Search

PURPOSE Ipilimumab and nivolumab have each shown treatment benefit for high-risk resected melanoma. The phase III CheckMate 915 trial evaluated adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab alone in patients with resected stage IIIB-D or IV melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS In this randomized, double-blind, phase III trial, 1,833 patients received nivolumab 240 mg once every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg once every 6 weeks (916 patients) or nivolumab 480 mg once every 4 weeks (917 patients) for ≤ 1 year. After random assignment, patients were stratified by tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and stage. Dual primary end points were recurrence-free survival (RFS) in randomly assigned patients and in the tumor PD-L1 expression-level < 1% subgroup. RESULTS At a minimum follow-up of approximately 23.7 months, there was no significant difference between treatment groups for RFS in the all-randomly assigned patient population (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.09; P = .269) or in patients with PD-L1 expression < 1% (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.14). In all patients, 24-month RFS rates were 64.6% (combination) and 63.2% (nivolumab). Treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported in 32.6% of patients in the combination group and 12.8% in the nivolumab group. Treatment-related deaths were reported in 0.4% of patients in the combination group and in no nivolumab-treated patients. CONCLUSION Nivolumab 240 mg once every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg once every 6 weeks did not improve RFS versus nivolumab 480 mg once every 4 weeks in patients with stage IIIB-D or stage IV melanoma. Nivolumab showed efficacy consistent with previous adjuvant studies in a population resembling current practice using American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition, reaffirming nivolumab as a standard of care for melanoma adjuvant treatment.

PURPOSE No approved targeted therapy for the treatment of patients with neuroblastoma RAS viral (v-ras) oncogene homolog ( NRAS)–mutant melanoma is currently available. PATIENTS AND METHODS In this phase Ib escalation/expansion study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02974725 ), the safety, tolerability, and preliminary antitumor activity of naporafenib (LXH254), a BRAF/CRAF protein kinases inhibitor, were explored in combination with trametinib in patients with advanced/metastatic KRAS- or BRAF-mutant non–small-cell lung cancer (escalation arm) or NRAS-mutant melanoma (escalation and expansion arms). RESULTS Thirty-six and 30 patients were enrolled in escalation and expansion, respectively. During escalation, six patients reported grade ≥3 dose-limiting toxicities, including dermatitis acneiform (n = 2), maculopapular rash (n = 2), increased lipase (n = 1), and Stevens-Johnson syndrome (n = 1). The recommended doses for expansion were naporafenib 200 mg twice a day plus trametinib 1 mg once daily and naporafenib 400 mg twice a day plus trametinib 0.5 mg once daily. During expansion, all 30 patients experienced a treatment-related adverse event, the most common being rash (80%, n = 24), blood creatine phosphokinase increased, diarrhea, and nausea (30%, n = 9 each). In expansion, the objective response rate, median duration of response, and median progression-free survival were 46.7% (95% CI, 21.3 to 73.4; 7 of 15 patients), 3.75 (95% CI, 1.97 to not estimable [NE]) months, and 5.52 months, respectively, in patients treated with naporafenib 200 mg twice a day plus trametinib 1 mg once daily, and 13.3% (95% CI, 1.7 to 40.5; 2 of 15 patients), 3.75 (95% CI, 2.04 to NE) months, and 4.21 months, respectively, in patients treated with naporafenib 400 mg twice a day plus trametinib 0.5 mg once daily. CONCLUSION Naporafenib plus trametinib showed promising preliminary antitumor activity in patients with NRAS-mutant melanoma. Prophylactic strategies aimed to lower the incidence of skin-related events are under investigation.

BackgroundFollowing the increased survival of patients with metastatic melanoma thanks to immunotherapy and targeted therapy, neoadjuvant approaches are being investigated to address the unmet needs of unresponsive and intolerant patients. We aim to investigate the efficacy of neoadjuvant plus adjuvant combined or sequenced vemurafenib, cobimetinib and atezolizumab in patients with high-risk, resectable BRAF-mutated and wild-type melanoma.MethodsThe study is a phase II, open-label, randomized non-comparative trial in patients with stage IIIB/C/D surgically resectable, BRAF-mutated and wild-type melanoma, with three possible treatments: (1) vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily from day 1 to 42; (2) vemurafenib 720 mg twice daily from day 1 to 42; (3) cobimetinib 60 mg once daily from day 1 to 21 and from day 29 to 42; and (4) atezolizumab 840 mg for two cycles (day 22 and day 43).Patients will be randomized to three different arms: A) BRAF-mutated patients will receive over 6 weeks (1) + (3); B) BRAF-mutated patients will receive over 6 weeks (2) + (3) + (4); C) BRAF wild-type patients will receive over 6 weeks (3) + (4). All patients will also receive atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks for 17 cycles after surgery and after a second screening period (up to 6 weeks).DiscussionNeoadjuvant therapy for regional metastases may improve operability and outcomes and facilitate the identification of biomarkers that can guide further lines of treatment. Patients with clinical stage III melanoma may especially benefit from neoadjuvant treatment, as the outcomes of surgery alone are very poor. It is expected that the combination of neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment may reduce the incidence of relapse and improve survival.Clinical trial registrationeudract.ema.europa.eu/protocol.htm, identifier 2018-004841-17.

