Search

Importance: Acral (AM) and mucosal melanomas (MM) are rare subtypes with a poor prognosis. In those with advanced disease, anti-PD-1 (PD1) therapy has reduced activity compared to that seen in non-acral cutaneous melanoma., Objective: To determine the efficacy of adjuvant PD1 in resected AM or MM., Design: An international, retrospective cohort study SETTING: Data up to November 2021 collected from 20 centres across 10 countries., Participants: One hundred and ninety four patients with resected stage III or IV 1 AM or MM who received adjuvant PD1 were included and compared to matched patients from the Melanoma Institute Australia (MIA) database using a propensity score matching analysis., Main Outcomes and Measures: Recurrence-free survival (RFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS) were investigated., Results: Forty five of 139 (32%) AM and 9 of 55 (16%) MM patients completed adjuvant therapy. The main reason for early treatment cessation in both groups was disease recurrence: 51 (37%) and 30 (55%) in the AM and MM groups, respectively. In the AM group adjuvant PD1 was associated with a longer RFS [HR-0.69 (0.52-0.92, p = 0.0127)], DMFS [HR0.58 (0.38-0.89, p = 0.0134)] and OS [HR of 0.59 (0.38-0.92, p-value 0.0196)] when compared to the historical cohort. In the MM group there was no statistical difference in RFS [HR1.36 (0.69-2.68,p-value 0.3799], DMFS or OS., Conclusion and Relevance: After adjuvant PD1, both AM and MM have a high risk of recurrence. Our data suggests a benefit to using adjuvant PD1 therapy in resected AM but not in resected MM. Additional studies to investigate the efficacy of adjuvant PD1 for MM are needed., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: MSC: consultant advisor for Amgen, BMS, Eisai, Ideaya, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Oncosec, Pierre-Fabre, Qbiotics, Regeneron, Roche, Merck and Sanofi, and received honoraria from BMS, MSD, Sanofi and Novartis. DBJ: advisory boards or as a consultant for BMS, Catalyst Biopharma, Iovance, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Mosaic ImmunoEngineering, Novartis, Oncosec, Pfizer, Targovax, and Teiko, and has received research funding from BMS and Incyte. RJS: Advisory boards/consulting for BMS, Merck, Novartis, Marengo, Pfizer, and Replimune and received research funding from Merck. FD: receives/received honoraria and travel support from Pierre Fabre, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb and Sun Pharma.CL : consultant advisor for BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Merck and Sanofi YN: advisory boards/consulting for MSD and Novartis and received honoraria from Alexion Pharma, BMS, Maruho, MSD, Novartis, Ono Pharma, Sanofi, SunPharma, and Tanabe-Mitsubishi Pharma AMM: consultant advisor for BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pierre-Fabre, QBioticsKN: advisory board for Novartis and MSD, honoraria from Ono pharmaceutical, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and MSD.LZ: served as consultant and has received honoraria from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, and Sunpharma and travel support from MSD, BMS, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work.JS: Honoraria: Novartis; Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Amgen, Merck Sharp & DohmePB: conference sponsorship BMS, MSD, Novartis; speaker fees: Novartis, MSD.JP: Received travel support from Pierre Fabre, MSD, BMS, Novartis outside the scope of this study. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: While there is still a significant need to identify potential biomarkers that can predict which patients are most likely to respond to immunotherapy treatments, radiomic approaches have shown promising results. The objectives of this study were to evaluate whether a previously validated radiomics signature of CD8 T-cells could predict progressions at a lesion level and whether the spatial heterogeneity of this radiomics score could be used at a patient level to assess the clinical response and survival of melanoma patients., Methods: Clinical data from patients with advanced melanoma treated in our center with immunotherapy were retrieved. Radiomic features were extracted and the CD8 radiomics signature was applied. A progressive lesion was defined by an increase in lesion size of 20% or more. Dispersion metrics of the radiomics signature were estimated to evaluate the impact of interlesion heterogeneity on patient's response. Fine-tuned cut-offs for predicting overall survival were evaluated after splitting data into training and test sets., Results: A total of 136 patients were included in this study, with 1120 segmented lesions at baseline, and 1052 lesions at first evaluation. A low CD8 radiomics score at baseline was associated with a significantly higher risk of lesion progression (AUC=0.55, p=0.0091), especially for lesions larger than >1 mL (AUC=0.59 