Search

Background: Antitumor activity of ipilimumab or BRAF +/- MEK inhibitors (BRAFi +/- MEKi) following pembrolizumab administration in melanoma is poorly characterized. Patients and methods: In the phase III KEYNOTE-006 study, patients with unresectable stage III/IV melanoma received pembrolizumab (10 mg/kg) once every 2 or 3 weeks (Q3W) or ipilimumab (3 mg/kg) Q3W. The current post hoc analysis evaluates outcomes with ipilimumab or BRAFi +/- MEKi as first subsequent systemic therapy after pembrolizumab administration and includes patients who completed or discontinued pembrolizumab after one or more dose. Pembrolizumab arms were pooled. Results: At data cut-off (4 December 2017), median follow-up was 46.9 months. Of 555 pembrolizumab-treated patients, first subsequent therapy was ipilimumab for 103 (18.6%) and BRAFi +/- MEKi for 59 (10.6%) [33 received BRAFi thorn MEKi, 26 BRAFi alone; 37 (62.7%) were BRAFi +/- MEKi naive]. In the subsequent ipilimumab group, ORR with previous pembrolizumab was 17.5% [1 complete response (CR); 17 partial response (PR)]; 79.6% had discontinued pembrolizumab due to progressive disease (PD); median overall survival (OS) was 21.5 months. ORR with subsequent ipilimumab was 15.5%; 11/16 responses (8 CRs; 3 PRs) were ongoing. ORR with subsequent ipilimumab was 9.7% for patients with PD as best response to pembrolizumab. Median OS from ipilimumab initiation was 9.8 months. In the subsequent BRAFi +/- MEKi group, ORR with previous pembrolizumab was 13.5% (8 PR); 76.3% had discontinued pembrolizumab due to PD; median OS was 17.9 months. ORR with subsequent BRAFi +/- MEKi was 30.5%, 7/18 responses (4 CR, 3 PR) were ongoing. Median OS from BRAFi +/- MEKi initiation was 12.9 months. ORR for BRAFi +/- MEKi-naive patients who received subsequent BRAFi +/- MEKi was 43.2%; 6/16 were ongoing (3 CR, 3 PR). Conclusions: Ipilimumab and BRAFi +/- MEKi have antitumor activity as first subsequent therapy after pembrolizumab in patients with advanced melanoma.

Contains fulltext : 287666.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) There is no consensus on the optimal treatment duration of anti-PD-1 for advanced melanoma. The aim of our study was to gain insight into the outcomes of anti-PD-1 discontinuation, the association of treatment duration with progression and anti-PD-1 re-treatment in relapsing patients. Analyses were performed on advanced melanoma patients in the Netherlands who discontinued first-line anti-PD-1 monotherapy in the absence of progressive disease (n = 324). Survival was estimated after anti-PD-1 discontinuation and with a Cox model the association of treatment duration with progression was assessed. At the time of anti-PD-1 discontinuation, 90 (28%) patients had a complete response (CR), 190 (59%) a partial response (PR) and 44 (14%) stable disease (SD). Median treatment duration for patients with CR, PR and SD was 11.2, 11.5 and 7.2 months, respectively. The 24-month progression-free survival and overall survival probabilities for patients with a CR, PR and SD were, respectively, 64% and 88%, 53% and 82%, 31% and 64%. Survival outcomes of patients with a PR and CR were similar when anti-PD-1 discontinuation was not due to adverse events. Having a PR at anti-PD-1 discontinuation and longer time to first response were associated with progression [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.81 (95% confidence interval, CI = 1.11-2.97) and HR = 1.10 (95% CI = 1.02-1.19; per month increase)]. In 17 of the 27 anti-PD-1 re-treated patients (63%), a response was observed. Advanced melanoma patients can have durable remissions after (elective) anti-PD-1 discontinuation.

Peer reviewed: True, Funder: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB); Grant(s): Grant Reference Number: PB-PG-0815-20048, OBJECTIVE: A qualitative sub-study was carried out within a larger phase II feasibility trial, to identify and describe the burden experienced by advanced melanoma patients participating in a clinical trial and the factors affecting their capacity to cope with the burden. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with fourteen patients with advanced melanoma recruited from National Health Service hospitals in the United Kingdom. Qualitative analysis was undertaken using a framework analysis approach. Normalisation process theory was applied to the concept of research participation burden in order to interpret and categorise findings. RESULTS: Burdens of participation were identified as arising from making sense of the trial and treatment; arranging transport, appointment and prescriptions; enacting management strategies and enduring side effects; reflecting on trial documents and treatment efficacy, and emotional and mental effects of randomisation and treatment side effects. Factors reported as influencing capacity include personal attributes and skills, physical and cognitive abilities and support network. DISCUSSION: This is the first study to highlight the substantial burden faced by patients with advanced melanoma in a clinical trial and factors that may lessen or worsen the burden. Consideration of identified burdens during trial design and execution will reduce the burden experienced by research participants.

Background: Targeted therapy is used to treat patients with a BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma and is continued until disease progression or severe toxicity. No robust data on the management of patients achieving a complete remission (CR) are available. Main Objective: To determine the relapse rate in the first year after targeted therapy discontinuation in patients in CR. Secondary Objectives: To determine the relapse rates throughout the follow-up and to identify prognostic factors for relapse at 1 year. Methods: A retrospective, monocentric observational study was conducted in patients with advanced melanoma included in the RIC-Mel database who discontinued targeted therapy after achieving a CR confirmed by CT scan and PET/CT scan. Results: Twenty-nine patients were included. Seventeen (58.6%) patients were treated with BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi) alone and 12 (41.4%) with a BRAFi combined with a MEK inhibitor (BRAFi + MEKi). The median treatment duration was 9.7 months. The relapse rates after discontinuation were 69% at 12 months (BRAFi: 70.6%; BRAFi + MEKi: 66.7%) and 76% at 36 months (BRAFi: 76.5%; BRAFi + MEKi: 75%). A non-significant trend towards a higher risk of relapse was found in women (p = 0.1; RR 3.36; 95% CI 0.77–17.07), in patients with an LDH level greater than the upper limits of normal (p = 0.58; RR 2.43; 95% CI 0.10–56.71), and when more than two metastatic sites were involved (p = 0.19; RR 4.6; 95% CI 0.46–46.51). After relapse, targeted therapy was resumed in 17 patients (7 with BRAFi; 10 with BRAFi + MEKi) with a response rate of 53%. Conclusions: This real-life study provided long-term data in patients who discontinued targeted therapy after CR. Most patients experienced a relapse in the first year after targeted therapy discontinuation, of whom 50% were in the first 3 months. After targeted therapy resumption, 53% of relapsing patients achieved an objective response. Patients should be followed during the first year after treatment discontinuation. In addition, patients with less than 3 metastatic sites, a baseline LDH level with normal ranges, men, and patients responding rapidly to treatment would be more likely to maintain a CR after treatment discontinuation.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., Patients with advanced melanoma treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors can experience ongoing disease control after treatment discontinuation without subsequent systemic anticancer therapy. We previously defined a novel outcome, treatment-free survival (TFS), as the time between protocol therapy cessation and subsequent therapy initiation/death. We assessed the effect of established prognostic variables [lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), programmed death ligand 1 status, BRAF mutation status, performance status, and sex] on TFS in different treatment scenarios: treatment until toxicity/progression with frequent early cessation (nivolumab plus ipilimumab), treatment until toxicity/progression with a well-tolerated regimen (nivolumab), and treatment for a short fixed duration (ipilimumab). Data were pooled from 1077 patients with advanced melanoma treated in the CheckMate 069 and 067 trials. TFS was defined as the area between the Kaplan–Meier curves for time to therapy cessation and time to subsequent therapy initiation/death. TFS was estimated by restricted mean (r-mean) survival time at 36 months since randomization. Clinically meaningful TFS (r-mean TFS 3.7–12.7 months) was observed across all patient subgroups. TFS was longest in patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. The largest differences in r-mean TFS were observed with LDH in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab and ipilimumab treatment groups (TFS difference 4.7 and 4.9 months, respectively). In the nivolumab group, there was little difference in TFS across subgroups (r-mean TFS 3.7–5.5 months). TFS was sensitive to prognostic subgroup differences; however, duration of treatment affected the sensitivity of TFS. These results provide further support for TFS as a clinical outcome measure.

