Search

(1) Background: Melanoma has the highest mortality of all cutaneous tumors, despite recent treatment advances. Many relevant genetic events have been identified in the last decade, including recurrent ARID1A mutations, which in various tumors have been associated with improved outcomes to immunotherapy. (2) Methods: Retrospective analysis of 116 melanoma samples harboring ARID1A mutations. Assessment of clinical and genetic characteristics was performed as well as correlations with treatment outcome applying Kaplan-Meier (log-rank test), Fisher's exact and Chi-squared tests. (3) Results: The majority of ARID1A mutations were in cutaneous and occult melanoma. ARID1A mutated samples had a higher number of mutations than ARID1A wild-type samples and harbored UV-mutations. A male predominance was observed. Many samples also harbored NF1 mutations. No apparent differences were noted between samples harboring genetically inactivating (frame-shift or nonsense) mutations and samples with other mutations. No differences in survival or response to immunotherapy of patients with ARID1A mutant melanoma were observed. (4) Conclusions: ARID1A mutations primarily occur in cutaneous melanomas with a higher mutation burden. In contrast to findings in other tumors, our data does not support ARID1A mutations being a biomarker of favorable response to immunotherapies in melanoma. Larger prospective studies would still be warranted.

Purpose: Currently, there are no robust biomarkers that predict immunotherapy outcomes in metastatic melanoma. We sought to build multivariable predictive models for response and survival to anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (anti-PD-1) monotherapy or in combination with anticytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4 (ipilimumab [IPI]; anti-PD-1 ± IPI) by including routine clinical data available at the point of treatment initiation., Methods: One thousand six hundred forty-four patients with metastatic melanoma treated with anti-PD-1 ± IPI at 16 centers from Australia, the United States, and Europe were included. Demographics, disease characteristics, and baseline blood parameters were analyzed. The end points of this study were objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). The final predictive models for ORR, PFS, and OS were determined through penalized regression methodology (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator method) to select the most significant predictors for all three outcomes (discovery cohort, N = 633). Each model was validated internally and externally in two independent cohorts (validation-1 [N = 419] and validation-2 [N = 592]) and nomograms were created., Results: The final model for predicting ORR (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.71) in immunotherapy-treated patients included the following clinical parameters: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, presence/absence of liver and lung metastases, serum lactate dehydrogenase, blood neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, therapy (monotherapy/combination), and line of treatment. The final predictive models for PFS (AUC = 0.68) and OS (AUC = 0.77) included the same variables as those in the ORR model (except for presence/absence of lung metastases), and included presence/absence of brain metastases and blood hemoglobin. Nomogram calculators were developed from the clinical models to predict outcomes for patients with metastatic melanoma treated with anti-PD-1 ± IPI., Conclusion: Newly developed combinations of routinely collected baseline clinical factors predict the response and survival outcomes of patients with metastatic melanoma treated with immunotherapy and may serve as valuable tools for clinical decision making., Competing Interests: Inês Pires da SilvaConsulting or Advisory Role: MSDSpeakers' Bureau: Roche, Novartis, Bristol Myers SquibbTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb Jennifer L. McQuadeHonoraria: Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, RocheConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche Pharma AGTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Merck Selma UgurelHonoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Novartis, Merck SeronoConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Merck SeronoResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Merck Serono (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Novartis, Pierre Fabre Rudolf HerbstEmployment: Helios Kliniken Jochen UtikalStock and Other Ownership Interests: BioNTech, Moderna Therapeutics, Pfizer, Merck, SanofiHonoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD Oncology, Roche, Pierre Fabre, SanofiConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, SanofiResearch Funding: Apogenix (Inst), Noxxon Pharma (Inst), Elsalys Biotech (Inst), TILT Biotherapeutics (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: MSD Oncology, Roche, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Sanofi Claudia PföhlerHonoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Roche, MSD, Merck Serono, Sun Pharma, Amgen, AbbVieConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation, Novartis, MSD, Roche, Sanofi, Allergy Therapeutics, Merck SeronoTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Celgene, AbbVie, Merck Serono Patrick TerheydenHonoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Roche, CureVac, Merck Serono, MSD OncologyConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Merck KGaA, 4SC, AlmirallTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre Michael WeichenthalHonoraria: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, SanofiConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Pierre FabreResearch Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme (Inst), Millennium (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Johnson & Johnson (Inst), Novartis (Inst) Ralf GutzmerHonoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Merck Serono, Almirall Hermal GmbH, Amgen, Sun Pharma, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi/Regeneron, ImmunocoreConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Almirall Hermal GmbH, 4SC, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Merck Serono, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, ImmunocoreResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Johnson & Johnson (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Merck Serono (Inst), Sun Pharma (Inst), Sanofi (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma Peter MohrHonoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Merck, SanofiConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Amgen, Roche, Merck, Pierre Fabre, SanofiSpeakers' Bureau: Novartis, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Amgen, SanofiResearch Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Novartis (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, Roche, Sun Pharma, Sanofi Jessica L. SmithHonoraria: Pierre FabreTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: MSD Oncology Richard