Search

OBJECTIVES Parts 4 and 5 of the phase 1/2 KEYNOTE-022 study investigated the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, and efficacy of pembrolizumab plus trametinib in solid tumours and BRAF wild-type melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients received intermittent or concurrent dosing of pembrolizumab plus trametinib. Concurrent dosing was 2 or 4 weeks of trametinib run-in followed by concurrent pembrolizumab every 3 weeks (Q3W) plus trametinib once daily (QD). Intermittent dosing was 2 weeks of trametinib run-in followed by pembrolizumab plus intermittent trametinib (1 week off/2 weeks on). A 3 + 3 dose escalation was used, followed by dose confirmation. RESULTS Forty-two patients were enrolled. No dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) occurred at initial dose levels (DL). At subsequent DLs, 10 of 38 evaluable patients had DLTs. For concurrent dosing, MTD was pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W plus trametinib 1.5 mg QD, with a 2-week trametinib 1.5 mg QD run-in (concurrent DL2a); in concurrent DL2a group, five (31%) patients had grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs); the objective response rate (ORR) was 0%. ORR was 40% in concurrent DL1 and 0% in concurrent DL2b. For intermittent dosing, MTD was pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W plus trametinib 2 mg QD with a 2-week trametinib 2 mg QD run-in (intermittent DL2); in the intermittent DL2 group, seven (47%) patients had grade 3/4 TRAEs; ORR was 27%. ORR in intermittent DL1 was 33%. CONCLUSIONS MTDs for concurrent and intermittent dosing of pembrolizumab with trametinib were identified. The combination had limited antitumour activity, numerically higher ORR with intermittent versus concurrent dosing, and manageable safety. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER NCT02130466.

INTRODUCTION The development of new targeted therapies has considerably changed the therapeutic paradigm of melanoma, significantly increasing overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). However, skin-related adverse sequelae might occur and impact on patients' quality of life. AREAS COVERED In this article we will cover the most important dermatological toxicities related to BRAF and MEK-inhibitors, along with updated management strategies. EXPERT OPINION BRAF inhibitors have represented a revolution in the treatment of melanoma. They have improved the outcome of the disease and therefore represent an important option in the management and care of patients with advanced melanoma. Skin toxicity (especially the onset of squamous skin carcinomas) has been considered a major cutaneous side effect and, although the addition of MEK inhibitors in combination has significantly reduced the incidence of skin sequelae, serious skin adverse events might develop anyway and impact significantly on patients'quality of life and on national health system budget. The introduction of BRAF and MEK inhibitors as a new effective adjuvant treatment option for stage III and ulcerated melanoma has proved a significant impact on the risk of recurrence, and may have interesting developments in the near future as a further therapeutic tool.

Background Nivolumab (an anti–programmed death-1 antibody) is an adjuvant standard of care for patients with high-risk resected melanoma, although a watch-and-wait strategy remains an option. In the absence of head-to-head evidence, an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of adjuvant nivolumab versus placebo, the proxy for a watch-and-wait strategy, was conducted in patients with high-risk resected melanoma. Methods An ITC using the Bucher method compared nivolumab with placebo using intention-to-treat population data from the phase III CheckMate 238 (nivolumab vs ipilimumab; minimum follow-up, 4 years; NCT02388906) and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 18071 (ipilimumab vs placebo; minimum follow-up, ≈4.5 years; NCT00636168) trials. The end-points were recurrence-free survival (RFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS). To account for cross-trial differences in staging and subsequent therapy, additional analyses examined patients with stage IIIB/IIIC disease and adjusted post-recurrence survival in EORTC 18071, respectively. Results Nivolumab versus placebo was associated with clinically meaningful improvements in RFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42–0.68) and OS (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.45–0.89). Nivolumab versus placebo was also associated with clinically meaningful improvements in RFS (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.40–0.69), DMFS (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.46–0.83) and OS (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47–0.97) in patients with stage IIIB/IIIC disease and in OS (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46–0.92) in the overall population after adjusting post-recurrence survival in EORTC 18071. Conclusion This ITC shows that adjuvant nivolumab provides clinically meaningful improvements in RFS, DMFS and OS versus a watch-and-wait strategy in high-risk resected melanoma.

Introduction: In patients with metastatic melanoma, progression of a single tumour lesion (solitary progression) after response to immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) is increasingly treated with local therapy. We evaluated the role of local therapy for solitary progression in melanoma.Patients and methods: Patients with metastatic melanoma treated with ICI between 2010 and 2019 with solitary progression as first progressive event were included from 17 centres in 9 countries. Follow-up and survival are reported from ICI initiation.Results: We identified 294 patients with solitary progression after stable disease in 15%, partial response in 55% and complete response in 30%. The median follow-up was 43 months; the median time to solitary progression was 13 months, and the median time to subsequent progression after treatment of solitary progression (TTSP) was 33 months. The estimated 3-year overall survival (OS) was 79%; median OS was not reached. Treatment consisted of systemic therapy (18%), local therapy (36%), both combined (42%) or active surveillance (4%). In 44% of patients treated for solitary progression, no subsequent progression occurred. For solitary progression during ICI (n = 143), the median TTSP was 29 months. Both TTSP and OS were similar for local therapy, ICI continuation and both combined. For solitary progression post ICI (n = 151), the median TTSP was 35 months. TTSP was higher for ICI recommencement plus local therapy than local therapy or ICI recommencement alone (p = 0.006), without OS differences.Conclusion: Almost half of patients with melanoma treated for solitary progression after initial response to ICI had no subsequent progression. This study suggests that local therapy can benefit patients and is associated with favourable long-term outcomes. & ordf;2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Purpose: The randomized phase III coBRIM study (NCT01689519) demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with addition of cobimetinib to vemurafenib compared with vemurafenib in patients with previously untreated BRAFV600 mutation–positive advanced melanoma. We report long-term follow-up of coBRIM, with at least 5 years since the last patient was randomized. Patients and Methods: Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either oral cobimetinib (60 mg once daily on days 1–21 in each 28-day cycle) or placebo in combination with oral vemurafenib (960 mg twice daily). Results: 495 patients were randomized to cobimetinib plus vemurafenib (n = 247) or placebo plus vemurafenib (n = 248). Median follow-up was 21.2 months for cobimetinib plus vemurafenib and 16.6 months for placebo plus vemurafenib. Median OS was 22.5 months (95% CI, 20.3–28.8) with cobimetinib plus vemurafenib and 17.4 months (95% CI, 15.0–19.8) with placebo plus vemurafenib; 5-year OS rates were 31% and 26%, respectively. Median PFS was 12.6 months (95% CI, 9.5–14.8) with cobimetinib plus vemurafenib and 7.2 months (95% CI, 5.6–7.5) with placebo plus vemurafenib; 5-year PFS rates were 14% and 10%, respectively. OS and PFS were longest in patients with normal baseline lactate dehydrogenase levels and low tumor burden, and in those achieving complete response. The safety profile remained consistent with previously published reports. Conclusions: Extended follow-up of coBRIM confirms the long-term clinical benefit and safety profile of cobimetinib plus vemurafenib compared with vemurafenib monotherapy in patients with BRAFV600 mutation–positive advanced melanoma.