Background: When patients with advanced melanoma progress after MAPK inhibitor (MAPKI) and immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment, they can either undergo chemotherapy or rechallenge with previously used treatments. Methods: The outcomes of 48 patients retreated with MAPKIs and 50 patients retreated with ICIs following progression were retrospectively analyzed. Results: Upon retreatment with MAPKIs, the disease control rate was 60%. Univariate analysis of possible risk factors associated with short progression-free survival upon MAPKI treatment showed elevated LDH to be associated with decreased progression-free survival. Disease control rate after ICI retreatment was 24%. Melanoma of unknown primary was associated with prolonged progression-free survival upon ICI retreatment. Conclusion: Retreatment with MAPKIs or ICIs is a feasible option for patients with advanced melanoma.

Johannes Kleemann, Manuel Jäger, Eva Valesky, Stefan Kippenberger, Roland Kaufmann, Markus Meissner Department of Dermatology, Venerology and Allergology, University Hospital, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, GermanyCorrespondence: Johannes KleemannDepartment of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergy, University Hospital Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, Frankfurt am Main, 60590, GermanyTel +4969 6301 5179Fax +49 69 6301 5117Email johannes.kleemann@kgu.dePurpose: Rising melanoma incidences lead to an increasing need for individual therapy strategies in old patients. Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) is a modified herpes simplex virus, approved for the local treatment of unresectable metastatic melanoma. Since data on the efficacy and safety of geriatric patients are sparse, this study was conducted to gain further real-world experience in the treatment of old and oldest-old patients with T-VEC and to obtain data on therapy costs in this population in Germany.Patients and Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis, including all patients with a minimum age of 75 years who were treated with T-VEC from August 2016 to September 2020 in the Skin Cancer Center of the University Hospital Frankfurt, Germany. Patient clinicopathological data, treatment responses, toxicities, treatment-specific data and therapy costs were assessed.Results: Twelve patients with a median age of 83 years (75– 89 years) at the start of treatment were identified. By the end of the study, three (25%) patients experienced complete remission (CR), four (33%) experienced partial response (PR), two patients (17%) remained at stable disease (SD) and three (25%) patients suffered from progressive disease (PD). Overall response rate was 58.3%, and durable response rate was 41.7%. There were no treatment-related adverse events grade 3 or higher. The median duration of treatment was seventeen weeks (3– 57 weeks). Median medication costs in the patients who had completed treatment (n=10) were calculated to be 27,325 Euros in Germany.Conclusion: This study provides further evidence for an effective use of T-VEC in old and oldest-old patients. The low rate of adverse events seems to be favorable compared to other systemic melanoma therapies. Furthermore, duration of treatment was short and therapy costs were lower than would have been expected from clinical trial data. Altogether, these data encourage the use of T-VEC in this special patient cohort.Keywords: intralesional therapy, immunotherapy, oncolytic virus, advanced melanoma, cutaneous oncology, elderly patients

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.

PD-1 Immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as Pembrolizumab, can have a durable beneficial therapeutic effect in patients with advanced melanoma. However, not all patients will benefit equally from these therapies, and (potentially life-threatening) immune-related adverse events may occur. In this study, we investigate the value of early response assessment by FDG-PET/CT as a biomarker for predicting survival. We identified all patients with advanced melanoma who were treated with Pembrolizumab in our medical center and underwent a baseline and at least one follow-up FDG-PET/CT. The total metabolic tumor volume (TMTV) was calculated, and the evolution was compared to survival parameters. A total of 77 patients underwent a baseline and at least one follow-up FDG-PET/CT, 36 patients had follow-up imaging within 2–4 months, and 21 patients an FDG-PET/CT 5–6 months after baseline. When the TMTV evolution was categorized into two subgroups (stable/decrease versus increase), an association was found between stability or decrease in TMTV and better PFS and OS. A similar trend, however non-significant, was observed at 5–6 months. The evolution in TMTV as assessed by FDG-PET/CT 2–4 months after treatment initiation is associated with long-term outcomes in patients with advanced melanoma treated with Pembrolizumab.

The treatment of advanced melanoma has changed dramatically over the last decade. With the discovery of activating BRAF mutations and the development of targeted therapies and checkpoint inhibitors, the overall survival of patients with advanced melanoma has improved. This article provides an overview of systemic therapies, including the pivotal agents that have led to these advances.

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-021-01312-1

Background The aim of the study is to highlight the psychological aspects involved in patients with advanced melanoma and to describe the differences between subjects who are positive and negative for the BRAFv600e genetic mutation, a variable that leads to a different medical approach to cancer therapy. The hypothesis is that following knowledge of the genetic mutation and the therapeutic possibilities inherent to it, mutation positive patients (BRAF+) exhibit fewer negative psychological reactions than negative patients (BRAF-) at the time of diagnosis. Methods The tests used (SF-12, MHQ) were administered at the time of diagnosis and after three months. Results The main findings suggest a greater impairment of quality of life at T1 than at T0, regardless of the mutation; BRAF mutated patients show more favourable scores at diagnosis and a reversal of the trend at three months after diagnosis. Conclusions The results obtained, in line with the literature under review, show a significant general psychological distress in the present oncological sample, suggesting the importance of a psychological, as well as medical, care of the patient and the family.

Contains fulltext : 232046.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) BACKGROUND: Anti-PD-1 antibodies and BRAF/MEK inhibitors are the two main groups of systemic therapy in the treatment of BRAF(V600)-mutant advanced melanoma. Until now, data are inconclusive on which therapy to use as first-line treatment. The aim of this study was to use propensity score matching to compare first-line anti-PD-1 monotherapy vs. BRAF/MEK inhibitors in advanced BRAF(V600)-mutant melanoma patients. METHODS: We selected patients diagnosed between 2014 and 2017 with advanced melanoma and a known BRAF(V600)-mutation treated with first-line BRAF/MEK inhibitors or anti-PD-1 antibodies, registered in the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Patients were matched based on their propensity scores using the nearest neighbour and the optimal matching method. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2017, a total of 330 and 254 advanced melanoma patients received BRAF/MEK inhibitors and anti-PD-1 monotherapy as first-line systemic therapy. In the matched cohort, patients receiving anti-PD-1 antibodies as a first-line treatment had a higher median and 2-year overall survival compared to patients treated with first-line BRAF/MEK inhibitors, 42.3 months (95% CI: 37.3-NE) vs. 19.8 months (95% CI: 16.7-24.3) and 65.4% (95% CI: 58.1-73.6) vs. 41.7% (95% CI: 34.2-51.0). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that in the matched BRAF(V600)-mutant advanced melanoma patients, anti-PD-1 monotherapy is the preferred first-line treatment in patients with relatively favourable patient and tumour characteristics.