A. ScolyerEmployment: Royal Prince Alfred HospitalHonoraria: GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Medical School, Wake Forest School of MedicineConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb GesmbH (Austria), Bristol Myers Squibb SA (Switzerland), GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, NeraCare GmbH, Novartis Australia, Amgen, Myriad Genetics, MSD Sharp & Dohme (Australia) Pty Limited, Novartis, QBiotics, Provectus Biopharmaceuticals Australia, Evaxion BioTech A/S, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Australia Pty Limited, RocheResearch Funding: The Ainsworth Foundation (Inst), National Health and Medical Research Council, Melanoma Research Alliance (MRA) GrantTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis AustraliaUncompensated Relationships: Melanoma Institute Australia Ana M. AranceConsulting or Advisory Role: BMS, Roche, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, MSD, Merck, SanofiSpeakers' Bureau: Pierre Fabre, Novartis, MSD, BMS, Roche, Merck, SanofiResearch Funding: Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Roche, BMS, MSD, Merck, Sanofi, AmgenTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Merck, Sanofi Lisa PickeringConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Ipsen, BMS, Eisai, MSD Oncology, NovartisSpeakers' Bureau: Pfizer, BMSResearch Funding: NIHR (Inst), Rosetrees Trust (Inst), Kidney and melanoma cancer fund of RMH charity (Inst) James LarkinHonoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, Incyte, iOnctura, Merck Serono, Eisai, Dynavax Technologies, Cancer Research UK, touchIME, touchEXPERTSConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Novartis, Boston Biomedical, Incyte, iOnctura, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Immunocore, YKT Corporation, Apple Tree PartnersResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst), Novartis (Inst), MSD (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Achilles Therapeutics (Inst), Roche (Inst), Nektar (Inst), Covance (Inst), Immunocore (Inst), AVEO (Inst), Pharmacyclics (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca, Incyte, GlaxoSmithKline, Pierre Fabre, Merck Serono, iOnctura, British Uro-Oncology Group (BUG), ESMO, National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI), EUSA Pharma, Syneos Health, Kidney Cancer Association, Bioevents, MedConcept, RV Mais Paul LoriganHonoraria: Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Merck, BMS, MSD, NeraCare GmbH, Amgen, Roche, Oncology Education, NektarConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, NektarSpeakers' Bureau: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre FabreResearch Funding: BMS, Pierre FabreTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb Christian U. BlankStock and Other Ownership Interests: Uniti Cars, ImmageneConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech (Inst), MSD Oncology (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Novartis (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Pierre Fabre (Inst), GenMab (Inst), Third Rock VenturesResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Novartis (Inst), NanoString Technologies (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol Myers Squibb Dirk SchadendorfHonoraria: Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Immunocore, Merck Serono, Array BioPharma, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Philogen, Regeneron, 4SC, Sanofi/Regeneron, NeraCare GmbH, Sun Pharma, InflarxGmbH, Ultimovacs, SandozConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, 4SC, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi/Regeneron, NektarSpeakers' Bureau: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi/Regeneron, Merck KGaAResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Roche (Inst), MSD Oncology (Inst), Array BioPharma/Pfizer (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche/Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi/Regeneron Michael A. DaviesConsulting or Advisory Role: Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, NanoString Technologies, Array BioPharma, Apexigen, ABM Therapeutics, Pfizer, EisaiResearch Funding: GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Merck (Inst), Oncothyreon (Inst), Myriad Genetics (Inst), Sanofi (Inst), Pfizer (Inst) Matteo S. CarlinoHonoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, NovartisConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Amgen, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, IDEAYA Biosciences, Sanofi, Merck Serono, Regeneron, QBiotics, Nektar, Eisai, OncoSec Douglas B. JohnsonConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, Janssen, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Catalyst Pharmaceuticals, Oncosec, Pfizer, Mosaic ImmunoEngineering, TargovaxResearch Funding: Incyte, Bristol Myers SquibbPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Intellectual property and patents pending surrounding use of MHC-II and response to immune therapy Georgina V. LongHonoraria: BMS, Pierre FabreConsulting or Advisory Role: Aduro Biotech, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Hexal, Highlight Therapeutics, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, OncoSec, Pierre Fabre, QBiotics, Regeneron, SkylineDx, Specialised Therapeutics, Array BioPharma, Evaxion Biotech A/S, Evaxion Biotech A/S, SkylineDX B.V Alexander M. MenziesConsulting or Advisory Role: MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, QBioticsNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Knowledge on the real-world characteristics and outcomes of pembrolizumab-treated advanced melanoma patients in Germany and on the value of different real-world endpoints as surrogates for overall survival (OS) is limited. A sample of 664 pembrolizumab-treated patients with advanced melanoma from the German registry ADOReg was used. We examined OS, real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS), real-world time to next treatment (rwTtNT), and real-world time on treatment (rwToT). Spearman's rank and iterative multiple imputation (IMI)-based correlation coefficients were computed between the OS and the rwPFS, rwTtNT, and rwToT and reported for the first line of therapy and the overall sample. The median OS was 30.5 (95%CI 25.0-35.4) months, the rwPFS was 3.9 months (95%CI 3.5-4.9), the rwTtNT was 10.7 months (95%CI 9.0-12.9), and the rwToT was 6.2 months (95%CI 5.1-6.8). The rwTtNT showed the highest correlation with the OS based on the IMI (rIMI = 0.83), Spearman rank correlations (rs = 0.74), followed by the rwToT (rIMI = 0.74 and rs = 0.65) and rwPFS (rIMI = 0.69 and rs = 0.56). The estimates for the outcomes and correlations were similar for the overall sample and those in first-line therapy. The median OS was higher compared to recent real-world studies, supporting the effectiveness of pembrolizumab in regular clinical practice. The rwTtNT may be a valuable OS surrogate, considering the highest correlation was observed with the OS among the investigated real-world endpoints.