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

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

This dataset contains data of patient characteristics and IL6 in a cohort of patients with advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma treated with cemiplimab.

Background The clinical observation showed a potential additive effect of anti-PD-1 agents and cetirizine in patients with advanced melanoma. Methods Clinical outcomes of concomitant cetirizine/anti-PD-1 treatment of patients with stage IIIb–IV melanoma were retrospectively collected, and a transcriptomic analysis was performed on blood samples obtained at baseline and after 3 months of treatment. Results Patients treated with cetirizine concomitantly with an anti-PD-1 agent had significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS; mean PFS: 28 vs 15 months, HR 0.46, 95% CI: 0.28–0.76; p = 0.0023) and OS (mean OS was 36 vs 23 months, HR 0.48, 95% CI: 0.29–0.78; p = 0.0032) in comparison with those not receiving cetirizine. The concomitant treatment was significantly associated with ORR and DCR (p FCGR1A/CD64, a specific marker of macrophages, was increased after the treatment in comparison with baseline in blood samples from patients receiving cetirizine, but not in those receiving only the anti-PD1, and positively correlated with the expression of genes linked to the interferon pathway such as CCL8 (rho = 0.32; p = 0.0111), IFIT1 (rho = 0.29; p = 0.0229), IFIT3 (rho = 0.57; p , IFI27 (rho = 0.42; p = 0.008), MX1 (rho = 0.26; p = 0.0383) and RSAD2 (rho = 0.43; p = 0.0005). Conclusions This retrospective study suggests that M1 macrophage polarization may be induced by cetirizine through the interferon-gamma pathway. This effect may synergize with the immunotherapy of advanced melanoma with anti-PD-1 agents.

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

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

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

The broad activity of agents blocking the programmed cell death protein 1 and its ligand (the PD-(L)1 axis) revolutionized oncology, offering long-term benefit to patients and even curative responses for tumors that were once associated with dismal prognosis. However, only a minority of patients experience durable clinical benefit with immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy in most disease settings. Spurred by preclinical and correlative studies to understand mechanisms of non-response to the PD-(L)1 antagonists and by combination studies in animal tumor models, many drug development programs were designed to combine anti-PD-(L)1 with a variety of approved and investigational chemotherapies, tumor-targeted therapies, antiangiogenic therapies, and other immunotherapies. Several immunotherapy combinations improved survival outcomes in a variety of indications including melanoma, lung, kidney, and liver cancer, among others. This immunotherapy renaissance, however, has led to many combinations being advanced to late-stage development without definitive predictive biomarkers, limited phase I and phase II data, or clinical trial designs that are not optimized for demonstrating the unique attributes of immune-related antitumor activity—for example, landmark progression-free survival and overall survival. The decision to activate a study at an individual site is investigator-driven, and generalized frameworks to evaluate the potential for phase III trials in immuno-oncology to yield positive data, particularly to increase the number of curative responses or otherwise advance the field have thus far been lacking. To assist in evaluating the potential value to patients and the immunotherapy field of phase III trials, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) has developed a checklist for investigators, described in this manuscript. Although the checklist focuses on anti-PD-(L)1-based combinations, it may be applied to any regimen in which immune modulation is an important component of the antitumor effect.