overall, p=0.0035, with AUC=0.75, p=0.002 for subcutaneous lesions, AUC=0.68, p=0.01, for liver lesions and AUC=0.62, p=0.03 for nodes). The least infiltrated lesion according to the radiomics score of CD8 T-cells was positively associated with overall survival (training set HR=0.31, p=0.00062, test set HR=0.28, p=0.016), which remained significant in a multivariate analysis including clinical and biological variables., Conclusions: These results confirm the predictive value at a lesion level of the biologically inspired CD8 radiomics score in melanoma patients treated with anti-PD1-based immunotherapy and may be interesting to assess the disease spatial heterogeneity to evaluate the patient prognosis with potential clinical implication such as tumor selection for focal ablative therapies., Competing Interests: Competing interests: ED has declared consulting fees and support from Roche, BMS, Boehringer, Astrazeneca, Lilly Amgen and Merck-Serono. CaR declares consulting fees from Roche, BMS, MSD, AstraZeneca, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Novartis., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Acral melanoma is a rare melanoma subtype with poor prognosis. Importantly, these patients were not identified as a specific subgroup in the landmark melanoma trials involving ipilimumab and the anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) agents nivolumab and pembrolizumab. There is therefore an absence of prospective clinical trial evidence regarding the efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) in this population. Acral melanoma has lower tumor mutation burden (TMB) than other cutaneous sites, and primary site is associated with differences in TMB. However the impact of this on the effectiveness of immune CPIs is unknown. We examined the efficacy of CPIs in acral melanoma, including by primary site., Methods: Patients with unresectable stage III/IV acral melanoma treated with CPI (anti-PD-1 and/or ipilimumab) were studied. Multivariable logistic and Cox regression analyses were conducted. Primary outcome was objective response rate (ORR); secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)., Results: In total, 325 patients were included: 234 (72%) plantar, 69 (21%) subungual and 22 (7%) palmar primary sites. First CPI included: 184 (57%) anti-PD-1, 59 (18%) anti-PD-1/ipilimumab combination and 82 (25%) ipilimumab. ORR was significantly higher with initial anti-PD-1/ipilimumab compared with anti-PD-1 (43% vs 26%, HR 2.14, p=0.0004) and significantly lower with ipilimumab (15% vs 26%, HR 0.49, p=0.0016). Landmark PFS at 1 year was highest for anti-PD-1/ipilimumab at 34% (95% CI 24% to 49%), compared with 26% (95% CI 20% to 33%) with anti-PD-1 and 10% (95% CI 5% to 19%) with ipilimumab. Despite a trend for increased PFS, anti-PD-1/ipilimumab combination did not significantly improve PFS (HR 0.85, p=0.35) or OS over anti-PD-1 (HR 1.30, p=0.16), potentially due to subsequent therapies and high rates of acquired resistance. No outcome differences were found between primary sites., Conclusion: While the ORR to anti-PD-1/ipilimumab was significantly higher than anti-PD-1 and PFS numerically higher, in this retrospective cohort this benefit did not translate to improved OS. Future trials should specifically include patients with acral melanoma, to help determine the optimal management of this important melanoma subtype., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PB: sponsorship: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis; paid speaker: Novartis. AS: advisory board: Bristol Myers Squibb, Immunocore, Novartis, Castle Biosciences; trial support to institution: Bristol Myers Squibb, Imunocore, Xcovery, Polaris, Novartis, Pfizer, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, Foghorn Therapeautics. AZ: travel support: Novartis, Sanofi Grenzyme, Sun Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb. JM: consultant advisor: Merck/Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Amgen, Novartis, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb and Pierre Fabre; travel support: Ultrasun, L’Oreal, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre. MW: grants, personal fees, non-financial support and other: Novartis, BMS, Merck/MSD; personal fees, and other: Merck Serono, Amgen, Sanofi/Regeneron, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Takeda, Medac. LS: honoraria: MSD, Roche, Novartis, Shanghai Junshi Biosciences, Oriengene. TL: consultant: MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre. CR: consultant for Novartis, BMS, Merck, MSD, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, AstraZeneca, Roche, and scientic founder of Aglaia Therapeutics CA: Travel accommodations-Meetings: Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen. JKS: sponsorship: MSD, Amgen; honoraria: Novartis. MJM: consultant advisor: AstraZeneca, Nektar Therapeutics, Catalyst Pharmaceuticals