Anti-PD-1 therapy (hereafter referred to as anti-PD-1) induces long-term disease control in approximately 30% of patients with metastatic melanoma; however, two-thirds of patients are resistant and will require further treatment. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (pembrolizumab or nivolumab) compared with ipilimumab monotherapy in patients who are resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 therapy (hereafter referred to as anti-PD-[L]1).This multicentre, retrospective, cohort study, was done at 15 melanoma centres in Australia, Europe, and the USA. We included adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with metastatic melanoma (unresectable stage III and IV), who were resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 (innate or acquired resistance) and who then received either ipilimumab monotherapy or ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (pembrolizumab or nivolumab), based on availability of therapies or clinical factors determined by the physician, or both. Tumour response was assessed as per standard of care (CT or PET-CT scans every 3 months). The study endpoints were objective response rate, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety of ipilimumab compared with ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1.We included 355 patients with metastatic melanoma, resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 (nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or atezolizumab), who had been treated with ipilimumab monotherapy (n=162 [46%]) or ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (n=193 [54%]) between Feb 1, 2011, and Feb 6, 2020. At a median follow-up of 22·1 months (IQR 9·5-30·9), the objective response rate was higher with ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (60 [31%] of 193 patients) than with ipilimumab monotherapy (21 [13%] of 162 patients; p0·0001). Overall survival was longer in the ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 group (median overall survival 20·4 months [95% CI 12·7-34·8]) than with ipilimumab monotherapy (8·8 months [6·1-11·3]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·50, 95% CI 0·38-0·66; p0·0001). Progression-free survival was also longer with ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (median 3·0 months [95% CI 2·6-3·6]) than with ipilimumab (2·6 months [2·4-2·9]; HR 0·69, 95% CI 0·55-0·87; p=0·0019). Similar proportions of patients reported grade 3-5 adverse events in both groups (59 [31%] of 193 patients in the ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 group vs 54 [33%] of 162 patients in the ipilimumab group). The most common grade 3-5 adverse events were diarrhoea or colitis (23 [12%] of 193 patients in the ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 group vs 33 [20%] of 162 patients in the ipilimumab group) and increased alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase (24 [12%] vs 15 [9%]). One death occurred with ipilimumab 26 days after the last treatment: a colon perforation due to immune-related pancolitis.In patients who are resistant to anti-PD-(L)1, ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 seemed to yield higher efficacy than ipilimumab with a higher objective response rate, longer progression-free, and longer overall survival, with a similar rate of grade 3-5 toxicity. Ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 should be favoured over ipilimumab alone as a second-line immunotherapy for these patients with advanced melanoma.None.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic has created unique challenges to healthcare systems throughout the world. Ensuring subjects’ safety is mandatory especially in oncology, in consideration of cancer patients’ particular frailty. We examined the proportion of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) IgM and/or IgG positive subjects in three different groups from Istituto Nazionale Tumori – IRCCS “Fondazione G. Pascale” in Naples (Campania region, Italy): cancer patients treated with Innovative Immunotherapy (Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors, ICIs), cancer patients undergoing standard Chemotherapies (CHTs) and healthcare providers. 9 out of 287 (3.1%) ICIs patients resulted positive, with a significant lower percentage in respect to CHTs patients (39 positive subjects out of 598, 6.5%) (p = 0.04). There was no statistically significant difference between ICIs cohort and healthcare providers, 48 out of 1050 resulting positive (4.6%). Performing a Propensity Score Matching based on gender and tumor stage, the effect of treatment on seropositivity was analyzed through a regression logistic model and the ICIs treatment resulted to be the only protective factor significantly (p = 0.03) associated with positivity (odds ratio—OR: 0.41; 95% confidence interval—CI 0.18–0.91). According to these preliminary data, ICIs would appear to be a protective factor against the onset of COVID-19 infection.

Nearly 10% of patients with high-risk early-stage melanoma will develop satellite or in-transit metastases (ITM), classified as stage III disease similar to lymph node metastases. The pivotal registration trials of the CTLA-4 antibody ipilimumab, and the PD-1 antibodies nivolumab and pembrolizumab, also included patients with unresectable stage III disease. However, there has been no analysis of patients with ITM, and anecdotal retrospective small series have indicated a potential lesser effect. This study aimed to identify patients with unresectable ITM within the randomized trials, and to determine response, progression-free survival and overall survival. The pivotal phase III randomized intervention trials that included melanoma patients with ITM, with or without nodal metastasis, and were treated with ipilimumab, nivolumab or pembrolizumab was identified. The datasets from each trial were then searched to identify the specific details of the investigated patient population for a pooled analysis. The primary endpoint was complete response rate. Seven trials that included stage III patients, and with accessible datasets, were identified. There was a total of 4711 patients, however, no patients with ITM could be identified, as this data was not captured by the case report forms. Evidence from prospective clinical trials on the use of immunotherapy in patients with ITM is lacking. We recommend pooling data from multiple institutions to examine efficacy of available drug therapies in this patient population, but more importantly, prospective clinical trials of locoregional treatments with or without systemic drug therapies are required.

Background The incidence of Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), a rare form of skin cancer with a poor prognosis, has increased in Italy in recent decades. Avelumab, an anti-programmed death ligand 1 monoclonal antibody, is approved for the treatment of metastatic MCC (mMCC) based on the results of the phase 2 JAVELIN Merkel 200 trial. The global avelumab expanded access program (EAP) was designed to provide compassionate use of avelumab prior to approval for patients with mMCC who had limited treatment options. We report findings from a subgroup of Italian patients enrolled in the avelumab EAP. Methods Eligible patients had mMCC and progressive disease following ≥ 1 prior line of chemotherapy or were ineligible for chemotherapy or clinical trial participation. Patients received avelumab 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks. Treating physicians were provided with an initial 3-month supply of avelumab; resupply was permitted if the patient achieved a complete response, partial response, stable disease, or other clinical benefit per physician assessment. Safety and efficacy data for the EAP were reported at the treating physician’s discretion. Results Between April 1, 2016, and September 14, 2018, 109 requests for avelumab were received from Italy, and 102 were approved. All but 1 of the approved patients had received ≥ 1 prior line of therapy. At data cutoff (March 22, 2019), 95 patients had been supplied with avelumab and response data were available for 55 patients. The objective response rate in response-evaluable patients was 29.1%, including 6 patients (10.9%) who achieved a complete response and 10 patients (18.2%) who achieved a partial response; in the total population supplied with avelumab (n = 95), the proportion who had an objective response was 16.8%. The median duration of treatment in responding patients was 9.7 months (range, 3.5–41.7 months). The most frequently reported treatment-related adverse events were infusion-related reaction (single preferred term; n = 3 [3.2%]) and pyrexia (n = 2 [2.1%]). Conclusions Results from Italian patients enrolled in the avelumab EAP are consistent with the findings of the JAVELIN Merkel 200 trial and confirm the efficacy and safety of avelumab treatment in this population.

The association among pathological response, recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) with neoadjuvant therapy in melanoma remains unclear. In this study, we pooled data from six clinical trials of anti-PD-1-based immunotherapy or BRAF/MEK targeted therapy. In total, 192 patients were included; 141 received immunotherapy (104, combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab; 37, anti-PD-1 monotherapy), and 51 received targeted therapy. A pathological complete response (pCR) occurred in 40% of patients: 47% with targeted therapy and 33% with immunotherapy (43% combination and 20% monotherapy). pCR correlated with improved RFS (pCR 2-year 89% versus no pCR 50%, P

Purpose of review Patients with advanced or metastatic v-raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1 (BRAF)-mutated melanoma can be treated with a BRAF inhibitor in combination with a MAPK/ERK kinase (MEK) inhibitor, achieving high but short-lived response rates. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), in contrast, give lower response rates but more durable responses. Preclinical and translational data indicate that combining BRAF and MEK inhibitors with ICI could exceed the limitations of each class and potentially lead to longer lasting responses. Recent findings Vemurafenib, dabrafenib and encorafenib are designed to block mutated forms of BRAF, which cause abnormal signalling inside cancer cells leading to tumour growth. Trametinib, binimetinib and cobimetinib are designed to target and inhibit MEK1/2, proteins in a cell signalling pathway that help cell growth and survival. Pembrolizumab, nivolumab, durvalumab and atezolizumab are ICIs which can inhibit the pathway of programmed death-1/ programmed death-ligand-1 proteins, allowing tumours to avoid detection by the immune system. Summary Treating patients with targeted therapy would allow the release of antigens from tumour cells, which could be more easily acknowledged by the immune system. Efficacy can also be increased by combining ICIs with the aim of maintaining a longer response. The possibility to administer three drugs in combination, would allow to induce tumour regression and produce an immune response with a synergistic effect.