For patients with Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) who are refractory to immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI), treatment options are limited. Few cases of MCCs have been reported to show responses to peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT). A combination of PRRT and ICI has not been reported in MCC to date. A patient with metastatic MCC, who was resistant to first-line avelumab and acquired resistance to ipilimumab/nivolumab (IPI/NIVO) with additional radiotherapy, presented with multiple distant metastases. After confirmation of SSTR expression, treatment was continued with an additional 4 doses of IPI/NIVO combined with 2 cycles of PRRT. Treatment was well tolerated, with transient hemotoxicity and mild nausea. Restaging after 3 mo demonstrated an exceptional response. This case demonstrates the feasibility of combined treatment with IPI/NIVO and PRRT as an option for MCC patients progressing under ICI. Prospective evidence confirming the additive value of combining ICI and radionuclide therapy in a larger cohort is needed., (© 2022 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.)

Background: The optimal duration of immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) therapy is not well established. Active residual disease is considered prohibitive for treatment discontinuation and its detection by diagnostic CT imaging is limited. Here, we set out to determine the potential added value of 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) to identify patients at higher risk of relapse following discontinuation of ICB in advanced melanoma., Methods: Metastatic melanoma patients who discontinued ICB were identified retrospectively. Eligible patients received FDG-PET and diagnostic CT within four months of ICB discontinuation. We defined morphologic response using RECIST v1.1. Complete metabolic response (CMR) was defined as uptake in tumor lesions below background, whereas any site of residual, FDG-avid disease was rated as non-CMR. The primary endpoint was time to progression (TTP) after therapy discontinuation stratified by morphologic and metabolic imaging response using Kaplan-Meier estimates and log-rank test., Results: Thiry-eight patients were eligible for this analysis. Median follow-up was 37.3 months since ICB discontinuation. Median TTP in the overall cohort was not reached. A greater proportion of patients were rated as CMR in PET (n = 34, 89.5%) as compared to complete response (CR) in CT (n = 13, 34.2%). Median TTP was reached in patients with non-CMR (12.7 months, 95%CI 4.4-not reached) but not for patients with CMR (log-rank: p < 0.001). All patients with complete response by CT had CMR by PET. In a subset of patients excluding those with complete response by CT, TTP remained significantly different between CMR and non-CMR (log-rank: p < 0.001)., Conclusion: Additional FDG-PET at time of discontinuation of ICB therapy helps identify melanoma patients with a low risk of recurrence and favourable prognosis compared to CT imaging alone. Results may have clinical relevance especially for patients with residual tumor burden., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Atypical fibroxanthoma (AFX) and pleomorphic dermal sarcoma (PDS) are rare cutaneous neoplasms representing histomorphological, genetic as well as epigenetic variants of a disease spectrum. Both tumors typically manifest as nonspecific, often ulcerated, skin- to flesh-colored nodules in chronically sun-damaged skin of elderly male patients. AFX is a rather well demarcated, often rapidly growing tumor. PDS tumors are poorly circumscribed and are characterized by aggressive infiltrative growth. Fast as well as slow growth behavior has been reported for both tumors. Histologically, both are composed of spindle-shaped and epithelioid tumor cells with pleomorphic nuclei as well as atypical multinucleated giant cells. Atypical mitoses are common. In contrast to AFX, PDS involves relevant parts of the subcutis and shows areas of tumor necrosis and/or perineural infiltration. Due to the poorly differentiated nature of AFX/PDS (Grade 3), histopathologically similar cutaneous sarcomas, undifferentiated carcinomas, melanomas and other diseases have to be excluded by immunohistochemical analysis. The treatment of choice is micrographically controlled surgery. In cases of AFX, a cure can be assumed after complete excision. Local recurrence rates are low as long as PDS tumors are surgically removed with a safety margin of 2 cm. Metastasis is rare and mostly associated with very thick or incompletely excised tumors; it mainly affects the skin and lymph nodes. Distant metastasis is even more rare. No approved and effective systemic therapy has been established., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Deutsche Dermatologische Gesellschaft.)

Aims: Cardiac immune-related adverse events (irAEs) from immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) targeting programmed death 1 (PD1) are of growing concern. Once cardiac irAEs become clinically manifest, fatality rates are high. Cardio-oncology aims to prevent detrimental effects before manifestation of severe complications by targeting early pathological changes. We therefore aimed to investigate early consequences of PD1 inhibition for cardiac integrity to prevent the development of overt cardiac disease., Methods and Results: We investigated cardiac-specific consequences from anti-PD1 therapy in a combined biochemical and in vivo phenotyping approach. Mouse hearts showed broad expression of the ligand PDL1 on cardiac endothelial cells as a main mediator of immune-crosstalk. Using a novel melanoma mouse model, we assessed that anti-PD1 therapy promoted myocardial infiltration with CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, the latter being markedly activated. Left ventricular (LV) function was impaired during pharmacological stress, as shown by pressure-volume catheterization. This was associated with a dysregulated myocardial metabolism, including the proteome and the lipidome. Analogous to the experimental approach, in patients with metastatic melanoma (n = 7) receiving anti-PD1 therapy, LV function in response to stress was impaired under therapy. Finally, we identified that blockade of tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) preserved LV function without attenuating the anti-cancer efficacy of anti-PD1 therapy., Conclusions: Anti-PD1 therapy induces a disruption of cardiac immune homeostasis leading to early impairment of myocardial functional integrity, with potential prognostic effects on the growing number of treated patients. Blockade of TNFα may serve as an approach to prevent the manifestation of ICI-related cardiotoxicity., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2021. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Re-induction with immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) needs to be considered in many patients with uveal melanoma (UM) due to limited systemic treatment options. Here, we provide hitherto the first analysis of ICB re-induction in UM. A total of 177 patients with metastatic UM treated with ICB were included from German skin cancer centers and the German national skin cancer registry (ADOReg). To investigate the impact of ICB re-induction, two cohorts were compared: patients who received at least one ICB re-induction (cohort A, n = 52) versus those who received only one treatment line of ICB (cohort B, n = 125). In cohort A, a transient benefit of overall survival (OS) was observed at 6 and 12 months after the treatment start of ICB. There was no significant difference in OS between both groups ( p = 0.1) with a median OS of 16.2 months (cohort A, 95% CI: 11.1-23.8) versus 9.4 months (cohort B, 95% CI: 6.1-14.9). Patients receiving re-induction of ICB (cohort A) had similar response rates compared to those receiving ICB once. Re-induction of ICB may yield a clinical benefit for a small subgroup of patients even after resistance or development of toxicities.