Immunia, Istari Oncology; paid speaker: Bristol Myers Squibb. RR-T: advisory board fees: Novartis, Bristol Myer Squibb, Merck, Sharp and Dohme, Pfizer; honoraria: Bristol Myer Squibb, Roche, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis. AM: honoraria from Novartis. LZ: consultant and/or honoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma; travel support: Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, BristolMyers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma, Novartis. CB (all paid to the institute except TRV): advisory board: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Lilly, GenMab, Pierre Fabre, Third Rock Ventures; research funding: Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, NanoString; stockownership & co-founder: Immagene BV. ER: consultant advisor or paid speaker: Sanofi, Amgen, BMS. KK: consultant or/and honoraria: Amgen, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Novartis; travel support: Amgen, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Medac, Novartis. PAA: consultant/advisory role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Merck Serono, Pierre-Fabre, AstraZeneca, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Sandoz, Immunocore, 4SC, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Oncosec, Nouscom, Lunaphore, Seagen, iTeos; research funding: Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Pfizer, Sanofi. OM: consulting/advisory roles: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Neracare; research grants: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Amgen. PCL: Consultant advisor or paid speaker: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, Nektar. Research funding: Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre. DBJ: advisory boards/consultant: BMS, Catalyst Biopharma, Iovance, Jansen, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Mosaic ImmunoEngineering, Novartis, Oncosec, Pfizer, and Targovax. Research funding: BMS and Incyte. RP: advisory boards: Pierre Faber, Bayer, Novartis, Biosceptre, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cybrexa, Ellipses, CV6 Therapeutics, Astex Therapeutics, Medivir, GammaDelta Therapeutics, Sanofi Aventis; paid speaker: AstraZeneca, Novartis, Bayer, Tesaro, Bristol Myers Squibb. CL: BMS: Research grant, Honoraria, Consultancy, Speakers bureau, Travel accommodations, Meetings, Advisory role, advisory board. MSD: Honoraria, Consultancy, Advisory role, advisory board, Travel accommodations-Meetings. Novartis: Honoraria, Consultancy, Speakers bureau, Advisory role, advisory board. Amgen: Honoraria, Consultancy, Speakers bureau, advisory board. Roche: Research grant, Honoraria, Consultancy, Speakers bureau, Advisory role, advisory board. Avantis Medical Systems: Board. Pierre-Fabre/Pfizer/Incyte: Honoraria. BN: Personal financial compensation from Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Amgen and AstraZeneca for public speaking, consultancy and participation in advisory board meetings. My institution (UZ Brussel) received funding related to research projects conducted by my academic research team from Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, and Merck-Serono. RJS: Consultant: AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Iovance, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer; research funding: Merck. OH: consultant advisor: Aduro, Akeso, Amgen, Beigene, Bioatla, BMS, Roche Genentech, GSK, Immunocore, Idera, Incyte, Janssen, Merck, Nextcure, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi/Regeneron, Seattle Genetics, Tempus, Zelluna; speaker bureau: BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi/Regeneron; contracted research (for institution): Arcus, Aduro, Akeso, Amgen, Bioatla, BMS, CytomX, Exelixis, Roche Genentech, GSK, Immunocore, Idera, Incyte, Iovance, Merck, Moderna, Merck-Serono, NextCure, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi/Regeneron, Seattle Genetics, Torque, Zelluna. GAM: reimbursement of trials costs to the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre: Array/Pfizer Roche/Genetech; non-reimbursed advisor: Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb. AMH: advisory board member for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, and Qbiotics, GVL: advisor: Aduro Biotech, Agenus, Amgen, Array Biopharma, Boehringer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Evaxion, Highlight Therapeutics S.L, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, QBiotics, Regeneron, Specialised Therapeutics Australia. AM: advisory board: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Roche, Pierre-Fabre, QBiotics. MC: consultant advisor: Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ideaya, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Nektar, Novartis, Oncosec, Pierre-Fabre, Qbiotics, Regeneron, Roche; honoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis. All other