Melanoma displays a rising incidence, and the mortality associated with metastatic form remains high. Monoclonal antibodies that block programmed death (PD-1) and PD Ligand 1 (PD-L1) network have revolutionized the history of metastatic disease. PD-L1 is expressed on several immune cells and can be also expressed on human neutrophils (PMNs). The role of peripheral blood PMNs as predictive biomarkers in anti-PD-1 therapy of melanoma is largely unknown. In this study, we aimed to determine activation status and PD-L1 expression on human neutrophils as possible novel biomarkers in stage IV melanoma patients (MPs). We found that PMNs from MPs displayed an activated phenotype and increased PD-L1 levels compared to healthy controls (HCs). Patients with lower PD-L1+ PMN frequencies displayed better progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to patients with high PD-L1+ PMN frequencies. Multivariate analysis showed that PD-L1+ PMNs predicted patient outcome in BRAF wild type MP subgroup but not in BRAF mutated MPs. PD-L1+ PMN frequency emerges as a novel biomarker in stage IV BRAF wild type MPs undergoing anti-PD-1 immunotherapy. Our findings suggest further evaluation of the role of neutrophil subsets and their mediators in melanoma patients undergoing immunotherapy.

Primary analysis of the phase 3 IMspire150 study showed improved investigator-assessed progression-free survival with first-line atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (atezolizumab group) versus placebo, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (control group) in patients with BRAFThe multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 IMspire150 study was done at 108 academic and community hospitals in 20 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated unresectable stage IIIc or stage IV melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either atezolizumab (840 mg intravenously on day 1 and 15) or placebo plus vemurafenib (960 mg or 720 mg twice daily orally) and cobimetinib (60 mg once daily orally; 21 days on and 7 days off) in 28-day cycles. Atezolizumab and placebo were added to treatment regimens from cycle two onwards. Randomisation was done centrally (Durham, NC, USA) based on a permuted block randomisation scheme (block size of 4) using an interactive web-based response system and was stratified by geographical region and baseline lactate dehydrogenase concentration. Overall survival was analysed in the intention-to-treat population and safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug according to actual treatment received. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, which was previously reported. Here, we report the second, prespecified, interim overall survival analysis, which was planned after about 270 overall survival events had occurred. The trial is ongoing, but is no longer enrolling patients, and it is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02908672.Between Jan 13, 2017, and April 26, 2018, 514 patients (median age 54 years [IQR 43-63]; 299 [58%] men and 215 [42%] women) were enrolled in the trial and randomly assigned to the atezolizumab group (256 [50%] patients) or the control group (258 [50%] patients). At the data cutoff (Sept 8, 2021), 273 patients had died (126 in the atezolizumab group and 147 in the control group). Median follow-up was 29·1 months (IQR 10·1-45·4) for the atezolizumab group versus 22·8 months (10·6-44·1) for the control group. Median overall survival was 39·0 months (95% CI 29·9-not estimable) in the atezolizumab group versus 25·8 months (22·0-34·6) in the control group (HR 0·84 [95% CI 0·66-1·06]; p=0·14). The most common adverse events of any grade in the atezolizumab group were blood creatine phosphokinase increased (123 [53%] of 231 patients), diarrhoea (116 [50%]), and pyrexia (115 [50%]). The most common adverse events of any grade in the control group were diarrhoea (157 [56%] of 280 patients), blood creatine phosphokinase increased (135 [48%]), and rash (119 [43%]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were increased lipase (54 [23%] of 231 patients in the atezolizumab group vs 62 [22%] of 280 patients in the control group), increased blood creatine phosphokinase (51 [22%] vs 50 [18%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase (32 [14%] vs 26 [9%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 112 (48%) patients in the atezolizumab group and 117 (42%) patients in the control group. Grade 5 adverse events were reported in eight (3%) patients in the atezolizumab group versus six (2%) patients in the control group. Two grade 5 adverse events (hepatitis fulminant and hepatic failure) in the atezolizumab group were considered to be associated with the triplet combination, and one event in the control group (pulmonary haemorrhage) was considered to be associated with cobimetinib.Additional follow-up of the IMspire150 trial showed that overall survival was not significantly improved with atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib compared with placebo, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib in patients with BRAFF Hoffmann-La Roche.