Background: Around 50% of cutaneous melanomas harbour therapeutically targetable BRAF V600 mutations. Reliable clinical biomarkers predicting duration of response to BRAF-targeted therapies are still lacking. Recent in vitro studies demonstrated that BRAF-MEK inhibitor therapy response is associated with tumour TERT promoter mutation status. We assessed this potential association in a clinical setting., Methods: The study cohort comprised 232 patients with metastatic or unresectable BRAF V600-mutated melanoma receiving combined BRAF/MEK inhibitor treatment, including a single-centre retrospective discovery cohort (N = 120) and a prospectively collected multicenter validation cohort (N = 112). Patients were excluded if they received BRAF or MEK inhibitors in an adjuvant setting, as monotherapy, or in combination with immunotherapy. Kaplan-Meier and univariate/multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed as appropriate., Results: median age at first diagnosis was 54 years (range 16-84 years). The majority of patients were men 147/232 (63.4%). Most tumours harboured TERT promoter mutations (72%, N = 167). A survival advantage was observed in both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients with TERT promoter-mutant versus wild-type tumours in both the discovery cohort (mPFS of 9.6 months [N = 87] vs 5.0 months [N = 33]; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.56 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.33-0.96] and mOS of 33.6 months vs 15.0 months; HR = 0.47 [95%CI 0.32-0.70]) as well as the validation cohort (mPFS of 7.3 months [N = 80] vs 5.8 months [N = 32]; HR = 0.67 [95%CI 0.41-1.10] and mOS of 51.1 months vs 15.0 months; HR = 0.33 [95%CI 0.18-0.63]). In the pooled cohort of TERT promoter-mutant (N = 167) versus wild-type (N = 65) tumours, respectively, PFS was 8.9 versus 5.5 months, (HR = 0.62; 95%CI 0.45-0.87; P = 0.004), and OS was 33.6 versus 17.0 months, (HR = 0.51; 95%CI 0.35-0.75, P = 0.0001)., Conclusions: In patients with melanoma receiving BRAF/MEK-targeted therapies, TERT promoter mutations are associated with longer survival. If validated in larger studies, TERT promoter mutation status should be included as a predictive biomarker in treatment algorithms for advanced melanoma., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: C.M.T. reported no relevant conflicts of interest. J.M. declares travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, outside the submitted work. A.Z. declares travel support from Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme and Bristol-Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. R.M. reported no relevant conflicts of interest. E.C. reported no relevant conflicts of interest. G.L. declares travel support from Sun Pharma, outside the submitted work. P.J. reported no relevant conflicts of interest. R.H. declares speakers and advisory board honoraria from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche and SUN-Pharma, outside the submitted work. P.T. declares honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre-Fabre, CureVac, Merck Serono, Sanofi, Roche, Kyowa Kirin and Biofrontera; travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pierre-Fabre, outside the submitted work. J.U. declares advisory board or has received honoraria and travel support from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, LeoPharma, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche and Sanofi, outside the submitted work. C.P. served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, Pierre Fabre, AbbVie, Kyona Kirin and Amgen and received travel support from Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work. J.Ul declares travel support: Medac, Sun Pharma; consulting: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sun Pharma; lectures: Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sun Pharma; grants: Novartis, outside the submitted work. A.K. reported no relevant conflicts of interest. P.M. declares research support (to institution): Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD. Honoraria for lectures (personally): Roche Pharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD, Almirall-Hermal, Amgen, Merck-Serono, Bayer, Pierre-Fabre, Sanofi. Honoraria for advisory boards: Bayersdorf, Roche Pharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD, Almirall-Hermal, Amgen, Pierre-Fabre, Merck-Serono, SUN, Merck-Serono, Sanofi, outside the submitted work. R.G. invited speaker: Roche, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Amgen, Merck Serono, Almirall Hermal, SUN, Sanofi, Pierre-Fabre. Advisory board: BMS, Roche, Novartis, Almirall Hermal, MSD, Amgen, SUN, Sanofi, Pierre-Fabre, 4SC, Bayer, Merck Serono, Pfizer, Immunocore. Research grants: Novartis, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Amgen, Merck-Serono, SUN Pharma, Sanofi. Travel/meeting support: Roche, BMS, SUN, Merck-Serono, Pierre-Fabre, outside the submitted work. F.M. declares travel support or/and speaker's fees or/and advisor's honoraria by Novartis, Roche, BMS, MSD and Pierre Fabre and research funding from Novartis and Roche, outside the submitted work. E.D. reported no relevant conflicts of interest. M.W. reported no relevant conflicts of interest. J.K. reported no relevant conflicts of interest. I.M. reported no relevant conflicts of interest. A.S. reported no relevant conflicts of interest. A.P. reported no relevant conflicts of interest. E.L. served as a consultant and/or has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Medac, Sanofi, Sun Pharma and travel support from Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work. L.Z. served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Sun Pharma and Sanofi; Research funding to institution: Novartis; travel support from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre-Fabre, Sanofi, Sun Pharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work.E.H. reported no relevant conflicts of interest. S.U. declares research support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Serono; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis and Roche, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme, outside the submitted work. D.S. reports personal fees and non-financial support from Roche/Genentech, grants, personal fees, non-financial support and other from