authors declare no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Recruitment of lymphocytes into tumors is critical for anti-tumor immunity and efficacious immunotherapy. We show in murine models that tumor-associated high endothelial venules (TA-HEVs) are major sites of lymphocyte entry into tumors at baseline and upon treatment with anti-PD-1/anti-CTLA-4 immune checkpoint blockade (ICB). TA-HEV endothelial cells (TA-HECs) derive from post-capillary venules, co-express MECA-79 + HEV sialomucins and E/P-selectins, and are associated with homing and infiltration into tumors of various T cell subsets. Intravital microscopy further shows that TA-HEVs are the main sites of lymphocyte arrest and extravasation into ICB-treated tumors. Increasing TA-HEC frequency and maturation increases the proportion of tumor-infiltrating stem-like CD8 + T cells, and ameliorates ICB efficacy. Analysis of tumor biopsies from 93 patients with metastatic melanoma reveals that TA-HEVs are predictive of better response and survival upon treatment with anti-PD-1/anti-CTLA-4 combination. These studies provide critical insights into the mechanisms governing lymphocyte trafficking in cancer immunity and immunotherapy., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests C.R. is an occasional consultant to Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Amgen, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, MSD, Sanofi, Biothera, CureVac, and Merck. All other authors have no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Adjuvant targeted therapy (TT) improves relapse free survival in patients with resected BRAF mutant stage III melanoma. The outcomes and optimal management of patients who relapse after adjuvant TT is unknown., Methods: Patients from twenty-one centres with recurrent melanoma after adjuvant TT were included. Disease characteristics, adjuvant therapy, recurrence, treatment at relapse and outcomes were examined., Results: Eighty-five patients developed recurrent melanoma; nineteen (22%) during adjuvant TT. Median time to first recurrence was 18 months and median follow-up from first recurrence was 31 months. Fifty-eight (68%) patients received immunotherapy (IT) or TT as 1st line systemic therapy at either first or subsequent recurrence and had disease that was assessable for response. Response to anti-PD-1 (±trial agent), combination ipilimumab-nivolumab, TT rechallenge and ipilimumab monotherapy was 63%, 62% 25% and 10% respectively. Twenty-eight (33%) patients had died at census, all from melanoma. Two-year OS was 84% for anti-PD-1 therapy (±trial agent), 92% for combination ipilimumab and nivolumab, 49% for TT and 45% for ipilimumab monotherapy (p = 0.028)., Conclusions: Patients who relapse after adjuvant TT respond well to subsequent anti-PD-1 based therapy and have outcomes similar to those seen when first line anti-PD-1 therapy is used in stage IV melanoma.

Emerging evidence indicates that non-mutational drug tolerance mechanisms underlie the survival of residual cancer "persister" cells. Here, we find that BRAF(V600E) mutant melanoma persister cells tolerant to BRAF/MEK inhibitors switch their metabolism from glycolysis to oxidative respiration supported by peroxisomal fatty acid β-oxidation (FAO) that is transcriptionally regulated by peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPARα). Knockdown of the key peroxisomal FAO enzyme, acyl-CoA oxidase 1 (ACOX1), as well as treatment with the peroxisomal FAO inhibitor thioridazine, specifically suppresses the oxidative respiration of persister cells and significantly decreases their emergence. Consistently, a combination treatment of BRAF/MEK inhibitors with thioridazine in human-melanoma-bearing mice results in a durable anti-tumor response. In BRAF(V600E) melanoma samples from patients treated with BRAF/MEK inhibitors, higher baseline expression of FAO-related genes and PPARα correlates with patients' outcomes. These results pave the way for a metabolic strategy to overcome drug resistance., Competing Interests: Declaration of Interests C.R. is an occasional consultant for Roche, BMS, MSD, Merck, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, Biothera, CureVac, and Novartis., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: A synergy between radiotherapy and anti-cytotoxic-T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (anti-CTLA-4) monoclonal antibody has been demonstrated preclinically. The Mel-Ipi-Rx phase 1 study aimed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and safety profile of radiotherapy combined with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma., Patients and Methods: A 3+3 dose escalation design was used with 9, 15, 18 and 24 Gy dose of radiotherapy at week 4 combined with 10 mg/kg ipilimumab every 3 weeks for four doses. Patients with evidence of clinical benefit at week 12 were eligible for maintenance with ipilimumab 10 mg/kg every 12 