Advances in immune checkpoint and combination therapy have led to improvement in overall survival for patients with advanced melanoma. Improved understanding of the tumor, tumor microenvironment and tumor immune-evasion mechanisms has resulted in new approaches to targeting and harnessing the host immune response. Combination modalities with other immunotherapy agents, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, electrochemotherapy are also being explored to overcome resistance and to potentiate the immune response. In addition, novel approaches such as adoptive cell therapy, oncogenic viruses, vaccines and different strategies of drug administration including sequential, or combination treatment are being tested. Despite the progress in diagnosis of melanocytic lesions, correct classification of patients, selection of appropriate adjuvant and systemic theràapies, and prediction of response to therapy remain real challenges in melanoma. Improved understanding of the tumor microenvironment, tumor immunity and response to therapy has prompted extensive translational and clinical research in melanoma. There is a growing evidence that genomic and immune features of pre-treatment tumor biopsies may correlate with response in patients with melanoma and other cancers, but they have yet to be fully characterized and implemented clinically. Development of novel biomarker platforms may help to improve diagnostics and predictive accuracy for selection of patients for specific treatment. Overall, the future research efforts in melanoma therapeutics and translational research should focus on several aspects including: (a) developing robust biomarkers to predict efficacy of therapeutic modalities to guide clinical decision-making and optimize treatment regimens, (b) identifying mechanisms of therapeutic resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors that are potentially actionable, (c) identifying biomarkers to predict therapy-induced adverse events, and (d) studying mechanism of actions of therapeutic agents and developing algorithms to optimize combination treatments. During the Melanoma Bridge meeting (December 2nd-4th, 2021, Naples, Italy) discussions focused on the currently approved systemic and local therapies for advanced melanoma and discussed novel biomarker strategies and advances in precision medicine as well as the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on management of melanoma patients.

After the success of immunotherapy in the treatment of advanced metastatic cancer, further evaluation in earlier settings, including high-risk, surgically-resectable disease is underway. Potential benefits of a neoadjuvant immunotherapeutic approach include presurgical tumor shrinkage, reduced surgical morbidity, early eradication of micrometastases and prevention of distant disease, and greater antigen-specific T cell response. For some cancers, pathologic response has been established as a surrogate measure for long-term outcomes, therefore offering the ability for early and objective assessment of treatment efficacy and the potential to inform and personalize adjuvant treatment clinical decision-making. Leveraging the neoadjuvant treatment setting offers the ability to deeply interrogate longitudinal tissue in order to gain translatable, pan-malignancy insights into response and mechanisms of resistance to immunotherapy. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy across cancers was a focus of discussion at the virtual Immunotherapy Bridge meeting (December 1–2, 2021). Clinical, biomarker, and pathologic insights from prostate, breast, colon, and non-small-cell lung cancers, melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers were discussed and are summarized in this report.

Melanoma displays a rising incidence, and the mortality associated with metastatic form remains high. Monoclonal antibodies that block programmed death (PD-1) and PD Ligand 1 (PD-L1) network have revolutionized the history of metastatic disease. PD-L1 is expressed on several immune cells and can be also expressed on human neutrophils (PMNs). The role of peripheral blood PMNs as predictive biomarkers in anti-PD-1 therapy of melanoma is largely unknown. In this study, we aimed to determine activation status and PD-L1 expression on human neutrophils as possible novel biomarkers in stage IV melanoma patients (MPs). We found that PMNs from MPs displayed an activated phenotype and increased PD-L1 levels compared to healthy controls (HCs). Patients with lower PD-L1

BackgroundThe randomized phase 3 COMBI-i trial did not meet its primary endpoint of improved progression-free survival (PFS) with spartalizumab plus dabrafenib and trametinib (sparta-DabTram) vs placebo plus dabrafenib and trametinib (placebo-DabTram) in the overall population of patients with unresectable/metastatic BRAF V600-mutant melanoma. This prespecified exploratory biomarker analysis was performed to identify subgroups that may derive greater treatment benefit from sparta-DabTram.MethodsIn COMBI-i (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02967692), 532 patients received spartalizumab 400 mg intravenously every 4 weeks plus dabrafenib 150 mg orally two times daily and trametinib 2 mg orally one time daily or placebo-DabTram. Baseline/on-treatment pharmacodynamic markers were assessed via flow cytometry-based immunophenotyping and plasma cytokine profiling. Baseline programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status and T-cell phenotype were assessed via immunohistochemistry; BRAF V600 mutation type, tumor mutational burden (TMB), and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) via DNA sequencing; gene expression signatures via RNA sequencing; and CD4+/CD8+ T-cell ratio via immunophenotyping.ResultsExtensive biomarker analyses were possible in approximately 64% to 90% of the intention-to-treat population, depending on sample availability and assay. Subgroups based on PD-L1 status/TMB or T-cell inflammation did not show significant differences in PFS benefit with sparta-DabTram vs placebo-DabTram, although T-cell inflammation was prognostic across treatment arms. Subgroups defined by BRAF V600K mutation (HR 0.45 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.99)), detectable ctDNA shedding (HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.96)), or CD4+/CD8+ ratio above median (HR 0.58 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.84)) derived greater PFS benefit with sparta-DabTram vs placebo-DabTram. In a multivariate analysis, ctDNA emerged as strongly prognostic (p=0.007), while its predictive trend did not reach significance; in contrast, CD4+/CD8+ ratio was strongly predictive (interaction p=0.0131).ConclusionsThese results support the feasibility of large-scale comprehensive biomarker analyses in the context of a global phase 3 study. T-cell inflammation was prognostic but not predictive of sparta-DabTram benefit, as patients with high T-cell inflammation already benefit from targeted therapy alone. Baseline ctDNA shedding also emerged as a strong independent prognostic variable, with predictive trends consistent with established measures of disease burden such as lactate dehydrogenase levels. CD4+/CD8+ T-cell ratio was significantly predictive of PFS benefit with sparta-DabTram but requires further validation as a biomarker in melanoma. Taken together with previous observations, further study of checkpoint inhibitor plus targeted therapy combination in patients with higher disease burden may be warranted.Trial registration numberNCT02967692.