Association of immunotherapy and/or chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy, in sequence or as single therapies, may induce osteonecrosis of the jaw. Multidisciplinary team management of these patients should be provided.

Tocilizumab is one of the newest therapeutic options for the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) caused by the recently discovered severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) β-coronavirus. Several trials are currently ongoing to assess the efficacy and safety profile of tocilizumab in treating ARDS. In this article, we present the case of a Black patient with acute pneumonia who benefited greatly from tocilizumab, but developed severe prolonged neutropenia. Considering the increasing use of tocilizumab among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), this case warrants further research regarding the possible adverse hematological effects that need to be monitored in order to prevent secondary infections.

Background Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SNB) still remains a key procedure to appropriately stage melanoma patients and to select those who are candidate to novel treatments with immunotherapy and targeted therapy in the adjuvant setting. The impact of timing of SNB on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) is still unclear. Material and methods The study was conducted at 6 Italian Melanoma Intergroup (IMI) centres and included 8953 consecutive clinical stage I-II melanoma patients who were diagnosed, treated, and followed up between November 1997 and March 2018. All patients were prospectively included in dedicated IMI database. Multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed to investigate how baseline characteristics and time interval until SNB are related to DFS and OS. Results Considering the whole population, at multivariable analysis, after adjusting for age, gender, Breslow thickness, site, ulceration, and the SNB status, a delay in the timing of SNB was associated with a better DFS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR, delayed versus early SNB] 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97–0.99, p, Highlights • Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SNB) is a key procedure to stage melanoma patients (MPs). • In our series, the time interval of SNB is irrelevant in MPs with positive sentinel lymph node. • A delayed SNB biopsy is not detrimental in clinically stage I-II MPs.

The melanoma treatment landscape changed in 2011 with the approval of the first anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein (CTLA)-4 checkpoint inhibitor and of the first BRAF-targeted monoclonal antibody, both of which significantly improved overall survival (OS). Since then, improved understanding of the tumor microenvironment (TME) and tumor immune-evasion mechanisms has resulted in new approaches to targeting and harnessing the host immune response. The approval of new immune and targeted therapies has further improved outcomes for patients with advanced melanoma and other combination modalities are also being explored such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, electrochemotherapy and surgery. In addition, different strategies of drugs administration including sequential or combination treatment are being tested. Approaches to overcome resistance and to potentiate the immune response are being developed. Increasing evidence emerges that tissue and blood-based biomarkers can predict the response to a therapy. The latest findings in melanoma research, including insights into the tumor microenvironment and new biomarkers, improved understanding of tumor immune response and resistance, novel approaches for combination strategies and the role of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy, were the focus of discussions at the Melanoma Bridge meeting (5–7 December, 2019, Naples, Italy), which are summarized in this report.

Background: A better understanding of prognostic factors and biomarkers that predict response to treatment is required in order to further improve survival rates in patients with melanoma. Predictive Biomarkers: The most important histopathological factors prognostic of worse outcomes in melanoma are sentinel lymph node involvement, increased tumor thickness, ulceration and higher mitotic rate. Poorer survival may also be related to several clinical factors, including male gender, older age, axial location of the melanoma, elevated serum levels of lactate dehydrogenase and S100B. Predictive Biomarkers: Several biomarkers have been investigated as being predictive of response to melanoma therapies. For anti-Programmed Death-1(PD-1)/Programmed Death-Ligand 1 (PD-L1) checkpoint inhibitors, PD-L1 tumor expression was initially proposed to have a predictive role in response to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment. However, patients without PD-L1 expression also have a survival benefit with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy, meaning it cannot be used alone to select patients for treatment, in order to affirm that it could be considered a correlative, but not a predictive marker. A range of other factors have shown an association with treatment outcomes and offer potential as predictive biomarkers for immunotherapy, including immune infiltration, chemokine signatures, and tumor mutational load. However, none of these have been clinically validated as a factor for patient selection. For combined targeted therapy (BRAF and MEK inhibition), lactate dehydrogenase level and tumor burden seem to have a role in patient outcomes. Conclusions: With increasing knowledge, the understanding of melanoma stage-specific prognostic features should further improve. Moreover, ongoing trials should provide increasing evidence on the best use of biomarkers to help select the most appropriate patients for tailored treatment with immunotherapies and targeted therapies.

Summary Background IMspire150 aimed to evaluate first-line combination treatment with BRAF plus MEK inhibitors and immune checkpoint therapy in BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced or metastatic melanoma. Methods IMspire150 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study done at 112 institutes in 20 countries. Patients with unresectable stage IIIc–IV, BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to 28-day cycles of atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (atezolizumab group) or atezolizumab placebo, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (control group). In cycle 1, all patients received vemurafenib and cobimetinib only; atezolizumab placebo was added from cycle 2 onward. Randomisation was stratified by lactate dehydrogenase concentration and geographical region. Blinding for atezolizumab was achieved by means of an identical intravenous placebo, and blinding for vemurafenib was achieved by means of a placebo tablet. The primary outcome was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. This trial ( ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02908672 ) is ongoing but no longer recruiting patients. Findings Between Jan 13, 2017, and April 26, 2018, 777 patients were screened and 514 were enrolled and randomly assigned to the atezolizumab group (n=256) or control group (n=258). At a median follow-up of 18·9 months (IQR 10·4–23·8), progression-free survival as assessed by the study investigator was significantly prolonged with atezolizumab versus control (15·1 vs 10·6 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0·78; 95% CI 0·63–0·97; p=0·025). Common treatment-related adverse events (>30%) in the atezolizumab and control groups were blood creatinine phosphokinase increased (51·3% vs 44·8%), diarrhoea (42·2% vs 46·6%), rash (40·9%, both groups), arthralgia (39·1% vs 28·1%), pyrexia (38·7% vs 26·0%), alanine aminotransferase increased (33·9% vs 22·8%), and lipase increased (32·2% vs 27·4%); 13% of patients in the atezolizumab group and 16% in the control group stopped all treatment because of adverse events. Interpretation The addition of atezolizumab to targeted therapy with vemurafenib and cobimetinib was safe and tolerable and significantly increased progression-free survival in patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma. Funding F Hoffmann–La Roche and Genentech.