weeks starting at week 24 until severe toxicity or disease progression. The database lock occurred on April 30, 2019. Tumor growth rate of irradiated lesions and non-irradiated lesions were analyzed to assess the systemic immunologic antitumor response. Blood immune monitoring was performed before and during treatment to determine if radiotherapy could modify ipilimumab pharmacodynamics., Results: 19 patients received ipilimumab between August 2011 and July 2015. Nine patients received the four doses of ipilimumab. All patients received the combined radiotherapy. Grade 3 adverse events occurred in nine patients, the most common being colitis and hepatitis. No drug-related death occurred. Dose limiting toxicity occurred in two of six patients in the cohort receiving 15 Gy. The MTD was 9 Gy. Two patients had complete response, three had partial response response and seven had stable disease, giving an objective response rate of 31% and a clinical benefit rate of 75% at week 24. The median duration of follow-up was 5.8 years (Q1=4.5; Q3=6.8). The median overall survival (95% CI) was estimated at 0.9 years (0.5-2). The median progression-free survival (PFS) (95% CI) was 0.4 (0.2-1.4). Radiotherapy combined with ipilimumab was associated with increased CD4+ and CD8+ICOS+ T cells. Increased CD8+ was significantly associated with PFS., Conclusion: When combined with ipilimumab at 10 mg/kg, the MTD of radiotherapy was 9 Gy. This combination of ipilimumab and radiotherapy appears to be associated with antitumor activity. Increased CD8+ was significantly associated with PFS. Thus, immune biomarkers may be useful for early response evaluation., Trial Registration Number: NCT01557114., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CB has acted as a board advisor for BMS, has been a speaker for Merck and has received travel fees from Amgen and Pfizer. NC-G has received research grants from Cytune Pharma, GSK and Sanofi. She has acted as a board advisor for AstraZeneca and has been a speaker for Sanofi and AstraZeneca. CM has acted as consultant of BMS and Merck. ER has acted as a consultant for BMS, Novartis and Roche, and has received travel fees from BMS and Novartis. RS has received travel fees from AstraZeneca. CM has acted as a consultant from Amgen, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, BMS, Celgene, Debiopharm, Genentech, Ipsen, Janssen, Lilly, MedImmune, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and Orion. He is the principal or subinvestigator of clinical trials for Abbvie, Aduro, Agios, Amgen, Argen-x, Astex, AstraZeneca, Aveopharmaceuticals, Bayer, Beigene, Blueprint, BMS, BoeringerIngelheim, Celgene, Chugai, Clovis, DaiichiSankyo, Debiopharm, Eisai, Eos, Exelixis, Forma, Gamamabs, Genentech, Gortec, GSK, H3 biomedecine, Incyte, InnatePharma, Janssen, Kura Oncology, Kyowa, Lilly, Loxo, Lysarc, LytixBiopharma, Medimmune, Menarini, Merus, MSD, Nanobiotix, NektarTherapeutics, Novartis, Octimet, Oncoethix, OncopeptidesAB, Orion, Pfizer, Pharmamar, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Sierra Oncology, Taiho, Takeda, Tesaro and Xencor. J-CS has received consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Astex, Clovis, GSK, GamaMabs, Lilly, MSD, Mission Therapeutics, Merus, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Pierre Fabre, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Servier, Symphogen and Takeda. He has been a full-time employee of MedImmune since September 2017. He is a shareholder of AstraZeneca and Gritstone. CR has acted as a consultant of Amgen, BMS, GSK, Merck, Novartis and Roche. ED has received research grants from Roche, Servier, AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, BMS, MSD, Amgen, Accuray and Boerhinger. He has received personal fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, Amgen, Accuray and Boerhinger., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Cancer persister cells tolerate anticancer drugs and serve as the founders of acquired resistance and cancer relapse. Here we show that a subpopulation of BRAF V600 mutant melanoma cells that tolerates exposure to BRAF and MEK inhibitors undergoes a reversible remodelling of mRNA translation that evolves in parallel with drug sensitivity. Although this process is associated with a global reduction in protein synthesis, a subset of mRNAs undergoes an increased efficiency in translation. Inhibiting the eIF4A RNA helicase, a component of the eIF4F translation initiation complex, abrogates this selectively increased translation and is lethal to persister cells. Translation remodelling in persister cells coincides with an increased N6-methyladenosine modification in the 5'-untranslated region of some highly translated mRNAs. Combination of eIF4A inhibitor with BRAF and MEK inhibitors effectively inhibits the emergence of persister cells and may represent a new therapeutic strategy to prevent acquired drug resistance.