Despite the significant progress in the treatment of unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600-mutant melanoma, there remains two primary treatment options: targeted therapy and immunotherapy. Targeted therapy or immunotherapy alone is associated with efficacy limitations including efficacy limited to select patient subsets. With separate mechanisms of action and different response patterns, the combination of targeted agents and immunotherapy to treat patients with BRAF V600-mutant melanoma may further improve patient outcomes. Current treatment guidelines recommend treatment with targeted agents alone, immunotherapy, or the combination of targeted agents and immunotherapy. The randomized, double-blind STARBOARD trial aims to evaluate efficacy and safety of encorafenib, binimetinib and pembrolizumab in treatment-naive patients with metastatic or unresectable locally advanced BRAF V600-mutant melanoma in comparison to pembrolizumab.

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

Background BRAF V600 mutations are frequently found in metastatic melanoma. This mutation constitutively activates the MAPK pathway, which leads to melanoma progression. Patients with BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma typically receive BRAF inhibitors (BRAFi) + MEK inhibitors (MEKi), such as enco + bini, or immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs; eg, pembro). However, these have limitations. BRAFi and MEKi may increase BRAF V600-mutant tumor sensitivity to CPIs. Previous studies reported improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with advanced BRAF V600-mutant melanoma receiving BRAFi + MEKi + CPI compared with targeted therapy alone. This phase 3 trial will evaluate the efficacy and safety of enco + bini + pembro vs placebo + pembro for unresectable locally advanced or metastatic BRAF V600-mutant melanoma. A safety lead-in (SLI) was built in to determine the recommended phase 3 dose (RP3D) prior to starting phase 3. Trial design STARBOARD (NCT04657991) is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study evaluating approximately 600 patients with BRAF V600 advanced melanoma. Patients will be stratified by prior systemic adjuvant treatment (CPI, BRAFi/MEKi, or none) and by disease stage (per AJCC 8th edition; IIIB, IIIC, IIID, IV M1a[0], and IV M1b[0] vs IV M1a[1], IV M1b[1], IV M1c[0], IV M1c[1], IV M1d[0], and IV M1d[1]). Patients must have measurable disease (per RECIST 1.1); ECOG performance status of 0 or 1; and adequate bone marrow, hepatic, and renal function. Patients must not have received prior systemic therapy for unresectable or metastatic melanoma; adjuvant treatment with BRAFi/MEKi, anti-PD-1, or anti-CTLA-4 is permitted. Patients cannot have symptomatic brain metastases. Study treatments and end points are shown in Table 1. RP3D was established in May 2022; phase 3 enrollment began in June 2022. Table 1. Study treatments and end points Phase 3 Treatment (21-day cycle) RP3D from SLI: enco + bini + pembro Control: placebo + pembro Primary PFS (RP3D vs control; by BICR) Secondary Key: OS (RP3D vs control) Other: PFS by investigator assessment, objective response rate, duration of response, disease control rate, and time to response, all by BICR and investigator assessment, PFS2, quality of life, safety, pharmacokinetics BICR, blinded independent central review; OS, overall survival. Citation Format: Dirk Schadendorf, Reinhard Dummer, Caroline Robert, Antoni Ribas, Ryan J. Sullivan, Timothy Panella, Meredith McKean, Edgardo S. Santos, Jill Clancy, Anna Polli, Alessandra di Pietro, Paolo A. Ascierto. Randomized phase 3 study (STARBOARD) evaluating encorafenib (enco) + binimetinib (bini) + pembrolizumab (pembro) for first-line treatment of unresectable locally advanced or metastatic BRAF V600-mutant melanoma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 2 (Clinical Trials and Late-Breaking Research); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(8_Suppl):Abstract nr CT069.