BMS, personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, personal fees and non-financial support from Merck Serono, grant, personal fees and non-financial support from Amgen, personal fees from Immunocore, personal fees from Incyte, personal fees from 4SC, personal fees from Pierre Fabre, personal fees and non-financial support from Sanofi/Regeneron, personal fees from Array BioPharma, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Philogen, personal fees from Regeneron, personal fees from Nektar, personal fees from Sandoz, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, personal fees and non-financial support from Sun Pharma, Replimune, Helsinn, OncoSec and InFlaRx outside the submitted work. K.G.: No relevant conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) and basal cell carcinoma are the most common types of skin cancer. For patients with locally advanced and metastatic cSCC, the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor cemiplimab is approved for systemic treatment. Despite this revolutionary immunomodulatory therapeutic approach, tumours may fail to respond either completely or partially. In addition to the previously established local treatment with radiotherapy or systemic treatment with chemotherapy and epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors, ongoing trials are currently focussed on re-stimulating the antitumour immune response in patients with advanced cSCC refractory to PD-1 inhibitors. In this review, ongoing and recently finished trials with different therapeutic approaches will be discussed., (© 2021 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)

Background: Based on its viral-associated or UV-associated carcinogenesis, Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a highly immunogenic skin cancer. Thus, clinically evident MCC occurs either in immuno-compromised patients or based on tumor-intrinsic immune escape mechanisms. This notion may explain that although advanced MCC can be effectively restrained by treatment with PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), a considerable percentage of patients does not benefit from ICI therapy. Biomarkers predicting ICI treatment response are currently not available., Methods: The present multicenter retrospective study investigated clinical and molecular characteristics in 114 patients with unresectable MCC at baseline before treatment with ICI for their association with therapy response (best overall response, BOR). In a subset of 21 patients, pretreatment tumor tissue was analyzed for activation, differentiation and spatial distribution of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL)., Results: Of the 114 patients, n=74 (65%) achieved disease control (BOR=complete response/partial response/stable disease) on ICI. A Bayesian cumulative ordinal regression model revealed absence of immunosuppression and a limited number of tumor-involved organ systems was highly associated with a favorable therapy response. Unimpaired overall performance status, high age, normal serum lactate dehydrogenase and normal serum C reactive protein were moderately associated with disease control. While neither tumor Merkel cell polyomavirus nor tumor PD-L1 status showed a correlation with therapy response, treatment with anti-PD-1 antibodies was associated with a higher probability of disease control than treatment with anti-PD-L1 antibodies. Multiplexed immunohistochemistry demonstrated the predominance of CD8 + effector and central memory T cells (T CM ) in close proximity to tumor cells in patients with a favorable therapy response., Conclusions: Our findings indicate the absence of immunosuppression, a limited number of tumor-affected organs, and a predominance of CD8 + T CM among TIL, as baseline parameters associated with a favorable response to PD-1/PD-L1 ICI therapy of advanced MCC. These factors should be considered when making treatment decisions in MCC patients., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SU declares research support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Serono; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis and Roche, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. LZ served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, and Sanofi; Research funding to institution: Novartis; travel support from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre-Fabre, and Novartis, outside the submitted work. PT declares invited speaker's honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD, Pierre-Fabre, CureVac, Roche, Kyowa Kirin, Biofrontera, advisory board honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Merck Serono, Sanofi, Roche, Kyowa Kirin, and travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Pierre-Fabre. UL declares advisory board honoraria from MSD, Roche, Sanofi, Novartis, Sun Pharma, Almirall Hermal. TE declares consulting fees from BMS, Novartis, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi; board membership and payment for lectures in speakers bureau from Pierre Fabre, MSD, Roche, BMS, Novartis and Sanofi. CL reports advisory board honoraria from MSD, BMS, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Kyowa Kirin, Almiral Hermal, Biontech, Merc; speakers fee from MSD, BMS, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Merck; travel reimbusment from MSD, BMS, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Kyowa Kirin, Almiral Hermal, Biontech and Merck. JCH declares research support from Bristol Myers Squibb; advisory board honoraria from Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sun Pharma and Merck Sharp & Dome; speakers honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi and Almirall and travel support from Pierre Fabre. TG reports receiving speakers and/or advisory board honoraria from BMS, Sanofi-Grenzyme, MSD, Novartis Pharma, Roche, Abbvie, Almirall, Janssen Lilly, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre; speakers and/or advisory board honoraria from BMS, Sanofi-Grenzyme, MSD, Novartis, Pharma, Roche, Abbvie, Almirall, Janssen Lillly, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre. SH declares advisory boards honoraria from Pierre Fabre, MSD, BMS, Novartis, Sanofi. PM reports board membership and payment for lectures in speakers bureau from Pierre Fabre, GSK, MSD, Merck Germany, Roche, BMS, Novartis, Sanofi. P. Mohr reports research support (to