Several studies have found an association between higher body mass index (BMI) and improved clinical outcomes in cancer patients receiving programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) checkpoint inhibitors. In a previous study, we found that overweight/obese patients were significantly more likely to experience any grade immune-related adverse events (irAEs) compared to non-overweight patients.We conducted a 'real-life', multi centre, retrospective observational study aimed at comparing the incidence of irAEs among cancer patients treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors according to baseline BMI.One thousand and seventy advanced cancer patients were evaluated. The median age was 68 years (range: 21-92), male/female ratio was 724/346. Primary tumours were: non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) (653 patients), melanoma (233 patients), renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (152 patients) and others (29 patients). Median BMI was 25 (13.6-46.6); according to World Health Organisation (WHO) classification, 44 patients (4.1%) were defined as underweight, 480 patients (44.9%) as having a normal weight, 416 patients (38.9%) as overweight and 130 patients (12.1%) as obese. Higher BMI was significantly related to higher occurrence of any grade immune-related adverse events [irAEs] (p 0.0001), G3/G4 irAEs (p 0.0001) and irAEs leading to discontinuation (LTD) (p 0.0001). Overweight and obesity were confirmed predictors for irAEs of any grade at both univariate and multivariate analysis. The adjusted odds ratios (ORs) (compared to normal-weight) were 10.6; 95% confidence interval (95%CI): 7.5-14.9 for overweight, and 16.6 (95%CI: 10.3-26.7) for obese patients. Obesity was the only factor significantly related to a higher incidence of G3/G4 irAEs (OR = 11.9 [95%CI: 6.4-22.3], p 0.0001) and LTD irAEs (OR = 8.8 [95%CI: 4.3-18.2], p 0.0001). Overweight and obese patients experienced a significantly higher occurrence of cutaneous, endocrine, gastro-intestinal (GI), hepatic and 'others' irAEs, compared to normal-weight patients. Only obese patients experienced a significantly higher occurrence of pulmonary and rheumatic irAEs, compared to normal-weight patients.Considering the previously evidenced association between higher BMI and better outcome, the current finding about the relationship between BMI and irAEs occurrence can contribute to consideration of these findings as the upside of the downside, which underlies an 'immunogenic phenotype'.

Over the last few years, extensive research has improved our understanding of tumor immunology and has enabled the development of novel treatments. The state of the art of immunotherapy in various types of malignancies was exhaustively discussed in the ‘Immunotherapy Bridge’ meeting, which was held in Naples on 4–5 December 2019. Highlights related to the immunological treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancer are the content of this article.

PURPOSE We conducted the phase III double-blind European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 1325/KEYNOTE-054 trial to evaluate pembrolizumab versus placebo in patients with resected high-risk stage III melanoma. On the basis of 351 recurrence-free survival (RFS) events at a 1.25-year median follow-up, pembrolizumab prolonged RFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; P < .0001) compared with placebo. This led to the approval of pembrolizumab adjuvant treatment by the European Medicines Agency and US Food and Drug Administration. Here, we report an updated RFS analysis at the 3.05-year median follow-up. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 1,019 patients with complete lymph node dissection of American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual (seventh edition; AJCC-7), stage IIIA (at least one lymph node metastasis > 1 mm), IIIB, or IIIC (without in-transit metastasis) cutaneous melanoma were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab at a flat dose of 200 mg (n = 514) or placebo (n = 505) every 3 weeks for 1 year or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity. The two coprimary end points were RFS in the overall population and in those with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)–positive tumors. RESULTS Pembrolizumab (190 RFS events) compared with placebo (283 RFS events) resulted in prolonged RFS in the overall population (3-year RFS rate, 63.7% v 44.1% for pembrolizumab v placebo, respectively; HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.68) and in the PD-L1–positive tumor subgroup (HR, 0.57; 99% CI, 0.43 to 0.74). The impact of pembrolizumab on RFS was similar in subgroups, in particular according to AJCC-7 and AJCC-8 staging, and BRAF mutation status (HR, 0.51 [99% CI, 0.36 to 0.73] v 0.66 [99% CI, 0.46 to 0.95] for V600E/K v wild type). CONCLUSION In resected high-risk stage III melanoma, pembrolizumab adjuvant therapy provided a sustained and clinically meaningful improvement in RFS at 3-year median follow-up. This improvement was consistent across subgroups.

Importance: Whether immune-related adverse events (irAEs) indicate drug activity in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors remains unknown.Objective: To investigate the association between irAEs and recurrence-free survival (RFS) in the double-blind EORTC 1325/KEYNOTE-054 clinical trial comparing pembrolizumab therapy and placebo for the treatment of patients with high-risk stage III melanoma.Design, Setting, and Participants: A total of 1019 adults with stage III melanoma were randomly assigned on a 1:1 ratio to receive treatment with pembrolizumab therapy or placebo. Eligible patients were adults 18 years and older with complete resection of cutaneous melanoma metastatic to lymph nodes, classified with stage IIIA (at least 1 micrometastasis measuring >1 mm in greatest diameter), IIIB, or IIIC (without in-transit metastasis) cancer. Patients were randomized from August 26, 2015, to November 14, 2016. The clinical cutoff for the data set was October 2, 2017. Analyses were then performed on the database, which was locked on November 28, 2017.Interventions: Participants were scheduled to receive 200 mg of pembrolizumab or placebo every 3 weeks for a total of 18 doses for approximately 1 year or until disease recurrence, unacceptable toxic effects, major protocol violation, or withdrawal of consent.Main Outcomes and Measures: The association between irAEs and RFS was estimated using a Cox model adjusted for sex, age, and AJCC-7 stage, with a time-varying covariate that had a value of 0 before irAE onset and 1 after irAE onset.Results: Of 1011 patients who began treatment with pembrolizumab therapy or placebo, 622 (61.5%) were men and 389 (38.5%) were women; 386 patients (38.2%) were aged 50 to 64 years, 377 (37.3%) were younger than 50 years, and 248 (24.5%) were 65 years and older. Consistent with the reported main analysis in the intent-to-treat population, RFS was longer in the pembrolizumab arm compared with the placebo arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.56; 98.4% CI, 0.43-0.74) among patients who started treatment. The incidence of irAEs was 190 (37.4%) in the pembrolizumab arm (n = 509) and 45 (9.0%) in the placebo arm (n = 502); in each treatment group, the incidence was similar for men and women. The occurrence of an irAE was associated with a longer RFS in the pembrolizumab arm (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.39-0.95; P = .03) in both men and women. However, in the placebo arm, this association was not significant. Compared with the placebo arm, the reduction in the hazard of recurrence or death in the pembrolizumab arm was greater after the onset of an irAE than without or before an irAE (HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.24-0.57 vs HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.49-0.77, respectively; P = .03).Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the occurrence of an irAE was associated with a longer RFS in the pembrolizumab arm.Trial Registrations: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02362594; EudraCT identifier: 2014-004944-37.

Patients with high-risk stage II melanoma are at significant risk for recurrence after surgical resection. Adjuvant treatment options to lower the risk for distant metastases are limited. Although adjuvant IFN-α2b is associated with improved relapse-free survival in patients with high-risk melanoma, toxicity and limited overall survival benefits limit its use. Adjuvant treatment with the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab significantly improved recurrence-free survival, compared with placebo, in patients with resected stage III melanoma in the Phase III KEYNOTE-054 trial; efficacy in patients with stage II disease has not been established. This article describes the design and rationale of KEYNOTE-716 (NCT03553836), a two-part, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter Phase III study of adjuvant pembrolizumab in patients with surgically resected high-risk stage II melanoma. Clinical trial registry & ID: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03553836

Aim of study The aim of the study was to assess the impact of treatment with adjuvant vemurafenib monotherapy on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with resected stage IIC–IIIC melanoma. Methods The phase 3 BRIM8 study (NCT01667419) randomised patients with BRAFV600 mutation–positive resected stage IIC–IIIC melanoma to 960 mg of vemurafenib twice daily or matching placebo for 52 weeks (13 × 28-day cycles). Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) version 3 at baseline, cycle 1 (days 1, 15 and 22), cycle 2 (days 1 and 15), day 1 of every subsequent 4-week cycle, the end-of-treatment visit and each visit during the follow-up period. Results Completion rates for the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire were high (>80%). There was a mean decline in the global health status (GHS)/quality of life (QOL) score of 17.4 (±22.9) and 17.3 (±24.1) points at days 15 and 22 of cycle 1, respectively, among vemurafenib-treated patients who recovered to approximately 10 points below baseline for the remainder of the treatment period. A similar trend was observed in all functional scales except for cognitive function ( Conclusions The schedule of HRQOL assessments allowed for an accurate and complete evaluation of the impact of acute treatment-related symptoms. Vemurafenib-treated patients experience clinically meaningful moderate worsening in some treatment- or disease-related symptoms and GHS/QOL that resolve over time.