Aim: To compare effectiveness of nivolumab + ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) versus BRAF + MEK inhibitors (BRAFi + MEKi) in patients with BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma in the real-world setting. Materials & methods: This study used the Flatiron Health electronic medical record database. Results: After adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics, NIVO + IPI was associated with a 32% reduction in risk of death versus BRAFi + MEKi. At a mean follow-up of 15–16 months, 64% of NIVO + IPI patients and 43% of BRAFi + MEKi patients were alive; subsequent therapy was administered to 33 and 41% of patients, respectively. After first-line NIVO + IPI, 20% of patients died before subsequent therapy, whereas 32% died after first-line BRAFi + MEKi. Conclusion: In this real-world study, patients treated with first-line NIVO + IPI showed significant survival benefit versus those receiving first-line BRAFi + MEKi.

The aim of this study was to provide insight into real-world healthcare costs of patients initially diagnosed with localized or regionally advanced melanoma in three Dutch hospitals between 2003 and 2011. Patients were stratified according to their stage at diagnosis and recurrence status. Costs were calculated by applying unit costs to individual patient resource use and reported for the full disease course, the initial treatment episode, and treatment episodes for disease recurrence (stratified by type of recurrence). We included 198 patients with localized melanoma and 98 patients with regionally advanced melanoma. Total costs were much higher for patients with disease recurrence than for patients without disease recurrence: €20 007 versus €3032 for patients with localized melanoma and €19 519 versus €5951 for patients with regionally advanced melanoma. This was owing to the costs of disease recurrence because the costs of the initial treatment were comparable between patients with and without disease recurrence. Costs of disease recurrence were dependent on the type of recurrence: €4414, €4604, €8129 and €10 393 for a local recurrence, intralymphatic metastases, regional lymph node metastases and distant metastases, respectively. In conclusion, healthcare costs of patients with localized and regionally advanced melanoma were rather low for the initial treatment. Costs became, however, more substantial in case of disease recurrence. In the context of a rapidly changing treatment paradigm, it remains crucial to monitor treatment outcomes as well as healthcare expenditures.

Purpose: Several biomarkers of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) show potential but are not yet scalable to the clinic. We developed a pipeline that integrates deep learning on histology specimens with clinical data to predict ICI response in advanced melanoma. Experimental Design: We used a training cohort from New York University (New York, NY) and a validation cohort from Vanderbilt University (Nashville, TN). We built a multivariable classifier that integrates neural network predictions with clinical data. A ROC curve was generated and the optimal threshold was used to stratify patients as high versus low risk for progression. Kaplan–Meier curves compared progression-free survival (PFS) between the groups. The classifier was validated on two slide scanners (Aperio AT2 and Leica SCN400). Results: The multivariable classifier predicted response with AUC 0.800 on images from the Aperio AT2 and AUC 0.805 on images from the Leica SCN400. The classifier accurately stratified patients into high versus low risk for disease progression. Vanderbilt patients classified as high risk for progression had significantly worse PFS than those classified as low risk (P = 0.02 for the Aperio AT2; P = 0.03 for the Leica SCN400). Conclusions: Histology slides and patients' clinicodemographic characteristics are readily available through standard of care and have the potential to predict ICI treatment outcomes. With prospective validation, we believe our approach has potential for integration into clinical practice.

Introduction Anti‐PD‐1 monotherapies (aPD‐1) and BRAF/MEK inhibitors (BRAF/MEKi) changed the BRAF‐mutant advanced melanoma treatment landscape. This study aimed to improve the understanding of real‐world treatment patterns and optimal treatment sequence. Methods This was a retrospective study of BRAF‐mutant advanced melanoma patients who initiated 1L aPD‐1 or BRAF/MEKi in the US Oncology Network between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2017, followed through 31 December 2018. Patient and treatment characteristics were assessed descriptively, with Kaplan‐Meier methods used for time‐to‐event endpoints. As the primary analysis, overall survival (OS) and physician‐assessed progression‐free survival (rwPFS) were evaluated with Cox proportional hazard regression models and propensity score matching (n = 49). Results A total of 224 patients were included (median age 61 years, 62.9% male, 89.7% white): 36.2% received aPD‐1 and 63.8% BRAF/MEKi. Median OS and rwPFS were longer among aPD‐1 vs BRAF/MEKi patients (OS: not reached vs 13.9 months, log‐rank P = .0169; rwPFS: 7.6 vs 6.5 months, log‐rank P = .0144). Receipt of aPD‐1 was associated with improved OS (HR = 0.602 vs BRAF/MEKi [95%CI 0.382‐0.949]; P = .0287). Among patients without an event within 6 months of 1L initiation, receipt of aPD‐1 was associated with a decreased risk of progression or death from 6 months onwards (HR = 0.228 [95%CI 0.106‐0.493]; P = .0002). This association was not observed among patients within 6 months of 1L initiation (HR = 1.146; 95% CI 0.755‐1.738). Results from the propensity score‐matched pairs were consistent with these trends. Conclusion These results suggest a clinical benefit of 1L aPD‐1 compared to BRAF/MEKi after 6 months of treatment for BRAF‐mutant advanced melanoma. Future research should explore factors associated with early progression and their relationship with clinical outcomes., While both aPD‐1 and BRAF/MEKi are approved for BRAF‐mutant advanced melanoma, limited evidence exists comparing these therapies, particularly to understand the optimal treatment sequence. This study provides evidence of a clinical benefit of first‐line (1L) aPD‐1 compared to BRAF/MEKi after 6 months among patients with BRAF‐mutant advanced melanoma who received care in a large network of US community oncology clinics.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab (nivo + ipi) compared to current therapeutic alternatives in first-line treatment of patients with advanced melanoma from the Japanese national healthcare payer perspective using 48-month survival data from the CheckMate 067 Phase III trial. A three-state partitioned survival model was developed from projections of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) to estimate accrued quality-adjusted survival and costs over a 30-year time horizon. The analysis included nivo + ipi, nivolumab, and ipilimumab monotherapies (the three treatments included in CheckMate 067). Drug acquisition, administration, disease management, subsequent therapy, and adverse event (AE) costs were obtained via published sources and expert input (solicited via Delphi panel). AE frequencies were collected from the Checkmate 067 trial. Utility weights were estimated from the Checkmate 067 trial, based on Japanese tariffs. Results were presented as incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs, cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)). Nivo + ipi had the greatest estimated survival among the three competing treatments, followed by nivolumab monotherapy accruing the second greatest survival. The incremental cost-effectiveness of nivo + ipi was ¥778,000 per QALY vs. nivolumab and ¥1,584,000 per QALY vs. ipilimumab. The results indicate that nivo + ipi is cost-effective in Japan when compared to a threshold of ¥7,500,000 per QALY. This finding was found to be generally robust to sensitivity and scenario analyses. Limitations include uncertainty in long-term survival extrapolations and lack of Japan-specific clinical data. This analysis indicates that adding ipilimumab to nivolumab therapy represents a cost-effective new treatment option for patients with unresectable malignant melanoma in Japan.