Patients with resected stage IIB/C melanoma are at high risk of recurrence with outcomes similar to patients with resected stage IIIB disease. Adjuvant NIVO has shown benefit in patients with resected stage III-IV melanoma. The phase 3 CheckMate 76K (NCT04099251) trial compared adjuvant NIVO vs PBO in patients with completely resected stage IIB/C melanoma. Patients aged ≥12 years were stratified by T category and randomized 2:1 to receive NIVO 480 mg or PBO, intravenously Q4W for 12 months. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival (RFS); safety was a key secondary endpoint. Overall, 790 patients were randomized to NIVO (526) vs PBO (264); 61% had stage IIB and 39% had stage IIC disease. Minimum follow-up was 8 months (median: 15.8 months NIVO; 15.9 months PBO); 66/526 (13%) vs 69/264 (26%) had a recurrence event. At this interim analysis, CheckMate 76K met the primary endpoint: NIVO significantly reduced the risk of recurrence vs PBO (stratified HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.30-0.59; stratified P

Immunotherapy offers deep and durable disease control to some patients, but many tumors do not respond to treatment with single-agent immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). One strategy to enhance responses to immunotherapy is via combinations with signal transduction inhibitors, such as antiangiogenic therapies, which not only directly target cancer cells but also could potentially favorably modulate the tumor immune microenvironment. Combination strategies with ICIs have demonstrated enhanced antitumor activity compared with tumor-targeted or antiangiogenic therapy alone in randomized trials in a variety of solid tumor settings, leading to regulatory approval from the US Food and Drug Administration and agencies in other countries for the treatment of endometrial cancer, kidney cancer, melanoma, and hepatocellular carcinoma. Despite improved survival and response rates for some patients when antiangiogenic or targeted therapies are administered with ICIs, many patients continue to progress after combination treatment and urgently need new strategies to address this manifestation of resistance to immunotherapy. Previously, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) published consensus definitions for resistance to single-agent anti-PD-(L)1. To provide guidance for clinical trial design and to support analyses of emerging molecular and immune profiling data surrounding mechanisms of resistance to ICI-based combinations, SITC convened a follow-up workshop in 2021 to develop consensus definitions for resistance to multiagent ICI combinations. This manuscript reports the consensus clinical definitions for combinations of anti-PD-(L)1 ICIs and targeted therapies. Definitions for resistance to ICIs in combination with chemotherapy and with other ICIs will be published in companion volumes to this paper.

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

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

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

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

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

Background In 1918 an unknown infectious agent spread around the world infecting over one-third of the general population and killing almost 50 million people. Many countries were at war, the First World War. Since Spain was a neutral country and Spanish press could report about the infection without censorship, this condition is commonly remembered as “Spanish influenza”. This review examines several aspects during the 1918 influenza pandemic to bring out evidences which might be useful to imagine the possible magnitude of the present coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods In the first part of this review we will examine the origin of the SARS-Coronavirus-2 and 1918 Spanish Influenza Virus and the role played by host and environment in its diffusion. We will also include in our analysis an evaluation of different approaches utilized to restrain the spread of pandemic and to treat infected patients. In the second part, we will try to imagine the magnitude of the present COVID-19 pandemic and the possible measures able to restrain in the present environment its spread. Results Several factors characterize the outcome in a viral pandemic infection. They include the complete knowledge of the virus, the complete knowledge of the host and of the environment where the host lives and the pandemic develops. Conclusion By comparing the situation seen in 1918 with the current one, we are now in a more favourable position. The experience of the past teaches us that their success is linked to a rapid, constant and lasting application. Then, rather than coercion, awareness of the need to observe such prevention measures works better.

BackgroundAcral 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.MethodsPatients 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).ResultsIn 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.ConclusionWhile 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.