Incidence rates of Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), an uncommon skin cancer with an aggressive disease course, have increased in recent decades. Limited treatment options are available for patients with metastatic MCC (mMCC). Avelumab, an anti-programmed cell death-ligand 1 monoclonal antibody, became the first approved treatment for mMCC after the results of the phase 2 JAVELIN Merkel 200 study. Prior to its regulatory approval, an expanded access program (EAP) enabled compassionate use of avelumab in patients with mMCC. Here we report findings from patients enrolled in the EAP in Europe and the Middle East. Efficacy and safety data were provided at the discretion of treating physicians. Between March 2, 2016, and December 22, 2018, 403 requests for avelumab were received from 21 countries, and avelumab was supplied to 335 patients. Most patients (96.7%) received avelumab as second-line or later treatment. In 150 patients for whom response data were available, the objective response rate was 48.0%, and in responding patients, median duration of treatment was 7.4 months (range, 1.0-41.7 months). The most common treatment-related adverse events were infusion-related reaction (2.4%) and pyrexia (2.1%), and no new safety signals were observed. Overall, results from European and Middle Eastern patients enrolled in this EAP confirm the efficacy and safety of avelumab treatment observed in previous studies in patients with mMCC. ispartof: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER vol:149 issue:11 pages:1926-1934 ispartof: location:United States status: published

BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are approved by the U.S. Food&Drug Administration in over 17 tumor types. Older adult patients make up about a quarter of all cancer patients but are historically understudied in cancer clinical trials. ICIs are associated with immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which may be particularly morbid for older adult patients with underlying comorbidities and impaired functional status. In this study, we provide insight into the real-world safety and efficacy of ICIs among older adult patients (≥80 years) with cancer.MethodsThis is a multicenter, international retrospective study of tumor-agnostic older adult patients with cancer treated with single-agent ICIs between 2010–2019 from 18 academic centers in the U.S. and Europe. A cohort of 928 patients aged ≥80 years during treatment with ICI was assembled and analyzed to evaluate clinical outcomes and irAE patterns in older adult patients treated with single-agent ICIs.ResultsMedian age at ICI initiation was 83.0 years (range 75.8–97.0). Most patients (86.9%) were treated with anti-PD-1 therapy. Among the full cohort, the three most common tumors were non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC, 37.2%,n=345), melanoma (35.5%,n=329), and genitourinary (GU) tumors (16.5%,n=153). Objective response rates for patients with NSCLC, melanoma, and GU tumors were 32.2%, 39.3%, and 26.2%, respectively. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.7 months (95%CI, 5.2–8.6) for patients with NSCLC, 11.1 months (95%CI, 8.9–16.0) for patients with melanoma, and 6.0 months (95% CI, 5.0–10.7) for patients with GU malignancy. Median overall survival (OS) was 10.9 months (95%CI, 8.6–13.1) for patients with NSCLC, 30.0 months (95%CI, 23.6–46.4) for patients with melanoma, and 15.0 months (95%CI 9.1–25.4) for GU patients (Figure 1A-C). Within histology-specific cohorts (NSCLC, melanoma and GU), clinical outcomes were similar across age subgroups (90). Among all patients (N=928), 41.3% experienced ≥1 irAE(s), including 12.2% reported to be grade (G)3–4. No irAE-related deaths occurred. The median time to irAE onset was 9.8 weeks; 57% occurred within the first 3 months after ICI initiation. ICI was discontinued due to irAEs in 16.1% patients. There was no significant difference in the rate of irAEs among patients age ConclusionsICIs are effective and generally well-tolerated among older patients with cancer. However, ICI discontinuation due to irAE is more frequent with increasing age.

More than 40 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have received hematological or oncological indications over the past 20 years, following the approval of imatinib, and many others are currently being tested in clinical and preclinical level. Beyond their common toxicities, no certain agent from this large class of molecularly targeted therapies was strongly associated with “off-target” impairment of neuromuscular transmission, and although myasthenia gravis (MG) is a well-characterized autoimmune disorder, only few sporadic events proven by serologically detected causative autoantibodies and/or by positive electrophysiological tests are reported in the literature. Herein, we present the first case of anti-MUSK (+) MG in a woman with metastatic BRAF-mutant melanoma after long-term treatment with dabrafenib (BRAF inhibitor) and trametinib (MEK inhibitor). Triggered by this report, a systematic literature review was conducted, summarizing all other cancer cases that developed MG, after exposure to any type of targeted agent and regardless of the underlying malignancy. All available data on the clinical diagnosis, the potential of administered TKIs to induce a seropositive myasthenic syndrome, the immune and non-immune-mediated pathogenesis of postsynaptic damage, and the challenging management of this neuromuscular toxicity were collected and discussed. In the presented case, MG was confirmed by both autoantibodies and nerve-conduction tests, while its reactivation after TKIs rechallenge supports a more than coincidental association. The following review identified 12 cancer cases with TKI-related MG in six case reports and one case series. In most of them, the myasthenia diagnosis was challenging, since the clinical symptomatology of fatigable weakness was not corroborating with consistent laboratory and electrophysiological findings. In fact, anti-AchR titers were positive in five and anti-MuSK only in the abovementioned individual. The symptomatology corresponded to TKI discontinuation and standard treatment with pyridostigmine and prednisolone; intravenous immunoglobulin was added only in three, and two required mechanical ventilation. In an era where TKIs will be prescribed more frequently for various malignancies, even in combinations with immune-checkpoint inhibitors, this report synthesizes their risk for neuromuscular complications and increases the clinicians’ awareness in order to extend the on-treatment and overall survival of TKI-treated cancer patients.

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. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11523-021-00850-1.

Forty to 60% of patients with advanced or metastatic melanoma respond to first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and half of all patients in the metastatic setting eventually progress. This review evaluated the latest long-term data from clinical trials. It also considered data from recent retrospective studies, as these address important questions for clinical practice. ‘Retreatment’ defined as ‘repeated treatment with the same therapeutic class following relapse after adjuvant treatment has ended’ and showed activity in selected patients with recurrence after regular completion of adjuvant PD-1 treatment. In melanoma patients with adjuvant PD-1 monotherapy who recur during adjuvant treatment, further treatment with PD-1 monotherapy seems to have no clinical utility, indicating the need for a therapy switch or escalation in these patients. Targeted therapy with BRAF/MEK inhibitors and ipilimumab-based therapy (alone or combined with PD-1 blockade) show clinical activity in patients who recur during and after adjuvant treatment. ‘Rechallenge’, defined as ‘repeated treatment with the same therapeutic class following disease progression in patients who had clinical benefit with prior treatment for unresectable or metastatic disease’, with pembrolizumab at progression in the advanced setting achieving additional disease control. If possible, ‘escalation’ (PD-1 inhibitors combined with additional agents) should be preferred to PD-1 inhibitor monotherapy rechallenge as higher response rates were demonstrated. The combination of PD-1 plus CTLA-4 was found to be more effective but not more toxic than CTLA-4 alone. Promising antitumor activity was observed for escalation to lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, entinostat plus pembrolizumab, and relatlimab plus nivolumab. Retreatment, rechallenge and escalation are available options for patients with melanoma who relapse in the adjuvant or advanced setting.