Anti-PD-1 antibodies revolutionized the treatment of advanced melanoma patients. However, one out of three do not respond to this therapy, with an overall poor prognosis. Identification of predictive biomarkers in patients receiving immune-based therapies is necessary for minimizing risk of toxicity and optimizing patient benefit and is still an important unmet clinical need. Recently, many studies have evaluated peripheral blood markers as potential biomarkers, but none so far have been validated. We collected at baseline peripheral blood samples from 18 consecutive advanced melanoma patients treated with anti-PD-1 therapy. Main pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines were studied in PBMCs from baseline blood samples both evaluating mRNA expression by qRT-PCR and identifying PBMCs subpopulations by FACS analysis. We found that IFN-γ mRNA expression levels were significantly higher in responder patients compared to non-responder ones. Moreover, to better validate its role, we evaluated the IFN-γ/IL-10 ratio. This value was higher in responder patients. FACS analysis confirmed that CD4 + IFN-γ + PBMCs percentage was higher in responders. Our data suggest an interesting correlation between IFN-γ/IL-10 ratio and response to anti-PD-1 therapy in advanced melanoma patients, suggesting a new biomarker that could be easily incorporated in clinical practice.

Introduction Hyperprogression, characterized by a rapid acceleration in tumor growth, is a novel pattern of progression recently described in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. This study aims to assess the incidence of hyperprogression in patients with advanced melanoma treated with checkpoint inhibitors. Methods Clinical and radiological findings of all advanced melanoma patients who started checkpoint inhibitors between January 2013 and March 2019 in a tertiary academic center in the Netherlands were analyzed. Change in tumor burden was calculated by assessing volumetric tumor growth using the criteria as defined by immune Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Hyperprogression was defined as a time to treatment failure less than 2 months with doubling of tumor burden and a twofold increase in tumor growth rate during treatment. Possible hyperprogression was defined as the presence of the first two criteria in the absence of a pre-baseline scan. Results Out of 206 treatment episodes in 168 patients, 75 were evaluable for hyperprogression and 87 for possible hyperprogression. Hyperprogression was observed in one patient (1.3%) and possible hyperprogression was observed in one patient (1.1%). Conclusion Hyperprogression is rare in melanoma patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Our data question if hyperprogression really is a biological entity in metastatic melanoma.

The introduction of targeted therapies for the treatment of BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma was associated with different cutaneous adverse events (AEs).To describe the type, frequency and severity of cutaneous AEs related to vemurafenib; to understand the association between AEs and vemurafenib efficacy in terms of median overall survival (OS) and median progression-free survival (PFS); to identify molecular characteristics of long-term responders.This observational, retrospective, monocentric study included all consecutive patients with unresectable stage III or stage IV melanoma and BRAF V600E mutation that started treatment with vemurafenib between May 2012 and May 2014.62 patients with a median age of 56 years (range 26-82) were enrolled and received vemurafenib for a median period of 7.9 months (range 0.8-63.7). Among them, 45 patients presented at least one skin AE, 12 reduced the dosage due to cutaneous toxicity, and only one firstly reduced and after stopped the therapy. No specific molecular biomarkers were detected in long-term survivors.Among long-term survivors, skin AEs seem to be less frequent and less severe. Results on multivariable analysis revealed that the presence of at least one G2 toxicity is a protective factor considering PFS, but not in terms of OS.

SummaryThe combination of Cytotoxic T-Lymphozyte Antigen-4 (CTLA‑4) and Programmed death-1 (PD‑1) antibodies and the combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors are the current clinical standards for combination immune and targeted therapy for melanoma, respectively. The success of these therapies has stimulated research into novel drug combinations for melanoma, of which a large majority are based on combination with PD‑1 or PD-Ligand 1 (PD-L1) blocking drugs. Thus, the aim is to provide an overview of the most important combination strategies in late stage clinical development and an outlook on drug combinations in early development that might enter larger clinical trials within the next few years.

Programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) checkpoint inhibitor therapy leads to immune-related adverse events (irAEs). We sought to evaluate whether the development of irAEs correlates with the treatment response in Chinese patients with advanced melanoma. In this study, we conducted a retrospective study of advanced melanoma patients who received PD-1 inhibitor therapy in China between August 2014 and March 2018. A total of 93 patients treated with PD-1 inhibitors including pembrolizumab and nivolumab were enrolled. The most frequent irAEs were pruritus, rash, vitiligo, and fatigue. The median time to onset of irAEs was 6.1 weeks. The overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were higher in patients with irAEs than those without irAEs (P = 0.004 and P = 0.003, respectively), and better in patients who experienced three or more irAEs than those with none (P

Background Pembrolizumab (PEMBRO) and ipilimumab + nivolumab (IPI + NIVO) are approved advanced melanoma (AM) immunotherapies. To address limited health-related quality of life (QoL) real-world evidence with immunotherapies in AM, we compared QoL in AM patients receiving either treatment in clinical practice. Methods A prospective US observational study enrolled adult AM patients initiating first-line PEMBRO or IPI + NIVO between June 2017 and March 2018. Endpoints included the QLQ-C30 global health score (GHS) and EuroQol visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) scores. Mean changes were compared using repeated measures mixed-effects models and are presented covariate adjusted. Results 225 PEMBRO and 187 IPI + NIVO patients were enrolled. From baseline through week 24, PEMBRO was associated with 3.2 mean GHS score increase (95% CI 0.5, 5.9; p = .02), while no change was observed with IPI + NIVO; 0.2 (95% CI − 2.6, 3.0; p = 0.87). Among objective treatment-responders, GHS scores associated with PEMBRO increased 6.0 (95% CI 3.1, 8.8; p p = .01). In treatment non-responders, IPI + NIVO was associated with GHS/QoL deterioration of − 3.7 (95% CI − 6.8, − 0.6; p = .02), PEMBRO non-responders demonstrated no change; 0.7 (95% CI − 2.3, 3.7; p = 0.6). Between treatments, PEMBRO patients increased 2.6 greater in EQ-VAS (95% CI 0.6, 4.5; p = .01) vs IPI + NIVO at 24 weeks. Conclusions PEMBRO was associated with better 24-week QoL compared to IPI + NIVO in actual clinical practice settings. Real-world data has known limitations, but with further confirmation these results may have implications for treatment selection.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) significantly prolong survival in patients with metastatic melanoma but can lead to serious immune-related adverse events. In this report, we described a case of atypical neuropathy caused by nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy before primary tumor resection. In our case, not only demyelinating neuropathy, but also muscle weakness and unilateral facial nerve palsy developed and manifested as severe and diverse symptoms. Moreover, unlike spontaneously developing demyelinating peripheral neuropathy, the present case suggested the therapeutic effects of high-dose methylprednisolone monotherapy for the treatment of ICIs-induced immune-related demyelinating peripheral neuropathy.