The Great Debate session at the 2021 Melanoma Bridge virtual congress (December 2–4) featured counterpoint views from experts on seven important issues in melanoma. The debates considered the use of adoptive cell therapy versus use of bispecific antibodies, mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) inhibitors versus immunotherapy in the adjuvant setting, whether the use of corticosteroids for the management of side effects have an impact on outcomes, the choice of programmed death (PD)-1 combination therapy with cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen (CTLA)-4 or lymphocyte-activation gene (LAG)-3, whether radiation is needed for brain metastases, when lymphadenectomy should be integrated into the treatment plan and then the last debate, telemedicine versus face-to-face. As with previous Bridge congresses, the debates were assigned by meeting Chairs and positions taken by experts during the debates may not have necessarily reflected their respective personal view. Audiences voted both before and after each debate.

The impact of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) on clinical outcomes with first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with metastatic melanoma was previously analyzed in the phase II study, CheckMate 069. This retrospective analysis utilized data from three phase II/III studies of first-line ICI therapy in untreated advanced melanoma: CheckMate 066, 067, and 069. All randomized patients with PPI use ≤ 30 days before initiating study treatment were included in the PPI-use subgroup. Possible associations between baseline PPI use and efficacy were evaluated within each treatment arm of each study using multivariable modeling. Approximately 20% of 1505 randomized patients across the studies reported baseline PPI use. The median follow-up was 52.6–58.5 months. Objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival analyses provided insufficient evidence of a meaningful association between PPI use and efficacy outcomes with nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab, nivolumab, or ipilimumab therapy. In five of the six ICI treatment arms, 95% confidence intervals for odds ratios or hazard ratios traversed 1. Significant associations were observed in the CheckMate 069 combination arm between PPI use and poorer ORR and PFS. This multivariable analysis found insufficient evidence to support meaningful associations between PPI use and ICI efficacy in patients with advanced melanoma.

Over the past decade, immunotherapy has become an increasingly fundamental modality in the treatment of cancer. The positive impact of immune checkpoint inhibition, especially anti-programmed death (PD)-1/PD-ligand (L)1 blockade, in patients with different cancers has focused attention on the potential for other immunotherapeutic approaches. These include inhibitors of additional immune checkpoints, adoptive cell transfer (ACT), and therapeutic vaccines. Patients with advanced cancers who previously had limited treatment options available may now benefit from immunotherapies that can offer durable responses and improved survival outcomes. However, despite this, a significant proportion of patients fail to respond to immunotherapy, especially those with less immunoresponsive cancer types, and there remains a need for new treatment strategies.The virtual Immunotherapy Bridge (December 1st–2nd, 2021), organized by the Fondazione Melanoma Onlus, Naples, Italy in collaboration with the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer addressed several areas of current research in immunotherapy, including lessons learned from cell therapies, drivers of immune response, and trends in immunotherapy across different cancers, and these are summarised here.

PURPOSEPreclinical data suggest the combination of an anti–programmed death receptor 1 antibody plus dabrafenib and trametinib to have superior antitumor activity compared with dabrafenib plus trametinib alone. These observations are supported by translational evidence suggesting that immune checkpoint inhibitors plus targeted therapy may improve treatment outcomes in patients with BRAF V600–mutant metastatic melanoma. COMBI-i is a phase III trial evaluating spartalizumab, an anti–programmed death receptor 1 antibody, in combination with dabrafenib and trametinib (sparta-DabTram), versus placebo plus dabrafenib and trametinib (placebo-DabTram) in patients with BRAF V600–mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma.METHODSPatients received spartalizumab 400 mg intravenously every 4 weeks plus dabrafenib 150 mg orally twice daily and trametinib 2 mg orally once daily or placebo-DabTram. Participants were age ≥ 18 years with unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600–mutant melanoma. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Overall survival was a key secondary end point (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02967692 ).RESULTSAt data cutoff (July 1, 2020), the median progression-free survival was 16.2 months (95% CI, 12.7 to 23.9 months) in the sparta-DabTram arm versus 12.0 months (95% CI, 10.2 to 15.4 months) in the placebo-DabTram arm (hazard ratio, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.66 to 1.03]; P = .042 [one-sided; nonsignificant]). The objective response rates were 69% (183 of 267 patients) versus 64% (170 of 265 patients), respectively. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 55% (146 of 267) of patients in the sparta-DabTram arm and 33% (88 of 264) in the placebo-DabTram arm.CONCLUSIONThe study did not meet its primary end point; broad first-line use of sparta-DabTram is not supported by these results. Further biomarker-driven investigation may identify patient subpopulations who could benefit from checkpoint inhibitor plus targeted therapy combinations.