Simple Summary Immune checkpoint inhibitors have improved the prognosis for patients with advanced melanoma. Despite the recent success of immunotherapy, many patients still do not benefit from these treatments, and their real-life application may yield different outcomes compared to the advantage presented in clinical trials. There is therefore a need to select patients who can really benefit from these treatments. We have focused our study on a real-life retrospective analysis of metastatic melanoma patients treated with immunotherapy at a single institution—the Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione “G. Pascale” of Napoli, Italy. With the help of AI and machine learning we validated an algorithm based on clinical variables of patients—namely, the Clinical Categorization Algorithm (CLICAL)—that defines five predictable cohorts of benefit to immunotherapy with 95% accuracy. It can be a useful tool for the stratification of metastatic melanoma patients who may or may not improve from immunotherapy treatment. Abstract The real-life application of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) may yield different outcomes compared to the benefit presented in clinical trials. For this reason, there is a need to define the group of patients that may benefit from treatment. We retrospectively investigated 578 metastatic melanoma patients treated with ICIs at the Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione “G. Pascale” of Napoli, Italy (INT-NA). To compare patients’ clinical variables (i.e., age, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio (NLR), eosinophil, BRAF status, previous treatment) and their predictive and prognostic power in a comprehensive, non-hierarchical manner, a clinical categorization algorithm (CLICAL) was defined and validated by the application of a machine learning algorithm—survival random forest (SRF-CLICAL). The comprehensive analysis of the clinical parameters by log risk-based algorithms resulted in predictive signatures that could identify groups of patients with great benefit or not, regardless of the ICI received. From a real-life retrospective analysis of metastatic melanoma patients, we generated and validated an algorithm based on machine learning that could assist with the clinical decision of whether or not to apply ICI therapy by defining five signatures of predictability with 95% accuracy.

BackgroundSeveral therapeutic options are now available in the adjuvant melanoma setting, mandating an understanding of their benefit‒risk profiles in order to make informed treatment decisions. Herein we characterize adjuvant nivolumab select (immune-related) treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) and evaluate possible associations between safety and recurrence-free survival (RFS) in the phase III CheckMate 238 trial.MethodsPatients with resected stage IIIB–C or IV melanoma received nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (n=452) or ipilimumab 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses and then every 12 weeks (n=453) for up to 1 year or until disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. First-occurrence and all-occurrence select TRAEs were analyzed within discrete time intervals: from 0 to 3 months of treatment, from >3–12 months of treatment, and from the last dose (regardless of early or per-protocol treatment discontinuation) to 100 days after the last dose. Possible associations between select TRAEs and RFS were investigated post randomization in 3-month landmark analyses and in Cox model analyses (including a time-varying covariate of select TRAE), within and between treatment groups.ResultsFrom the first nivolumab dose to 100 days after the last dose, first-occurrence select TRAEs were reported in 67.7% (306/452) of patients. First-occurrence select TRAEs were reported most frequently from 0 to 3 months (48.0%), during which the most common were pruritus (15.5%) and diarrhea (15.3%). Most select TRAEs resolved within 6 months. There was no clear association between the occurrence (or not) of select TRAEs and RFS by landmark analysis or by Cox model analysis within treatment arms or comparing nivolumab to the ipilimumab comparator arm.ConclusionResults of this safety analysis of nivolumab in adjuvant melanoma were consistent with its established safety profile. In the discrete time intervals evaluated, most first-occurrence TRAEs occurred early during treatment and resolved. No association between RFS and select TRAEs was evident.Trial registration numberNCT02388906.

Cutaneous melanoma is a lethal disease, even when diagnosed in advanced stages. Although recent progress in biology and treatment has dramatically improved survival rates, new therapeutic approaches are still needed. Deregulation of epigenetics, which mainly controls DNA methylation status and chromatin remodeling, is implied not only in cancer initiation and progression, but also in resistance to antitumor drugs. Epigenetics in melanoma has been studied recently in both melanoma preclinical models and patient samples, highlighting its potential role in different phases of melanomagenesis, as well as in resistance to approved drugs such as immune checkpoint inhibitors and MAPK inhibitors. This review summarizes what is currently known about epigenetics in melanoma and dwells on the recognized and potential new targets for testing epigenetic drugs, alone or together with other agents, in advanced melanoma patients.

Jak inhibitors are potent anti-inflammatory drugs that have the potential to dampen the hyperactive inflammatory response associated with severe COVID-19. We reviewed the clinical outcomes of 218 patients with COVID-19 hospitalized for severe pneumonia and treated with ruxolitinib through a compassionate use program. Data on the duration of treatment, outcomes at 4, 7, 14, and 28 days, oxygen support requirements, clinical status, and laboratory parameters were retrospectively collected. Overall, according to the physician evaluation, 66.5% of patients showed improvement at follow-up, of these, 83.5% showed improvement by day 7. Oxygen support status also showed improvement, and by day 7, 21.6% of patients were on ambient air, compared with 1.4% at baseline, which increased to 48.2% by day 28. Significant decreases in C-reactive protein and increases in the lymphocyte total count were already observed by day 4, which seemed to correlate with a positive outcome. At the end of the observation period, 87.2% of patients were alive. No unexpected safety findings were observed, and grade 3/4 adverse events were reported in 6.9% of patients.

Background: Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors strongly improved the outcome of metastatic melanoma patients. However, not all the patients respond to treatment and identification of prognostic biomarkers able to select patients who would respond to this therapy is of outmost importance. Considering that development of vitiligo-like depigmentation in melanoma patients represents both an adverse event of immunotherapy and a favorable prognostic factor for overall survival, we analyzed known soluble biomarkers of vitiligo to validate them as early indicators of response to checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic melanoma.Methods: Fifty-seven patients with metastatic melanoma receiving anti-PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy were enrolled. Patient sera and plasma were evaluated for vitiligo biomarkers at pre-treatment and after 1 and 3 months of therapy. Patients were divided and analyzed according to the best overall response to treatment. Characteristic vitiligo proteins were analyzed by ELISA, while expression of circulating microRNAs, distinctive of vitiligo, was determined using real-time RT-PCR.Results: Basal serum CD25 levels were higher in stable and responder melanoma patients and remained higher during the first 3 months of anti-PD-1 therapy compared to non-responder patients. The chemokine CXCL9 was absent in non-responder patients before therapy beginning. Moreover, an increase of CXCL9 levels was observed at 1 and 3 months of therapy for all patients, although higher CXCL9 amounts were present in stable and responder compared to non-responder patients. Finally, higher levels of miR-19b, miR-25 and miR-16 were observed after 1 month of therapy in plasma of stable and responder compared to non-responder patients.Conclusions: Serum levels of CD25 and CXCL9 before and during the first months of treatment could represent biomarkers of response to anti-PD-1 immunotherapy in metastatic melanoma patients. Plasmatic miR-19b, miR-25 and miR-16 could also represent possible early biomarkers of response to anti-PD-1 treatment, but they must be validated in a higher number of patients.

Weitere Nicht-UDE Autoren sind nicht genannt.