institution): Bristol-MyersSquibb, Novartis, MSD. Honoraria for lectures (personally): Pierre Fabre, GSK, MSD, Merck Germany, Roche, BMS, Novartis, Sanofi, Amgen, SUN-Pharma, Roche Pharma, Bristol-MyersSquibb, Novartis, MSD, Almirall-Hermal, Amgen, Merck-Serono, Bayer, Pierre-Fabre, Sanofi. Honoraria for advisory boards: Pierre Fabre, GSK, MSD, Merck Germany, Roche, BMS, Novartis, Sanofi, Beiersdorf, Almiral-Hermal, AmgenBayersdorf, Roche Pharma, Bristol-MyersSquibb, Novartis, MSD, Almirall-Hermal, Amgen, Pierre-Fabre, Merck-Serono, SUN-Pharma, SUN, Merck-Serono, Sanofi. CP received honoraria (speaker honoraria or honoraria as a consultant) and travel support from Novartis, BMS, Roche, Merck Serono, MSD, Celgene, AbbVie, AMGEN, SUNPHARMA, Allergy Therapeutics and LEO. LMH served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Amgen, BMS, Curevac, MSD, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Roche, Sanofi and Sun Pharma, outside the submitted work. Research funding to institution: Novartis. R. Gutzmer reports research support from Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Amgen, MerckSerono, SUN Pharma; honoraria for lectures from Roche Pharma, Bristol-MyersSquibb, Novartis, MSD, Almirall-Hermal, Amgen, Merck-Serono, SUN, Pierre-Fabre, Sanofi, SUN Pharma, Bayer; honoraria for advice from Roche Pharma, Bristol-MyersSquibb, Novartis, MSD, Almirall-Hermal, Amgen, Pierre-Fabre, Merck-Serono, 4SC, Incyte, SUN Pharma, Sanofi, Pfizer. JSU is on the advisory board or has received honoraria and travel support from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, LeoPharma, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi outside the submitted work. H-US is an employee of Targos Molecular Pathology Inc. and reports research support from Novartis Oncology and received honoraria from MSD, BMS, Roche Pharma, Novartis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Takeda, Molecular Health, outside of the submitted work. DS reports personal fees from Amgen, GSK, BMS, Novartis, Roche, Merck, Astra Zeneca, Merck-Serono, Pfizer, Incyte, Array Pierre Fabre, Sanofi Genzyme, Regeneron, 4Sc, InFlaRx, Neracare, Ultimovacs, SunPharma, Philogen, Immunocore, Sandoz-Hexal outside the submitted work. JCB is receiving speaker's bureau honoraria from Amgen, Pfizer, MerckSerono, Recordati and Sanofi; is a paid consultant/advisory board member/DSMB member for Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, InProTher, ICON, MerckSerono, Pfizer, 4SC, and Sanofi/Regeneron. His group receives research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, HTG, IQVIA, and Alcedis., (© 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: Eccrine porocarcinoma (EPC) is a rare skin cancer arising from the eccrine sweat glands. Due to the lack of effective therapies, metastasis is associated with a high mortality rate., Objectives: To investigate the drivers of EPC progression., Methods: We carried out genomic and transcriptomic profiling of metastatic EPC (mEPC), validation of the observed alterations in an EPC patient-derived cell line, confirmation of relevant observations in a large patient cohort of 30 tumour tissues, and successful treatment of a patient with mEPC under the identified treatment regimens., Results: mEPC was characterized by a high tumour mutational burden (TMB) with an ultraviolet signature, widespread copy number alterations and gene expression changes that affected cancer-relevant cellular processes such as cell cycle regulation and proliferation, including a pathogenic TP53 (tumour protein 53) mutation, a copy number deletion in the CDKN2A (cyclin dependent kinase inhibitor 2A) region and a CTNND1/PAK1 [catenin delta 1/p21 (RAC1) activated kinase 1] gene fusion. The overexpression of EGFR (epidermal growth factor receptor), PAK1 and MAP2K1 (mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase 1; also known as MEK1) genes translated into strong protein expression and respective pathway activation in the tumour tissue. Furthermore, a patient-derived cell line was sensitive to EGFR and MEK inhibition, confirming the functional relevance of the pathway activation. Immunohistochemistry analyses in a large patient cohort showed the relevance of the observed changes to the pathogenesis of EPC. Our results indicate that mEPC should respond to immune or kinase inhibitor therapy. Indeed, the advanced disease of our index patient was controlled by EGFR-directed therapy and immune checkpoint inhibition for more than 2 years., Conclusions: Molecular profiling demonstrated high TMB and EGFR/MAPK pathway activation to be novel therapeutic targets in mEPC., (© 2021 The Authors. British Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

Background: NF1-mutated tumours represent a small subset (10-15%) of melanomas, not sufficiently analysed in large clinical cohorts. This study investigated the largest multicentre collection of NF1-mutated melanomas to date., Methods: This study analysed a multicentre tumour tissue sample cohort from 266 patients with NF1-mutated melanoma. Targeted next-generation sequencing of the TERT promoter and 29 relevant melanoma genes was performed. Survival was compared with NF1 wild-type cohorts from the Tissue Registry in Melanoma project (n = 432)., Results: Most NF1-mutated melanoma arose in the head-and-neck region of patients >60 years. NF1 alterations were frequently inactivating, primarily non-sense, less frequently truncating mutations. Non-inactivating NF1 mutations more frequently co-occurred with activating BRAF and RAS mutations. NF1-mutated tumours had higher numbers of gene mutations and UV signature C>T and CC>TT transitions than BRAF, RAS and triple wild-type melanomas. NF1-mutated acral and mucosal melanomas harboured a different mutation signature and were frequent in women (69% and 83%, respectively), differing from non-acral cutaneous NF1-mutated melanomas (men 73%, women 27%). Overall survival in stage IV disease was comparable for patients with NF1-mutated or wild-type melanoma. However, in patients receiving first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment, better median overall survival (mOS) was observed for NF1-mutated than wild-type tumours (mOS = not reached vs mOS = 25.82, p = 0.0154, n = 80 and 432, respectively)., Conclusions: Cutaneous, acral and mucosal NF1-mutated melanomas vary in clinical and genetic characteristics and demonstrate