As part of the 2021 Immunotherapy Bridge virtual congress (December 1–2, Naples, Italy), the Great Debate sessions featured experts who were assigned counter opposing views on four important questions in immunotherapy today. The first topic was whether oncolytic viruses or other specific immunomodulators were the more promising approach for intralesional therapy. The second was whether early surrogate endpoints, such as response rate or progression-free survival, correlate with long-term overall survival was considered. Thirdly, whether vaccines can transform cold into hot tumors was discussed and, finally, broad versus deep analytic profiling approaches to gain insights into immune-oncology development were compared. As with previous Bridge congresses, presenters were invited by the meeting Chairs and positions taken during the debates may not have reflected their respective personal view. In addition, the views summarised in this article are based on available evidence but may reflect personal interpretation of these data, clinical experience and subjective opinion of the speaker.

Nivolumab was approved as adjuvant therapy for melanoma based on data from CheckMate 238, which enrolled patients per American Joint Committee on Cancer version 7 (AJCC-7) criteria. Here, we analyse long-term outcomes per AJCC-8 staging criteria compared with AJCC-7 results to inform clinical decisions for patients diagnosed per AJCC-8. In a double-blind, phase 3 trial (NCT02388906), patients aged ≥15 years with resected, histologically confirmed AJCC-7 stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV melanoma were randomised to receive nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or ipilimumab 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks for 4 doses and then every 12 weeks, both intravenously ≤1 year. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) were assessed in patients with stage III disease, per AJCC-7 and AJCC-8. Per AJCC-7 staging, 42.4% and 57.3% of patients were in substage IIIB and IIIC, respectively; per AJCC-8, 1.1%, 30.4%, 62.8%, and 5.0% were in IIIA, IIIB, IIIC, and IIID. After 4 years' minimum follow-up, the AJCC-7 superior efficacy of nivolumab over ipilimumab in patients with resected stage III melanoma was preserved per AJCC-8 analysis. No statistically significant difference in RFS between stage III substage hazard ratios was observed per AJCC-7 or -8 staging criteria (interaction test: AJCC-7, P = 0.8115; AJCC-8, P = 0.1051; P = 0.8392 ((AJCC-7) and P = 0.8678 (AJCC-8) for DMFS). CheckMate 238 4-year RFS and DMFS outcomes are consistent per AJCC-7 and AJCC-8 staging criteria. Outcome benefits can therefore be translated for patients diagnosed per AJCC-8.

Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) strongly improved the outcome of metastatic melanoma patients. However, not all the patients respond to treatment and identification of prognostic biomarkers able to select responding patients is currently of outmost importance. Considering that development of vitiligo-like depigmentation in melanoma patients represents both an adverse event of CPIs and a favorable prognostic factor, we analyzed soluble biomarkers of vitiligo to validate them as early indicators of response to CPIs. Fifty-seven metastatic melanoma patients receiving CPIs were enrolled and divided according to the best overall response to treatment. Patient sera were evaluated at pre-treatment and after 1 and 3 months of therapy. We found that basal CD25 serum levels were higher in stable and responding patients and remained higher during the first 3 months of CPI therapy compared to non-responders. CXCL9 was absent in non-responding patients before therapy beginning. Moreover, an increase of CXCL9 levels was observed at 1 and 3 months of therapy for all patients, although higher CXCL9 amounts were present in stable and responding compared to non-responding patients. Variations in circulating immune cell subsets was also analyzed, revealing a reduced number of regulatory T lymphocytes in responding patients. Altogether, our data indicate that a pre-existing and maintained activation of the immune system could be an indication of response to CPI treatment in melanoma patients.

Despite the significant progress in the treatment of unresectable or metastaticTargeted therapy, including BRAF- and MEK-inhibitors, and immunotherapies have greatly contributed to advances in the treatment of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We performed a retrospective exploratory analysis to evaluate the prognostic and predictive effect of two circulating biomarkers,This study evaluated patients from BRIM-3, a phase III trial comparing vemurafenib and dacarbazine in 675 patients withPatients with elevated levels of baselineHere, we report that BRIM-3 patients with high levels of ctDNA and cHGF have worse OS regardless of treatment and that these factors are independent prognostic markers for metastatic melanoma.

The treatment of advancedBaseline tumor samples from the intention-to-treat population were analyzed by targeted deep sequencing at a median coverage of 3,600× and by immunohistochemistry for cell proliferation markers,NeitherDeeper inhibition of the MAPK pathway through targeting of both MEK and BRAF may override the effects of tumor heterogeneity and improve PFS in all patients with advanced