via CD14+ monocyte differentiation. A fresh dose of 10 million DCs is administered to the patient, while the remaining DCs are aliquoted, frozen, and stored in nitrogen vapor for subsequent treatment doses. To evaluate the maintenance of quality parameters and to establish a shelf life of frozen vaccine aliquots, a stability program was developed. Several parameters of the DC final product at 0, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months were evaluated. Our results reveal that after 24 months of storage in nitrogen vapor, the cell viability is in a range between 82% and 99%, the expression of maturation markers remains inside the criteria for batch release, the sterility tests are compliant, and the cell costimulatory capacity unchanged. Thus, the data collected demonstrate that freezing and thawing do not perturb the DC vaccine product maintaining over time its functional and quality characteristics.

Purpose: In the phase III CheckMate 067 trial, durable clinical benefit was demonstrated previously with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab. Here, we report 6.5-year efficacy and safety outcomes., Patients and Methods: Patients with previously untreated unresectable stage III or stage IV melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks (four doses) followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks (n = 314), nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks (n = 316), or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks (four doses; n = 315). Coprimary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab versus ipilimumab. Secondary end points included objective response rate, descriptive efficacy assessments of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab alone, and safety. Melanoma-specific survival (MSS; descriptive analysis), which excludes deaths unrelated to melanoma, was also evaluated., Results: Median OS (minimum follow-up, 6.5 years) was 72.1, 36.9, and 19.9 months in the combination, nivolumab, and ipilimumab groups, respectively. Median MSS was not reached, 58.7, and 21.9 months, respectively; 6.5-year OS rates were 57%, 43%, and 25% in patients with BRAF -mutant tumors and 46%, 42%, and 22% in those with BRAF -wild-type tumors, respectively. In patients who discontinued treatment, the median treatment-free interval was 27.6, 2.3, and 1.9 months, respectively. Since the 5-year analysis, no new safety signals were observed., Conclusion: These 6.5-year CheckMate 067 results, which include the longest median OS in a phase III melanoma trial reported to date and the first report of MSS, showed durable, improved clinical outcomes with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab versus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma and, in descriptive analyses, with the combination over nivolumab monotherapy., Competing Interests: Jedd D. WolchokStock and Other Ownership Interests: Tizona Therapeutics Inc, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Imvaq Therapeutics, Beigene, Linnaeus Therapeutics, Arsenal IO, Georgiamune, LLC, Apricity Therapeutics, Maverick Therapeutics, Trieza TherapeuticsConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Sellas Life Sciences, Lilly, Tizona Therapeutics, Inc, Amgen, Chugai Pharma, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Ascentage Pharma, PsiOxus Therapeutics, F-Star Biotechnology, Surface Oncology, Apricity Therapeutics, Astellas Pharma, Recepta Biopharma, Arsenal IO, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, IncDragonfly Therapeutics, Georgiamune, Kyowa Kirin Pharmaceutical, Maverick Therapeutics, Werewolf Therapeutics, Trishula Therapeutics, Idera, Imvaq Therapeutics, Bicara TherapeuticsResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst), Merck Sharp & Dohme (Inst)Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: I am a coinventor on an issued patent for DNA vaccines for treatment of cancer in companion animals. I am a coinventor on a patent for use of oncolytic Newcastle Disease virus. I am a coinventor and receive royalties for a blood test for monitoring myeloid derived suppressor cells. I am coinventor and receive royalties for a patent for immune modulating antibodies. I am a coinventor on a patent for CAR+ T cells targeting differentiation antigens as means to treat cancer. I am a coinventor on a patent for Anti-CD40 agonist mAb fused to Monophosphoryl Lipid A (MPL) for cancer therapy. Alphavirus replicon particles expressing TRP2. Engineered Vaccinia Viruses for Cancer Immunotherapy. Recombinant poxviruses for cancer immunotherapy Vanna Chiarion-SileniConsulting or Advisory Role: MSD Oncology, Merck Serono, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, RocheSpeakers' Bureau: Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck Serono, Pierre FabreTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre Rene GonzalezStock and Other Ownership Interests: AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, SanofiConsulting or Advisory Role: AmgenResearch Funding: Millenium Pharamceuticals (Inst), Takeda (Inst), Boston Biomedical (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Checkmate Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Incyte (Inst), Syndax (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst), Tesaro (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Morphotek (Inst), Checkmate Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Regeneron (Inst), Iovance Biotherapeutics (Inst), Nektar (Inst), Kartos Therapeutics (Inst), Taiga (Inst), Incyte (Inst), Exicure (Inst), Replimune (Inst), Alkermes (Inst), Ultimovacs (Inst), Moderna Therapeutics (Inst), OncoSec¸ Synlogic (Inst), Merck (Inst), Array BioPharma (Inst), Senhwa Biosciences (Inst), Immunocore (Inst), EMD Serono (Inst) Jean-Jacques GrobConsulting or Advisory Role: BMS, MSD Oncology, Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Merck KGaA, Sanofi, Pfizer, RocheSpeakers' Bureau: NovartisTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: BMS, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pierre Fabre Piotr RutkowskiHonoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, MerckConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Blueprint Medicines, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, MSD, AmgenSpeakers' Bureau: Pfizer, Novartis, LillyResearch Funding: Novartis (Inst), Roche (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Orphan Europe, Pierre Fabre Christopher D. LaoConsulting or Advisory Role: Immunocore, BMSResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb, Dynavax Technologies, GenentechTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Immunocore, BMS C. Lance CoweyEmployment: Texas Oncology, US OncologyLeadership: US OncologyHonoraria: MerckConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck, Novartis, Pfizer¸ Iovance BiotherapeuticsResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst), Novartis (Inst), EMD Serono (Inst), Merck (Inst), Array BioPharma (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Regeneron (Inst), Celldex (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst) Dirk SchadendorfHonoraria: Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Immunocore, Merck Serono, Array BioPharma, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Philogen, Regeneron, 4SC, Sanofi/Regeneron, NeraCare GmbH, Sun Pharma, InflarxGmbH, Ultimovacs, SandozConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, 4SC, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi/Regeneron, NektarSpeakers' Bureau: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi/Regeneron, Merck KGaAResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Roche (Inst), MSD Oncology (Inst), Array BioPharma/Pfizer (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche/Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi/Regeneron John WagstaffHonoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline UK Ltd, PfizerConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Pierre FabreSpeakers' Bureau: Bristol Myers Squibb Reinhard DummerHonoraria: Roche, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Amgen, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Catalym, Second Genome, Regeneron, Alligator Bioscience, MaxiVax, touchIME, T3 Pharmaceuticals, PfizerConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Amgen, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Catalym, Second Genome, Alligator Bioscience, touchIME, MaxiVax, Regeneron, Pfizer, T3 PharmaceuticalsResearch Funding: Roche (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Novartis (Inst), MSD (Inst), Amgen (Inst) Pier Francesco FerrucciConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Novartis, MSD Oncology, Pierre FabreResearch Funding: BMSTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: MSD Oncology, Bristol Myers Squibb Michael SmylieHonoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis Canada Pharmaceuticals Inc, Merck, Roche Canada, Sanofi/RegeneronConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck Marcus O. ButlerHonoraria: Merck, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, NovartisConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Immunovaccine, Immunocore, Adaptimmune, EMD Serono, GlaxoSmithKline, Genzyme, Sanofi, LaRoche Posay, Sun Pharma, Instil Bio, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Pfizer, AdaptimmuneResearch Funding: Merck, Takara BioExpert Testimony: Merck Andrew HillEmployment: Tasman OncologyStock and Other Ownership Interests: Tasman Oncology Ivan Márquez-RodasConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD¸ Novartis, Roche, Amgen, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, Incyte, Bioncotech, Pierre Fabre, RegeneronTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD¸ Roche, Bioncotech John B. A. G. HaanenStock and Other Ownership Interests: Neogene TherapeuticsConsulting or Advisory Role: MSD Oncology (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst), Ipsen (Inst), Achilles Therapeutics (Inst), Immunocore (Inst), Sanofi (Inst), Third Rock Ventures (Inst), Neogene Therapeutics (Inst), Molecular Partners (Inst), bioNTech (Inst), T-Knife (Inst), PokeAcel (Inst), Instil Bio (Inst), Iovance Biotherapeutics (Inst)Research Funding: MSD (Inst), Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Neon Therapeutics (Inst), Amgen (Inst), BioNTech (Inst), Asher Biotherapeutics (Inst) Massimo GuidoboniConsulting or Advisory Role: BMS, Novartis, Pierre FabreSpeakers' Bureau: BMS, Novartis, Pierre FabreResearch Funding: MSD Michele MaioStock and Other Ownership Interests: Theravance, Epigen TherapeuticsHonoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Roche, MSD, Merck, Amgen, Pierre Fabre¸ Alfasigma, Sanofi, LillyConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, AstraZeneca, MSD, Merck, Pierre Fabre, AlfasigmaPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: DNA Hypomethylating agents for cancer therapyTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Roche, MSD, Merck, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Alfasigma Patrick SchöffskiHonoraria: Deciphera, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer IngelheimConsulting or Advisory Role: Blueprint Medicines, Ellipses