a favourable outcome on immune checkpoint inhibition therapy., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have led to a prolongation of progression-free and overall survival in patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC). However, immune-mediated adverse events due to ICI therapy are common and often lead to treatment discontinuation. The response duration after cessation of ICI treatment is unknown. Hence, this study aimed to investigate the time to relapse after discontinuation of ICI in MCC patients., Methods: We analyzed 20 patients with metastatic MCC who have been retrospectively enrolled at eleven skin cancer centers in Germany. These patients have received ICI therapy and showed as best overall response (BOR) at least a stable disease (SD) upon ICI therapy. All patients have discontinued ICI therapy for other reasons than disease progression. Data on treatment duration, tumor response, treatment cessation, response durability, and tumor relapse were recorded., Results: Overall, 12 of 20 patients (60%) with MCC relapsed after discontinuation of ICI. The median response durability was 10.0 months. Complete response (CR) as BOR to ICI-treatment was observed in six patients, partial response (PR) in eleven, and SD in three patients. Disease progression was less frequent in patients with CR (2/6 patients relapsed) as compared to patients with PR (7/11) and SD (3/3), albeit the effect of initial BOR on the response durability was below statistical significance. The median duration of ICI therapy was 10.0 months. Our results did not show a correlation between treatment duration and the risk of relapse after treatment withdrawal. Major reasons for discontinuation of ICI therapy were CR (20%), adverse events (35%), fatigue (20%), or patient decision (25%). Discontinuation of ICI due to adverse events resulted in progressive disease (PD) in 71% of patients regardless of the initial response. A re-induction of ICI was initiated in 8 patients upon tumor progression. We observed a renewed tumor response in 4 of these 8 patients. Notably, all 4 patients showed an initial BOR of at least PR., Conclusion: Our results from this contemporary cohort of patients with metastatic MCC indicate that MCC patients are at higher risk of relapse after discontinuation of ICI as compared to melanoma patients. Notably, the risk of disease progression after discontinuation of ICI treatment is lower in patients with initial CR (33%) as compared to patients with initial PR (66%) or SD (100%). Upon tumor progression, re-induction of ICI is a feasible option. Our data suggest that the BOR to initial ICI therapy might be a potential predictive clinical marker for a successful re-induction., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are increasingly being used to treat numerous cancer types. Together with improved recognition of toxicities, this has led to more frequent identification of rare immune-related adverse events (irAE), for which specific treatment strategies are needed. Neutropenia is a rare hematological irAE that has a potential for a high mortality rate because of its associated risk of sepsis. Prompt recognition and timely treatment of this life-threatening irAE are therefore critical to the outcome of patients with immune-related neutropenia., Methods: This multicenter international retrospective study was conducted at 17 melanoma centers to evaluate the clinical characteristics, diagnostics, treatment, and outcomes of melanoma patients with grade 4 neutropenia (<500 neutrophils/µl blood) treated with ICI between 2014 and 2020. Some of these patients received metamizole in addition to ICI (ICI+/met+). Bone marrow biopsies (BMB) of these patients were compared to BMB from non-ICI treated patients with metamizole-induced grade 4 neutropenia (ICI-/met+)., Results: In total, 10 patients (median age at neutropenia onset: 66 years; seven men) with neutropenia were identified, equating to an incidence of 0.14%. Median onset of neutropenia was 6.4 weeks after starting ICI (range 1.4-49.1 weeks). Six patients showed inflammatory symptoms, including fever (n=3), erysipelas (n=1), pharyngeal abscess (n=1), and mucositis (n=1). Neutropenia was diagnosed in all patients by a differential blood count and additionally performed procedures including BMB (n=5). Nine of 10 patients received granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) to treat their grade 4 neutropenia. Four patients received systemic steroids (including two in combination with G-CSF, and one in combination with G-CSF and additional ciclosporin A). Four patients were treated with one or more antibiotic treatment lines, two with antimycotic treatment, and one with additional antiviral therapy. Five patients received metamizole concomitantly with ICI. One fatal outcome was reported. BMB indicated a numerically lower CD4+ to CD8+ T cells ratio in patients with irNeutropenia than in those with metamizole-induced neutropenia., Conclusion: Grade 4 neutropenia is a rare but potentially life-threatening side effect of ICI treatment. Most cases were sufficiently managed using G-CSF; however, adequate empiric antibiotic, antiviral, and antimycotic treatments should be administered if neutropenic infections are suspected. Immunosuppression using corticosteroids may be considered after other causes of neutropenia have been excluded., Competing Interests: AZ received travel support from Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. RK has received speaker fees by NG-Akademie GmbH and Hollister Incorporated, outside the submitted work. MS is an honoraria and/or travel grants from Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer and Sanofi-Aventis. AG: Speaker´s honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD Sharp & Dohme and Roche; intermittent advisory board relationships with Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi Genzyme; travel and congress fee support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre Pharmaceuticals and Roche. Clinical studies: Amgen, Array, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GSK, Novartis, Merck, MSD Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer and Roche. BB received speaker fees for BMS, MSD, Novartis. Travel accomodation: BMS, Pierre Fabre. MS is an honoria for advisory board for Sanofi/Regneron and speaker fees für Novartis Pharma AG. GM has received