In COLUMBUS, treatment with encorafenib plus binimetinib in patients with advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma showed improved progression-free and overall survival with favourable tolerability compared to vemurafenib treatment. Here, results on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are presented.COLUMBUS was a two-part, open-label, randomised, phase III study in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma. In PART-I, 577 patients were randomised (1:1:1) to encorafenib plus binimetinib, encorafenib or vemurafenib. The primary objective was to assess progression-free survival. As a secondary objective, HRQoL was assessed by the EQ-5D, the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the FACT-M questionnaires. Furthermore, time to definitive 10% deterioration was estimated with a Kaplan-Meier analysis and differences in mean scores between groups were calculated with a mixed-effect model for repeated measures. Hospitalisation rate and the impact of hospitalisation on HRQoL were also assessed.Patients receiving the combination treatment showed improvement of their FACT-M and EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status scores, compared to those receiving vemurafenib (post-baseline score differences: 3.03 [p 0.0001] for FACT M and 5.28 [p = 0.0042] for EORTC QLQ-C30), indicative of a meaningful change in patient's status. Furthermore, a delay in the deterioration of QoL was observed in non-hospitalised patients compared to hospitalised patients (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 1.16 [0.80; 1.68] for EORTC QLQ-C30 and 1.27 [0.81; 1.99] for FACT-M) and a risk reduction of 10% deterioration, favoured the combination in both groups.The improved efficacy of encorafenib plus binimetinib compared to vemurafenib, translates into a positive impact on the perceived health status as assessed by the HRQoL questionnaires. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01909453 and EudraCT number 2013-001176-38.

Melanoma is the most fatal skin cancer. In the early stages, it can be safely treated with surgery alone. However, since 2011, there has been an important revolution in the treatment of melanoma with new effective treatments. Targeted therapy and immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors have changed the history of this disease. To date, more than half of advanced melanoma patients are alive at 5 years; despite this breakthrough, approximately half of the patients still do not respond to treatment. For these reasons, new therapeutic strategies are required to expand the number of patients who can benefit from immunotherapy or combination with targeted therapy. Current research aims at preventing primary and acquired resistance, which are both responsible for treatment failure in about 50% of patients. This could increase the effectiveness of available drugs and allow for the evaluation of new combinations and new targets. The main pathways and molecules under study are the IDO inhibitor, TLR9 agonist, STING, LAG-3, TIM-3, HDAC inhibitors, pegylated IL-2 (NKTR-214), GITR, and adenosine pathway inhibitors, among others (there are currently about 3000 trials that are evaluating immunotherapeutic combinations in different tumors). Other promising strategies are cancer vaccines and oncolytic viruses. Another approach is to isolate and remove immune cells (DCs, T cells, and NK cells) from the patient’s blood or tumor infiltrates, add specific gene fragments, expand them in culture with growth factors, and re-inoculate into the same patient. TILs, TCR gene transfer, and CAR-T therapy follow this approach. In this article, we give an overview over the current status of melanoma therapies, the clinical rationale for choosing treatments, and the new immunotherapy approaches.

Advances in immune checkpoint therapy and targeted therapy have led to improvement in overall survival for patients with advanced melanoma. Single agent checkpoint PD-1 blockade and combination with BRAF/MEK targeted therapy demonstrated benefit in overall survival (OS). Superior response rates have been demonstrated with combined PD-1/CTLA-4 blockade, with a significant OS benefit compared with single-agent PD-1 blockade. Despite the progress in diagnosis of melanocytic lesions, correct classification of patients, selection of appropriate adjuvant and systemic therapies, and prediction of response to therapy remain real challenges in melanoma. Improved understanding of the tumor microenvironment, tumor immunity and response to therapy has prompted extensive translational and clinical research in melanoma. Development of novel biomarker platforms may help to improve diagnostics and predictive accuracy for selection of patients for specific treatment. There is a growing evidence that genomic and immune features of pre-treatment tumor biopsies may correlate with response in patients with melanoma and other cancers but they have yet to be fully characterized and implemented clinically. Overall, the progress in melanoma therapeutics and translational research will help to optimize treatment regimens to overcome resistance and develop robust biomarkers to guide clinical decision-making. During the Melanoma Bridge meeting (December 3rd–5th, 2020, Italy) we reviewed the currently approved systemic and local therapies for advanced melanoma and discussed novel biomarker strategies and advances in precision medicine.

Background Fatigue was reported as the most common any-grade adverse event (18.3%), and the most common grade 3 or higher immune-related adverse event (irAE) (0.89%) in patients receiving PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors in clinical trial. Methods The aim of this retrospective multicenter study was to evaluate the correlations between “early ir-fatigue”, “delayed ir-fatigue”, and clinical outcomes in cancer patients receiving PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in clinical practice. Results 517 patients were evaluated. After the 12-weeks landmark selection, 386 (74.7%) patients were eligible for the clinical outcomes analysis. 40.4% were NSCLC, 42.2% were melanoma, 15.3% renal cell carcinoma and 2.1% other malignancies. 76 patients (19.7%) experienced early ir-fatigue (within 1 month from treatment commencement), while 150 patients (38.9%) experienced delayed ir-fatigue. Early ir-fatigue was significantly related to shortened PFS (HR = 2.29 [95% CI 1.62–3.22], p Conclusions Early ir-fatigue seems to be negative prognostic parameter, but to proper weight its role we must to consider the predominant role of performance status, which was related to early ir-fatigue in the study population.

Immunotherapy represents the third important wave in the history of the systemic treatment of cancer after chemotherapy and targeted therapy and is now established as a potent and effective treatment option across several cancer types. The clinical success of anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen (CTLA)-4, first, and anti-programmed death (PD)-1/PD-ligand (L)1 agents in melanoma and other cancers a few years later, has encouraged increasing focus on the development of other immunotherapies (e.g. monoclonal antibodies with other immune targets, adoptive cell transfer, and vaccines), with over 3000 immuno-oncology trials ongoing, involving hundreds of research institutes across the globe. The potential use of these different immunotherapeutic options in various combinations with one another and with other treatment modalities is an area of particular promise. The third Immunotherapy Bridge meeting (29-30 November, 2017, Naples, Italy) focused on recent advances in immunotherapy across various cancer types and is summarised in this report.

Introduction: Treatment of extensive-stage SCLC is still a challenge but immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors is showing promising results. Nivolumab alone or in combination with ipilimumab has demonstrated a benefit in terms of response and survival in patients with pre-treated extensive-stage disease and has been approved as third-line therapy after failure of chemotherapy. However, data from two phase III trials with nivolumab are negative. In the first trial, nivolumab was administered as a single agent compared to second-line chemotherapy, while in the second it was given alone or in combination with ipilimumab as maintenance treatment after platinum-based chemotherapy.Areas covered: Our review focuses on the role of immunotherapy, and in particular nivolumab, in the treatment of SCLC, describing the results of the main trials and its future perspectives, with reference to clinical trials with other checkpoint inhibitors.Expert opinion: The future of nivolumab in the treatment of SCLC needs to be clarified with further clinical trials, in which improved patient selection and a more specific setting and/or timepoint of the disease may be identified.