Despite considerable progress made in the treatment of patients with advanced melanoma, the majority of the patients treated with BRAF and mitogen-activated protein inhibitors (BRAFi and MEKi) experience a disease progression due to acquired resistance. Currently, ongoing studies explore the possibility to overcome or reverse this process. Our multicenter retrospective analysis included 51 patients with metastatic BRAF-mutated melanoma who had previously progressed on BRAFi/MEKi than had progressed on immunotherapy (anti-progression disease-1 or anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4) and next were rechallenged with BRAFi/MEKi. Median age at BRAFi/MEKi rechallenge was 56 (range: 31-82 y/o). Median overall survival from the start of the first BRAFi/MEKi therapy and from rechallenge BRAFi/MEKi treatment was 29.7 and 9.3 months, respectively, whereas median progression-free survival was 10.5 and 5.9 months, respectively. Six-month, annual, and 2-year overall survival rates on both treatments were: 98% and 55%, 92% and 29%, and 69% and 2%, respectively. A response rate to treatment was higher in the group receiving BRAFi/MEKi for the first time as compared with the group receiving BRAFi/MEKi rechallenge and was overall response rate 72% and 27%; disease control rate 92% and 63%. Time interval between the end of the first BRAFi/MEKi treatment and the beginning of BRAFi/MEKi rechallenge did not influence median overall survival or progression-free survival. A lower toxicity rate was noted with BRAFi/MEKi rechallenge. BRAFi/MEKi rechallenge treatment remains clinically important and is associated with the lower toxicity. BRAFi/MEKi rechallenge efficacy is higher in patients who are in good performance status, with normal lactate dehydrogenase, and without brain metastases.

Molecular profiling with next-generation sequencing (NGS) has been applied in multiple solid cancers to discover potential therapeutic targets. Here, we describe the results of a clinical NGS panel in patients with advanced melanoma. Thirty-six tumor tissues from patients with BRAF wild-type melanoma at Seoul National University Hospital (SNUH; Seoul, Republic of Korea) were collected and deep-sequenced using the SNUH FIRST-Cancer NGS panel to assess single-nucleotide variants, small insertions/deletions, copy number variations, and structural variations to estimate tumor mutation burden (TMB). We discovered 106 oncogenic alterations and most of the patients (n = 33, 92%) harbored at least one oncogenic alteration, including 2 patients who were initially diagnosed as BRAF V600E–negative but were later confirmed to be positive. Altogether, 36 samples were classified into RAS/BRAF/NF1–mutant (n = 14, 39%) or triple wild-type (n = 22, 61%) melanoma subtypes. The estimated median TMB was 8.2 mutations per Mb, ranging from 0 to 146.67 mutations per Mb. Of the 36 patients, 25 (70%) had actionable alterations with currently developed drugs, and 7 (19.4%) were enrolled in clinical trials with an RAF inhibitor, multiple receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, and anti-programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) antibody. TMB tended to associate with progression-free survival (PFS) of treatment with anti-PD-1/PDL-1 antibody (HR, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.92–1.00; P = 0.07). High-TMB (≥13) group was associated with longer PFS than the low-TMB group (median 34.0 vs. 11.0 weeks, P = 0.04). Overall, the clinical use of a NGS panel in patients with advanced melanoma shows association with clinical outcomes and several therapeutic strategies.

Background Resistance to immune checkpoint blockade and targeted therapy in melanoma patients is currently one of the major clinical challenges. With the approval of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC), oncolytic viruses are now in clinical practice for locally advanced or non-resectable melanoma. Here, we describe the usage of T-VEC in stage IVM1b-M1c melanoma patients, who achieved complete remission or stable disease upon systemic treatment but suffered from a loco-regional recurrence. To our knowledge, there are no case reports so far describing T-VEC as a means to overcome acquired resistance to immune checkpoint blockade or targeted therapy. Methods All melanoma patients in our department treated with T-VEC in the period of 2016–2018 were evaluated retrospectively. Data on clinicopathological characteristics, treatment response, and toxicity were analyzed. Results Fourteen melanoma patients were treated with T-VEC in our center. Six patients (43%) received T-VEC first-line. In eight patients (57%), T-VEC followed a prior systemic therapy. Three patients with M1b stage and one patient with M1c stage melanoma were treated with T-VEC. These patients suffered from loco-regional progress, whilst distant metastases had regressed during prior systemic treatment. 64% of patients showed a benefit from therapy with T-VEC. The durable response rate was 36%. Conclusion T-VEC represents an effective and tolerable treatment option. This is true not only for loco-regionally advanced melanoma patients, but also for patients with stable or regressive systemic metastases who develop loco-regionally acquired resistance upon treatment with immune checkpoint blockade or targeted therapy. A sensible selection of suitable patients seems to be crucial.

Contains fulltext : 229865.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) OBJECTIVE: Phase III studies of checkpoint inhibitors changed the therapeutic landscape for lung cancer. In 2015 the Dutch Society of Chest Physicians (NVALT) introduced a national immunotherapy registry for patients with lung cancer; quality standards for hospitals were implemented. At population level we studied clinical benefit in daily practice and in patients who are underrepresented in phase III trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From the initial introduction of checkpoint inhibitors in the Netherlands patients were centrally registered. Educational programs and quality control were provided under supervision of NVALT. The largest immunotherapy providing hospitals were compared to hospitals who provided less checkpoint inhibitors as marker of experience. Patients characteristics, treatment and side effects, response rate and survival were studied. RESULTS: A total of 2676 patients were registered, 2302 with follow up data were evaluated. Between October 2015 and December 2017 a gradual increase from 12 to 30 qualified hospitals showed no major toxicity differences. Toxicity led to a hospital admission rate of 9.1 with an average duration of 10.4 days. Overall tumor response was 21.8 % and median overall survival 12.6 months. Overall survival was not significantly different for patients aged ≥ 75 years, those having brain metastases or selected auto-immune diseases before start checkpoint inhibitors compared to younger patients or those without, respectively. Survival outcomes were worse in patients with PS 2+, non-smokers, and patients who received any palliative radiotherapy (HR 2.1, 95 % CI 1.7-2.7; 1.3, 95 % CI 1.0-1.6 and 1.2, 95 % CI 1.1-1.4, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Changes in the therapeutic landscape did not lead to major differences in quality of care between hospitals. Elderly patients, those with brain metastases or selected auto-immune disease underrepresented in clinical trials did not do worse on checkpoint inhibitors, except for those with PS 2 + .

Background/aim Secondary brain lesions occur commonly in patients with advanced melanoma. Despite increasing use of local therapies, many elderly patients qualify for whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT). For these patients, a survival score was created. Patients and methods Seven characteristics were retrospectively investigated in 35 elderly (≥65 years) patients with melanoma, namely WBRT regimen, age, gender, Karnofsky performance score (KPS), number of brain lesions, non-cerebral metastases and interval from melanoma diagnosis to WBRT. Results Age ≤71 years (p=0.044) and KPS ≥80% (p=0.005) were significantly associated with more favorable survival. Based on these characteristics, patients received 0 (n=13), 1 (n=12) or 2 points (n=10). Two prognostic groups were designed, 0 or 1 point vs. 2 points, with actuarial 6-month survival rates of 12% and 48%, respectively (p=0.002). Conclusion This simple implement allows quick estimation of the survival of elderly patients receiving WBRT for cerebral metastases from melanoma.