Pharma, Adaptimmune, Intellisphere, Transgene, Deciphera, Exelixis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medscape, Guided Clarity, Ysios Capital, Studiecentrum voor Kernenergie, Modus Outcomes, Advance Medical/Teladoc Health (Inst), Curio Science, SQZ Biotechnology, CRT Pioneer Fund LP, AdcendoResearch Funding: CoBioRes NV (Inst), Eisai (Inst), G1 Therapeutics (Inst), Novartis (Inst), PharmaMar (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: MSD (Inst), Ipsen (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst) Matteo S. CarlinoHonoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, NovartisConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Amgen, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, IDEAYA Biosciences, Sanofi, Merck Serono, Regeneron, QBiotics, Nektar, Eisai, OncoSec Céleste LebbéHonoraria: Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Amgen, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, IncyteConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Amgen, Roche, Merck Serono, Sanofi, Pierre FabreSpeakers' Bureau: Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Amgen, MSDResearch Funding: Roche (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi, Pierre FabreOther Relationship: Avantis Medical Systems Grant McArthurResearch Funding: Genentech/Roche (Inst), MSD (Inst), Roche (Inst) Paolo A. AsciertoStock and Other Ownership Interests: PrimeVaxConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Array BioPharma, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Incyte, MedImmune, AstraZeneca¸ Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Ultimovacs, Sandoz, Immunocore, 4SC, Alkermes, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, OncoSec, Nouscom, Takis Biotech, Lunaphore Technologies, Seattle Genetics, ITeos Therapeutics,Research Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst), Array BioPharma (Inst), Sanofi (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Merck Sharp & Dohme Gregory A. DanielsHonoraria: Sanofi/RegeneronConsulting or Advisory Role: Sanofi/RegeneronSpeakers' Bureau: Regeneron, Array BioPharma, Sanofi/Regeneron,Research Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Viralytics (Inst), Nektar (Inst), Merck (Inst) Georgina V. LongHonoraria: BMS, Pierre FabreConsulting or Advisory Role: Aduro Biotech, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Hexal, Highlight Therapeutics, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, OncoSec, Pierre Fabre, QBiotics, Regeneron, SkylineDx, Specialised Therapeutics, Array BioPharma, Evaxion Biotech A/S Tuba BasEmployment: Bristol Myers Squibb (I), Merck, Fiore Healthcare Advisors (I)Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb (I)Consulting or Advisory Role: Fiore Healthcare Advisors (I)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Fiore Healthcare Advisors (I) Corey RitchingsEmployment: Bristol Myers SquibbStock and Other Ownership Interests: Bristol Myers Squibb James LarkinHonoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, Incyte, iOnctura, Merck Serono, Eisai, Dynavax Technologies, Cancer Research UK, touchIME, touchEXPERTSConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Novartis, Boston Biomedical, Incyte, iOnctura, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Immunocore, YKT Corporation, Apple Tree PartnersResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst), Novartis (Inst), MSD (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Achilles Therapeutics (Inst), Roche (Inst), Nektar (Inst), Covance (Inst), Immunocore (Inst), AVEO (Inst), Pharmacyclics (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca, Incyte, GlaxoSmithKline, Pierre Fabre, Merck Serono, iOnctura, British Uro-Oncology Group (BUG), ESMO, National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI), EUSA Pharma, Syneos Health, Kidney Cancer Association, Bioevents, MedConcept, RV Mais F. Stephen HodiEmployment: Dana-Farber Cancer InstituteLeadership: Bicara TherapeuticsStock and Other Ownership Interests: Apricity Health, Torque, Pionyr, Bicara TherapeuticsConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Genentech/Roche, EMD Serono, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Surface Oncology, Compass Therapeutics, Partners Therapeutics, Pionyr, Torque, Rheos Medicines, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Checkpoint Therapeutics, Eisai, Bioentre, Gossamer Bio, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Trillium Therapeutics, Catalym¸ Amgen, Immunocore,Research Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Merck Sharp & Dohme, Genentech/Roche, Novartis,Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Patent pending as per institutional policy. Patent pending royalties received on MICA-related disorders application to institution per institutional IP policy. Angiopoietin-2 Biomarkers Predictive of Anti-immune checkpoint response. Compositions and Methods for Identification, Assessment, Prevention, and Treatment of Melanoma using PD-L1 Isoforms. Methods of Using Pembrolizumab and TrebananibTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Novartis, Bristol Myers SquibbOther Relationship: Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech/RocheNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Background: Real-world data on extended follow-up of patients with BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma are limited. We investigated dabrafenib plus trametinib (dab + tram) outside of a clinical trial setting (Individual Patient Program; DESCRIBE Italy)., Objective: To describe the baseline features, treatment patterns, efficacy, and safety outcomes in patients with BRAF V600-mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma who had received dab + tram as part of the Managed Access Program (MAP) in Italy., Patients and Methods: An observational, retrospective chart review was conducted in Italian patients with BRAF V600-mutant unresectable stage III/IV melanoma receiving dab + tram as part of the MAP. Baseline features, treatment patterns, efficacy, and safety outcomes were evaluated., Results: Overall, 499 patients were included in this analysis. BRAF V600E mutation was seen in 81.4% of patients. Overall response rate achieved in 243 of the 390 evaluable patients was 62.3% (95% CI 57.5-67.1). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.3 months (95% CI 8.6-10.6). Subgroup analyses revealed that patients with normal lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and ≤ three metastatic sites without brain metastases at baseline had better outcomes. With normal LDH at baseline, median PFS for patients with one or two metastatic sites other than cerebral was 18 months. No new safety signals were observed. Treatment was permanently discontinued because of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in 9.2% of patients, and pyrexia (27.3%) was the most common TEAE, with a lower incidence than that in the phase 3 studies of dab + tram., Conclusion: Treatment of BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic melanoma with dab + tram in the real-world setting was effective and safe, including the unselected population with several patients having a high tumor burden - concordant with the results of the pivotal phase 3 studies of dab + tram., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

High-dose interleukin-2 (HD IL-2) has curative potential in metastatic melanoma (MM) and renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Radiotherapy (RT) kills cancer cells and induces immunomodulatory effects. Prospective trials exploring clinical and immunological properties of combined RT/HD IL-2 are still needed. We designed a phase II, single-arm clinical trial for patients with MM and RCC. The treatment schedule consisted of 3 daily doses of 6-12 Gy of RT to 1-5 non-index metastatic fields, before IL-2 at the first and third treatment cycle. HD IL-2 was administered by continuous infusion for 72 hours and repeated every 3 weeks for up to 4 cycles, thereafter every 4 weeks for a maximum of 2 cycles. The primary endpoint was the immunological efficacy of the combined RT/HD IL-2 treatment (assessed by IFN-γ ELISPOT). Nineteen out of 22 patients were evaluable for immunological and clinical response. Partial response occurred in 3 (15.7%) patients and stable disease was observed in 7 (36.8%). The disease control rate was 52.6% after a median follow up of 39.2 months. According to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events 4.0 (CTCAE 4.0), the majority of toxicities were grade 1-2. Immunological responses were frequent and detected in 16 (84.2%) patients. Increased levels of IL-8 and IL-10 in melanoma, circulating effector memory CD4+ and intratumoral CD8+ T cells in both tumor types were detected after therapy. Overall the treatment was well tolerated and immunologically active. Immunomonitoring and correlative data on tumor and peripheral blood cell subsets suggest that this combination treatment could be a promising strategy for patients progressing after standard treatments., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Bulgarelli, Piccinini, Petracci, Pancisi, Granato, de Rosa, Guidoboni, Petrini, Ancarani, Foschi, Romeo, Tontini, De Giorgi, Lolli, Gentili, Valmorri, Rossi, Ferroni, Casadei, Cortesi, Crudi and Ridolfi.)

Purpose: Phase II trials have shown encouraging activity with ipilimumab plus fotemustine and ipilimumab plus nivolumab in melanoma brain metastases. We report the primary analysis and 4-year follow-up of the NIBIT-M2 study, the first phase III trial comparing these regimens with fotemustine in patients with melanoma with brain metastases., Patients and Methods: This phase III study recruited patients 18 years of age and older with BRAF wild-type or mutant melanoma, and active, untreated, asymptomatic brain metastases from nine centers, randomized (1:1:1) to fotemustine, ipilimumab plus fotemustine, or ipilimumab plus nivolumab. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS)., Results: From January, 2013 to September, 2018, 27, 26, and 27 patients received fotemustine, ipilimumab plus fotemustine, and ipilimumab plus nivolumab. Median OS was 8.5 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 4.8-12.2] in the fotemustine arm, 8.2 months (95% CI, 2.2-14.3) in the ipilimumab plus fotemustine arm (HR vs. fotemustine, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.59-1.99; P = 0.78), and 29.2 months (95% CI, 0-65.1) in the ipilimumab plus nivolumab arm (HR vs. fotemustine, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22-0.87; P = 0.017). Four-year survival rate was significantly higher for ipilimumab plus nivolumab than fotemustine [(41.0%; 95% CI, 20.6-61.4) vs. 10.9% (95% CI, 0-24.4; P = 0.015)], and was 10.3% (95% CI, 0-22.6) for ipilimumab plus fotemustine. In the fotemustine, ipilimumab plus fotemustine, and ipilimumab plus nivolumab arms, respectively, 11 (48%), 18 (69%), and eight (30%) patients had treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events, without treatment-related deaths., Conclusions: Compared with fotemustine, ipilimumab plus nivolumab significantly improved overall and long-term survival of patients with melanoma with asymptomatic brain metastases., (©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.)