Background: Since 2015, adjuvant therapy with ipilimumab is an approved treatment for stage III melanoma based on a significantly prolonged recurrence-free survival (RFS). At a median follow-up of 5.3 years, RFS, distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS) were each significantly prolonged in the ipilimumab group compared with the placebo group, despite a 53.3% (ipilimumab) versus 4.6% (placebo) treatment discontinuation rate due to adverse events. We present now long-term follow-up results of this European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 18071 trial. Patients, methods and results: A total of 99 sites randomised 951 patients with stage III cutaneous melanoma (excluding lymph node metastasis ≤1 mm or in-transit metastasis) with adequate resection of lymph nodes to receive intravenous infusions of ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo, every 3 weeks for 4 doses, then every 3 months for up to 3 years. The RFS, DMFS and OS, as reported by the local investigators, were assessed by the intention-to-treat analysis. Among 431 patients randomised at 63 sites and who were still alive at the analysis reported in 2016, recent follow-up information could be obtained for 264 patients. The median OS follow-up was 6.9 years. The RFS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.63–0.88; P < 0.001), DMFS (HR: 95% CI: 0.76, 0.64–0.90; P = 0.002) and OS (HR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.60–0.89; P = 0.002) benefit observed in the ipilimumab group was durable with an 8.7% absolute difference at 7 years for OS. The benefit was consistent across subgroups. Conclusions: Adjuvant therapy with ipilimumab prolongs RFS, DMFS and OS significantly. The benefit is sustained long term and consistent across subgroups.

PURPOSE CheckMate 032 is an open-label, multicohort study that includes patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) treated with nivolumab 3 mg/kg monotherapy every 2 weeks (NIVO3), nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses followed by nivolumab monotherapy 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (NIVO3+IPI1), or nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses followed by nivolumab monotherapy 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (NIVO1+IPI3). We report on the expanded NIVO1+IPI3 cohort and extended follow-up for the NIVO3 and NIVO3+IPI1 cohorts. METHODS Patients with platinum-pretreated mUC were enrolled in this phase I/II multicenter study to receive NIVO3, NIVO3+IPI1, or NIVO1+IPI3 until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary end point was investigator-assessed objective response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1, including duration of response. RESULTS Seventy-eight patients were treated with NIVO3 (minimum follow-up, 37.7 months), 104 with NIVO3+IPI1 (minimum follow-up, 38.8 months), and 92 with NIVO1+IPI3 (minimum follow-up, 7.9 months). Objective response rate was 25.6%, 26.9%, and 38.0% in the NIVO3, NIVO3+IPI1, and NIVO1+IPI3 arms, respectively. Median duration of response was more than 22 months in all arms. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 21 (26.9%), 32 (30.8%), and 36 (39.1%) patients treated with NIVO3, NIVO3+IPI1, and NIVO1+IPI3, respectively. Grade 5 treatment-related pneumonitis occurred in one patient each in the NIVO3 and NIVO3+IPI1 arms. CONCLUSION With longer follow-up, NIVO3 demonstrated sustained antitumor activity alone and in combination with ipilimumab. NIVO1+IPI3 provided the greatest antitumor activity of all regimens, with a manageable safety profile. This result not only supports additional study of NIVO1+IPI3 in mUC, but demonstrates the potential benefit of immunotherapy combinations in this disease.

Background We conducted a retrospective analysis to evaluate the impact of concomitant acid-reducing agents (ARAs) and vemurafenib dose on the efficacy of vemurafenib in patients with BRAFV600 mutation–positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma treated with vemurafenib or cobimetinib plus vemurafenib. Methods Data were pooled for patients treated with vemurafenib or cobimetinib plus vemurafenib in the BRIM-2, BRIM-3, BRIM-7, and coBRIM studies. The primary end-points were progression-free survival and overall survival across patient subgroups defined by vemurafenib dose (full vs reduced) and concomitant ARA use (yes vs no). Objective response rate (ORR) was also analysed. Steady-state vemurafenib concentrations were evaluated according to vemurafenib dosing and concomitant ARA use across treatment cohorts in a subset of patients from BRIM-7 and coBRIM with available concentration data. Results Efficacy analyses included 920 patients: 641 in the vemurafenib cohort and 279 in the cobimetinib plus vemurafenib cohort. Overall, no significant differences in survival outcomes were observed across subgroups according to vemurafenib dose and ARA use, with or without adjustment for known prognostic covariates, in both treatment cohorts. ORR was also similar across subgroups in both treatment cohorts. Steady-state vemurafenib concentrations were analysed in 389 patients (193 in the vemurafenib cohort and 196 in the cobimetinib plus vemurafenib cohort) and were generally similar across vemurafenib dose subgroups, regardless of ARA use in both treatment cohorts. Conclusions Results of this retrospective pooled analysis suggest that ARAs can be used concomitantly with vemurafenib, alone or in combination with cobimetinib, without compromising the efficacy of vemurafenib.

Advances in the treatment of metastatic melanoma have improved responses and survival. However, many patients continue to experience resistance or toxicity to treatment, highlighting a crucial need to identify biomarkers and understand mechanisms of response and toxicity. Neoadjuvant therapy for regional metastases might improve operability and clinical outcomes over upfront surgery and adjuvant therapy, and has become an established role for drug development and biomarker discovery in other cancers (including locally advanced breast cancer, head and neck squamous cell carcinomas, gastroesophageal cancer, and anal cancer). Patients with clinically detectable stage III melanoma are ideal candidates for neoadjuvant therapy, because they represent a high-risk patient population with poor outcomes when treated with upfront surgery alone. Neoadjuvant therapy is now an active area of research for melanoma with numerous completed and ongoing trials (since 2014) with disparate designs, endpoints, and analyses under investigation. We have, therefore, established the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium with experts in medical oncology, surgical oncology, pathology, radiation oncology, radiology, and translational research to develop recommendations for investigating neoadjuvant therapy in melanoma to align future trial designs and correlative analyses. Alignment and consistency of neoadjuvant trials will facilitate optimal data organisation for future regulatory review and strengthen translational research across the melanoma disease continuum.

In the context of precision medicine with immunotherapies there is an increasing need for companion diagnostic tests to identify potential therapy responders and avoid treatment coming along with severe adverse events for non-responders. Here, we present a retrospective case study to discover image-based signatures for developing a potential companion diagnostic test for ipilimumab (IPI) in malignant melanoma. Signature discovery is based on digital pathology and fully automatic quantitative image analysis using virtual multiplexing as well as machine learning and deep learning on whole-slide images. We systematically correlated the patient outcome data with potentially relevant local image features using a Tissue Phenomics approach with a sound cross validation procedure for reliable performance evaluation. Besides uni-variate models we also studied combinations of signatures in several multi-variate models. The most robust and best performing model was a decision tree model based on relative densities of CD8+ tumor infiltrating lymphocytes in the intra-tumoral infiltration region. Our results are well in agreement with observations described in previously published studies regarding the predictive value of the immune contexture, and thus, provide predictive potential for future development of a companion diagnostic test.

Genetic analysis of melanoma has allowed us to identify a population of patients who have more aggressive disease and harbor the driver mutation BRAF. This mutation is found in approximately 50% of metastatic disease and provides a target for focused therapies to control this disease. These responses are usually brisk; however, they lack the durability of immunotherapy. Frontline therapy for patients with BRAF-mutated melanoma is not as straightforward as prescribing BRAF/MEK inhibitors. Prior trials of combination immunotherapy demonstrate similar responses and durability of responses in patients with BRAF wild-type as well as BRAF-mutated disease. Decisions about immunotherapy, targeted therapy, or the combination of immunotherapy with targeted therapy require an oncologist to evaluate multiple factors to select which treatment option is best for the patient. Trials for metastatic melanoma have included biomarkers as secondary endpoints and aim to identify some way to predict a response, or lack thereof, to therapy. Here, we discuss the utility and reliability of biomarkers in determining therapy for patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma and discuss combination immunotherapy with targeted therapy versus sequential immunotherapy/targeted therapy as well as which regimen should be implemented as initial therapy.