Purpose: China has much lower 5-year survival rates among melanoma patients than Western countries. This retrospective study describes real-world clinical outcomes and prognostic factors in locally advanced/metastatic melanoma in China. Materials and methods: Adults patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma treated between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2015, at the Beijing Cancer Hospital were eligible (data cutoff: December 31, 2017). The Kaplan-Meier method and Log-Rank test were used to estimate the median value of time-to-event outcomes. A Cox proportional hazards model was simulated to evaluate associations of patients’ characteristics with survival. Results: Overall, there were 221 and 116 Chinese locally advanced and/or metastatic melanoma patients were enrolled in the first line (1L) and the second line (2L) treatments, respectively. The real-world objective response rate was Conclusion: The current clinical outcomes in advanced melanoma patients in China are poor. High ECOG performance score independently increase risk of death both from 1L and 2L treatments, suggesting a high unmet medical need for immunotherapy in advanced melanoma.

Contains fulltext : 225250.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) Cutaneous melanoma is a common type of cancer in Adolescents and Young Adults (AYAs, 15-39 years of age). However, AYAs are underrepresented in clinical trials investigating new therapies and the outcomes from these therapies for AYAs are therefore unclear. Using prospectively collected nation-wide data from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR), we compared baseline characteristics, mutational profiles, treatment strategies, grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs), responses and outcomes in AYAs (n = 210) and older adults (n = 3775) who were diagnosed with advanced melanoma between July 2013 and July 2018. Compared to older adults, AYAs were more frequently female (51% versus 40%, p = 0.001), and had a better Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG 0 in 54% versus 45%, p = 0.004). BRAF and NRAS mutations were age dependent, with more BRAF V600 mutations in AYAs (68% versus 46%) and more NRAS mutations in older adults (13% versus 21%), p < 0.001. This finding translated in distinct first-line treatment patterns, where AYAs received more initial targeted therapy. Overall, grade 3-4 AE percentages following first-line systemic treatment were similar for AYAs and older adults; anti-PD-1 (7% versus 14%, p = 0.25), anti-CTLA-4 (16% versus 33%, p = 0.12), anti-PD-1 + anti-CTLA-4 (67% versus 56%, p = 0.34) and BRAF/MEK-inhibition (14% versus 23%, p = 0.06). Following anti-CTLA-4 treatment, no AYAs experienced a grade 3-4 colitis, while 17% of the older adults did (p = 0.046). There was no difference in response to treatment between AYAs and older adults. The longer overall survival observed in AYAs (hazard ratio (HR) 0.7; 95% CI 0.6-0.8) was explained by the increased cumulative incidence of non-melanoma related deaths in older adults (sub-distribution HR 2.8; 95% CI 1.5-4.9), calculated by competing risk analysis. The results of our national cohort study show that baseline characteristics and mutational profiles differ between AYAs and older adults with advanced melanoma, leading to different treatment choices made in daily practice. Once treatment is initiated, AYAs and older adults show similar tumor responses and melanoma-specific survival.

The incidence of metastatic melanoma continues to increase each decade. Although surgical treatment is often curative for localized stage I and stage II disease, the median survival for patients with distant metastases is less than 1 year. The last 2 decades have witnessed a breakthrough in therapeutic options with the development of immune checkpoint inhibitors, small molecule targeted therapy, and oncolytic viral therapy. This article provides an overview of the treatment options available for advanced melanoma, including chemotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, interleukin-2, and oncolytic viral agents.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab combined therapy is one of the promising drugs that enhance the anti- immune response in patients with advanced melanoma. Therefore, to increase its response rate is of great interest to dermatologists. Recent reports suggested that, since CD8+ T cells after the administration of ICIs increase the RANKL expression to induce an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment in melanoma, denosumab might enhance the anti-tumor effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as nivolumab and ipilimumab. In this report, we present a case of multiple metastatic melanoma with nivolumab, ipilimumab plus denosumab combined therapy.

Background: Treatment of advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma has changed dramatically in the past 3 years thanks to the approval of new immunotherapy and targeted therapy agents. Objectives: The goal of our survey was to investigate when immunotherapy and targeted therapy are used in the management of advanced melanoma patients and whether differences exist between the types of setting. Methods: Oncologists from academic centers, community-based centers, and private clinics were invited to participate in an online survey. Survey questions addressed the proportion of BRAF-mutant patients per treatment line, proportion of patients on targeted therapy and immunotherapy available in the United States, and reasons for prescribing each drug class. Results: A total of 101 physicians completed the survey, of which 47 worked in a private clinic, 33 in an academic center, and 21 in a community-based center. Academic center participants tended to see more severe patients ( P < .001) and had more patients in second-line treatment than participants from other setting types. In addition, academic center physicians had more patients in clinical trials ( P < .001), and they prescribed the ipilimumab and nivolumab combination more frequently. In terms of sequencing, all participants used targeted therapy for severe or rapidly progressing patients and immunotherapy for those who were less severe or slowly progressing. Conclusions: The findings illustrate the differences in treatment approach per type of setting, with patients in academic centers more likely to receive recently approved products or to be enrolled in clinical trials than those in community-based settings.

Background The anti-programmed cell death one antibodies (Anti-PD-1 Ab) pembrolizumab or nivolumab are commonly prescribed to patients with advanced melanoma. The purpose of the current study is to identify baseline clinical characteristics associated with time to treatment initiation (TTI) of pembrolizumab or nivolumab for advanced melanoma and whether treatment delays are associated with differences in survival outcomes. Methods All patients receiving Anti-PD-1 Ab as a first-line treatment for advanced melanoma outside of clinical trials at British Columbia Cancer Agency between 10/2015 and 10/2019 were identified retrospectively. TTI was defined as the interval from pathologic diagnosis of advanced melanoma to first Anti-PD-1 Ab treatment. To determine the association between TTI and baseline characteristics, multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression analyses provided an estimate of the instantaneous relative risk of starting treatment at any time point (hazard ratio [HR] >1 indicates shorter TTI). To describe changes in overall survival (OS) observed for each four-week delay in treatment initiation, multivariable cox proportional hazard regression modelling was also performed. Results In a cohort of 302 patients, the median TTI was 52 days (interquartile range 30.2-99.0). Pulmonary metastases (M1b)/non-central nervous system visceral metastases (M1c) vs. metastases to skin or non-regional lymph nodes (M1a)(HR=1.50, 95% CI=1.12-2.02; p=0.007) and pre-treatment Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) >1 (vs 0/1, HR=1.50, 95% CI= 1.11-2.01; p=0.008) were associated with earlier TTI. An association between treatment delay and improved OS was observed. Conclusion Patients having visceral metastases and poor baseline ECOG PS were more likely to initiate Anti-PD-1 Ab sooner. The association of shorter TTI with worse OS likely represents confounding by indication (urgent treatment offered to patients with aggressive disease).

Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) improves overall survival (OS) in unresectable stage IIIB/C-IV melanoma T-VEC may have synergistic effects with CTLA-4 inhibitors In the absence of a trial comparing T-VEC and ipilimumab (T-VEC + IPI) to T-VEC, we applied a novel indirect comparison method using extrapolated OS curves to estimate OS outcomes in a simulated trial comparing both regimens in stage IIIB/C-IV unresectable melanoma.Two trials with extractable OS curves for a T-VEC versus T-VEC + IPI comparison were identified. Outcomes were adjusted for heterogeneity in prognostic factors using a calculated adjustment factor. T-VEC and adjusted/unadjusted T-VEC+IPI curves were plotted with 95% CIs.Unadjusted indirect OS comparison of T-VEC versus T-VEC + IPI revealed no significant difference up to 15 months. Extrapolation beyond 15 months showed significant survival benefits for T-VEC + IPI over T-VEC, confirmed in adjusted analyses. The expected OS percentage at 48 months is 32.0% (95% CI = 26.6-37.3) for T-VEC, 60.0% (95% CI = 46.2-69.1) for unadjusted, and 81.1% (95% CI = 72.3-85.9) for adjusted T-VEC + IPI.Our novel indirect comparison suggests that T-VEC + IPI may demonstrate a significantly improved OS versus T-VEC alone. Findings may portend a possible role for the addition of T-VEC to advanced melanoma treatment regimens in select patients as salvage therapy.

Immune checkpoint and MAP kinase pathway inhibitors can significantly improve long-term survival for patients with melanoma. There is limited real-world data of these regimens’ effectiveness. We retrospectively analyzed 402 patients with unresectable and metastatic melanoma between August 2013 and July 2020 treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors and MAP kinase pathway targeted therapy in Alberta, Canada. Overall survival (OS) was compared using Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression analyses. Subgroup survival outcomes were analyzed by first-line treatment regime and BRAF mutation status. Three treatment eras were defined based on drug access: prior to August 2013, August 2013 to November 2016, and November 2016 to July 2020. Across each era, there were improvements in median OS: 11.7 months, 15.9 months, and 33.6 months, respectively. Patients with BRAF mutant melanoma had improved median OS when they were treated with immunotherapy in the first line as opposed to targeted therapy (median OS not reached for immunotherapy versus 17.4 months with targeted treatment). Patients with BRAF wild-type melanomas had improved survival with ipilimumab and nivolumab versus those treated with a single-agent PD-1 inhibitor (median OS not reached and 21.2 months). Our real-world analysis confirms significant survival improvements with each subsequent introduction of novel therapies for advanced melanoma.

Simple Summary: The survival of advanced melanoma patients has improved significantly over the last decade due to the introduction of new systemic therapies. It is unknown whether survival outcomes of advanced melanoma patients differ between melanoma centers in the Netherlands. This research aimed to assess center variation in treatments and 2-year survival probabilities of advanced melanoma patients diagnosed between 2013 and 2017 in the Netherlands. Significant center variation in 2-year survival probabilities of patients diagnosed in 2014-2015 was observed after correcting for case-mix and treatment with new systemic therapies. The different use of new systemic therapies partially explained the observed variation. From 2016 onwards, no significant difference in 2-year survival was observed between centers. This study shows the added value of quality monitoring with a national registry that enables the study of variation between centers.Background: To assure a high quality of care for patients treated in Dutch melanoma centers, hospital variation in treatment patterns and outcomes is evaluated in the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. The aim of this study was to assess center variation in treatments and 2-year survival probabilities of patients diagnosed between 2013 and 2017 in the Netherlands. Methods: We selected patients diagnosed between 2013 and 2017 with unresectable IIIC or stage IV melanoma, registered in the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Centers' performance on 2-year survival was evaluated using Empirical Bayes estimates calculated in a random effects model. Treatment patterns of the centers with the lowest and highest estimates for 2-year survival were compared. Results: For patients diagnosed between 2014 and 2015, significant center variation in 2-year survival probabilities was observed even after correcting for case-mix and treatment with new systemic therapies. The different use of new systemic therapies partially explained the observed variation. From 2016 onwards, no significant difference in 2-year survival was observed between centers. Conclusion: Our data suggest that between 2014 and 2015, after correcting for patient case-mix, significant variation in 2-year survival probabilities between Dutch melanoma centers existed. The use of new systemic therapies could partially explain this variation. In 2013 and between 2016 and 2017, no significant variation between centers existed.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) significantly improved the prognosis of advanced melanoma patients. However, many patients do not derive long-term benefit from ICI therapy due to primary and acquired resistance. In this regard, it has been shown that coagulation factors contribute to cancer immune evasion and might therefore promote resistance to ICI. In particular, recent observations in murine systems demonstrated that myeloid-derived factor Xa (FXa) impedes anti-tumor immunity in the tumor microenvironment and that the oral FXa inhibitor (FXa-i) rivaroxaban synergizes with ICI. The synergistic effect of FXa inhibitors with clinical ICI therapy is unknown. We performed a retrospective study of 280 metastatic melanoma patients who were treated with ICI and stratified them for concomitant anticoagulation (AC) by medical chart review. Data on baseline patient characteristics, specific AC treatment, ICI therapy, other tumor-targeting therapies, and clinical outcomes were analyzed. Of 280 patients who received ICI, 76 received concomitant AC during initial ICI therapy. Patients on AC were treated either with heparins (n = 29), vitamin K antagonists (VKA) (n = 20), or FXa-i (n = 27). Patients requiring AC during ICI therapy showed no significantly reduced objective response rate (ORR) (p = 0.27), or progression-free (PFS, median PFS 4 vs. 4 months, p = 0.71) or overall survival (OS, median OS: 39 vs. 51 months, p = 0.31). Furthermore, patients who underwent AC did not show significantly more bleeding complications (p = 0.605) than those who were not anticoagulated. Remarkably, stratification of patients by the class of AC revealed that patients receiving FXa-i were more likely to obtain CR (26.9 vs. 12.6%, p = 0.037), and showed better ORR (69.2 vs. 36.4%, p = 0.005), PFS (median PFS: 12 months vs. 3 months, p = 0.006), and OS (median OS not reached vs. 42 months, p = 0.09) compared to patients not receiving FXa-i. Patient demographics and tumor characteristics in this patient subcohort did not significantly differ from patients not on FXa-i. In summary, our study provides first clinical evidence that the clinical application of FXa-i may enhance the efficacy of ICI therapy via the restoration of anti-tumor immunity, while patients who received FXa-i were not more likely to encounter bleeding complications.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW To review evidence on the efficacy and safety of combined BRAF-targeted therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma. RECENT FINDINGS Programmed death-1 pathway inhibitors administered with BRAF/MEK inhibitors showed promising anti-tumour activity in BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma and were investigated for safety and efficacy in three large international clinical trials. Although, in two out of those three randomized phase III studies, progression-free survival (PFS) did not reach statistical significance, results showed that duration of response (DOR) and overall survival (OS) were improved using combined therapy, sustaining the scientific rationale for its use at least in a subset of metastatic melanomas. However, the frequent occurrence of autoimmunity-induced toxicities should be considered since it is limiting the continuity and the wide application of these regimens. Novel treatment modalities combining targeted therapy with checkpoint inhibitors require further clinical investigation and elucidation of their effect on the immune system and cancer cell modulation.

Background Cutaneous melanoma is an aggressive cancer that occurs in melanocytes, located in the epidermis. Historically it has a high rate of morbidity and mortality, due to the resistance and toxicity of traditional therapies. Its incidence has increased annually by 4% to 8%. Until 2011 it was still considered a devastating and almost always fatal disease in a few months. Advances in therapies have significantly improved the results of most patients with advanced melanoma, especially those with a BRAFV600 mutation, which account for almost 50% of tumors. Before the recent evolution in treatment, the prognosis and overall survival were considered very bad. The introduction of new drugs has improved progression-free survival and overall survival, as well as producing faster clinical responses. Methods Comparison of endpoints such as progression-free survival and overall melanoma survival from the Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC) studies of each drug in the therapeutic groups under assessment used in the disease. The variables used were the Endpoints Global Survival at various times (12 months, 24 months, 36 months and the median) and Progression-Free Survival. Results Combined immunotherapy (Nivolumab and Ipilimumab) improves overall survival and progression-free survival, achieving better results than targeted therapy. In this, the combination of a BRAF inhibitor and a MEK inhibitor, presents better results with the combination of Encorafenib and Binimetinib. Conclusions Both targeted therapy and immunotherapy transform melanoma with a dismal prognosis into a life-threatening illness.

BackgroundAnti-PD-1 monotherapy is the standard therapy for advanced melanoma patients, including those with NRAS mutations. The influence of NRAS mutation on immunotherapy, especially in noncutaneous melanoma, is largely uncharacterized.Materials and MethodsWe analyzed clinical data of four clinical trials for advanced melanoma patients treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy between 2016 and 2019. The impact of NRAS mutation on efficacy and outcome of immunotherapy were analyzed in cutaneous and noncutaneous groups separately.ResultsA total of 206 patients were assessed, including 92 cutaneous melanoma patients with 12 NRAS mutations and 114 noncutaneous melanoma patients with 21 NRAS mutations. In cutaneous melanoma, the response rates of NRAS mutant patients were lower than patients without NRAS mutations (9.5% vs. 23.9%), the median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) were shorter for patients with NRAS mutations, although without significant difference for OS (P=0.081). In noncutaneous melanoma, the response rates were 0 and 13.7% for NRAS mutant and wild-type patients, the median PFS were 3.6 months (95% CI: 0.9-6.3) and 4.3 months (95%CI: 2.9-5.7) (P=0.015), and the median OS were 10.8 months (95% CI: 1.5-20.1) and 15.3 months (95% CI: 13.2-17.4) (P=0.025), respectively. In multivariate analysis, NRAS mutation, along with ECOG performance score and LDH level, was negatively associated with both PFS (HR 1.912, P=0.044) and OS (HR 2.210, P=0.025) in noncutaneous melanoma.ConclusionIn advanced Asian melanoma treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy, NRAS mutant patients had lower response rates and poorer prognoses compared to wild-type patients, especially in noncutaneous subtypes.

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.

Contains fulltext : 244554.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access)

Background: The best response and survival outcomes between advanced melanoma patients treated with the anti-PD-1 monotherapy vary greatly, rendering a risk model in need to optimally stratify patients based on their likelihood to benefit from the said treatment.Methods: We performed an ad hoc analysis of 89 advanced melanoma patients treated with the anti-PD-1 monotherapy from two prospective clinical trials at the Peking University Cancer Hospital from April 2016 to May 2018. Clinicodemographical characteristics, baseline and early-on-treatment (median 0.6 months after anti-PD-1 monotherapy initiation) routine laboratory variables, including complete blood count and general chemistry, and best response/survival data were extracted and analyzed in both univariate and multivariate logistic and Cox proportional hazard models.Results: After three rounds of screening, risk factors associated with a poorer PFS included a high pre-treatment neutrophil, derived neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (dNLR), low pre-treatment hemoglobin, and low early-on-/pre-treatment fold change of eosinophil; those with a poorer OS included a high pre-treatment neutrophil, eosinophil, PLT, early-on/pre-treatment fold change of LDH and neutrophil; and those with a poorer best response included a high pre-treatment NLR and early-on-/pre-treatment LDH fold change. Risk models (scale: low, median-low, median high, and high risk) were established based on these risk factors as dichotomous variables and M stage (with vs. without distant metastasis) for PFS (HR 1.976, 95% CI, 1.507–2.592, P < 0.001), OS (HR 2.348, 95% CI, 1.688–3.266), and non-responder (OR 3.586, 95% CI, 1.668–7.713, P = 0.001), respectively. For patients with low, median-low, median-high, and high risks of developing disease progression (PD), six-month PFS rates were 64.3% (95% CI, 43.5–95.0%), 37.5% (95% CI, 22.4–62.9%), 9.1% (95% CI, 3.1–26.7%), and 0%, respectively. For patients with OS risks of low, median-low, median-high, and high, OS rates at 12 months were 82.5% (95% CI, 63.1–100%), 76.6% (95% CI, 58.4–100%), 42.1% (95% CI, 26.3–67.3%), and 23.9% (95% CI, 11.1–51.3%), respectively. For patients with risks of low, median-low, median-high, and high of being a non-responder, objective response rates were 50.0% (95% CI, 15.7–84.3%), 27.8% (95% CI, 9.7–53.5%), 10.3% (95% CI, 2.9–24.2%), and 0%, respectively.Conclusion: A risk scoring model based on the clinicodemographical characteristics and easily obtainable routinely tested laboratory biomarkers may facilitate the best response and survival outcome prediction and personalized therapeutic decision making for the anti-PD-1 monotherapy treated advanced melanoma patients in Asia.

Background: While the introduction of checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) as standard of care treatment for various tumor types has led to considerable improvements in clinical outcome, the majority of patients still fail to respond. Preclinical data suggest that stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) could work synergistically with CPIs by acting as an in situ cancer vaccine, thus potentially increasing response rates and prolonging disease control. Though SBRT administered concurrently with CPIs has been shown to be safe, evidence of its efficacy from large randomized trials is still lacking. The aim of this multicenter randomized phase II trial is to assess whether SBRT administered concurrently with CPIs could prolong progression-free survival as compared to standard of care in patients with advanced solid tumors. Methods/design: Ninety-eight patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive CPI treatment combined with SBRT (Arm A) or CPI monotherapy (Arm B). Randomization will be stratified according to tumor histology (melanoma, renal, urothelial, head and neck squamous cell or non-small cell lung carcinoma) and disease burden (≤ or > 3 cancer lesions). The recommended SBRT dose is 24Gy in 3 fractions, which will be administered to a maximum of 3 lesions and is to be completed prior to the second or third CPI cycle (depending on CPI treatment schedule). The study’s primary endpoint is progression-free survival as per iRECIST. Secondary endpoints include overall survival, objective response, local control, quality of life and toxicity. Translational analyses will be performed using blood, fecal and tissue samples. Discussion: The CHEERS trial will provide further insights into the clinical and immunological impact of SBRT when combined with CPIs in patients with advanced solid tumors. Furthermore, study results will inform the design of future immuno-radiotherapy trials. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03511391. Registered 17 April 2018., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published