speaker fees from PharmaMar, outside the submitted work. DJ received advisory board honoraria from BMS, Catalyst, Iovance, Jansen, Merck, Novartis, Oncosec, and Pfizer, and research funding from BMS and Incyte. LS is an honoraria for advisory boards & speaker fees from BMS. CaL received Advisory board: Roche, Novartis, BMS, MSD, SunPharma, Biontech, Kyowa Kirin, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, Merck; Speakers fee: Roche, Novartis, BMS, MSD, SunPharma, Biontech, Kyowa Kirin, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, Merck; Travel reimbursement: Roche, Novartis, BMS, MSD, SunPharma, Biontech, Kyowa Kirin, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, Merck. CP received honoraria (speaker honoraria or honoraria as a consultant) and travel support from: Novartis, BMS, Roche, Merck Serono, MSD, Celgene, AbbVie, Pierre Fabre, SUNPHARMA and LEO. GL is a consultant advisor for Aduro Biotech Inc, Amgen Inc, Array Biopharma inc, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Evaxion Biotech A/S, Hexel AG, Highlight Therapeutics S.L., Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis Pharma AG, OncoSec, Pierre Fabre, QBiotics Group Limited, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc, SkylineDX B.V., Specialised Therapeutics Australia Pty Ltd. AM is an honoraria for advisory boards for BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pierre-Fabre, QBiotics. MC is a 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, and Novartis. CeL received Honoraria: Roche; BMS; Novartis; Amgen; MSD; Pierre Fabre; Pfizer; Incyte; Consulting or Advisory Role: BMS; MSD; Novartis; Amgen; Roche; Merck Serono; Sanofi; Pierre Fabre; Speakers’ Bureau: Roche; BMS; Novartis; Amgen; MSD; Research Funding: Roche; BMS; Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: BMS; MSD; Novartis; Sanofi; Pierre Fabre; Other Relationship: Avantis Medical Systems (board). MT received grants and personal fees from MSD, Ono Pharmaceutical, BMS, Bayer, Eisai, Novartis, Pfizer, Rakuten Medical, Merck Biopharma, personal fees from LOXO, Celgene, Amgen, outside the submitted work. PB received research funding from BeiGene, BMS, MSD and Takeda; advisory board honoraria from Takeda; speakers honoraria from BMS and travel support from Celgene, all outside the submitted work. TEi received speaker fees from Novartis, Pierre Fabre, MSD, Sanofi Genzyme, Alirall Hermal and Bristol-Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. KK has served as consultant or/and has received honoraria from Amgen, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre, and Novartis, and received travel support from Amgen, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Medac and Novartis. RG: Invited speaker: Roche, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Amgen, Merck Serono, Almirall Hermal, SUN, Sanofi, Pierre-Fabre. Advisory board: BMS, Roche, Novartis, Almirall Hermal, MSD, Amgen, SUN, Sanofi, Pierre-Fabre, 4SC, Bayer, MerckSerono, Pfizer, Immunocore. Research grants: Novartis, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Amgen, Merck-Serono, SUN Pharma, Sanofi. Travel/meeting support: Roche, BMS, SUN, Merck-Serono, Pierre-Fabre, outside the submitted work. CB received advisory board honoraria and/or speaker´s fees from Amgen, BMS, Immunocore, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Roche, and Sanofi-Aventis. SU declares research support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Serono; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis and Roche, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Pierre Fabre. JB is receiving speaker’s bureau honoraria from Amgen, Pfizer, Recordati and Sanofi, is a paid consultant/advisory board member/DSMB member for Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, InProTher, ICON, MerckSerono, Pfizer, 4SC, and Sanofi/Regeneron. His group receives research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, HTG, IQVIA, and Alcedis. EL served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Medac, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma and travel support from Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Sunpharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work. FM has received travel support or/and speaker’s fees or/and advisor’s honoraria by Novartis, Roche, BMS, MSD and Pierre Fabre and research funding from Novartis and Roche. JH received research support from BMS; advisory board honoraria from Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sun Pharma and MSD; speakers honoraria from GSK, Amgen, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi and Almirall and travel support from Pierre Fabre and 4SC. DS reports personal fees and non-financial support from Roche/Genentech, grants, personal fees, non-financial support and other from BMS, personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, personal fees and non-financial support from Merck Serono, grant, personal fees and non-financial support from Amgen, personal fees from Immunocore, personal fees from Incyte, personal fees from 4SC, personal fees from Pierre Fabre, personal fees and non-financial support from Sanofi/Regeneron, personal fees from Array BioPharma, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Philogen, personal fees from Regeneron, personal fees from Nektar, personal fees from Sandoz, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, personal fees and non-financial support from SunPharma, Replimune, Helsinn, OncoSec and InFlaRx outside the submitted work. LH reports Consultancy, speaker fees, travel grants or research funding: BMS, MSD, Merck, Roche, Amgen, Curevac, Novartis, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre. Clinical studies: BMS, MSD, Merck, Roche, Amgen, GSK, Curevac and Novartis. LZ reports being a consultant and/or receiving honoraria from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Sunpharma and Sanofi; research funding to institution from Novartis; and travel support from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre-Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Zaremba, Kramer, De Temple, Bertram, Salzmann, Gesierich, Reinhardt, Baroudjian, Sachse, Mechtersheimer, Johnson, Weppler, Spain, Loquai, Dudda, Pföhler, Hepner, Long, Menzies, Carlino, Lebbé, Enokida, Tahara, Bröckelmann, Eigentler, Kähler, Gutzmer, Berking, Ugurel, Stadtler, Sucker, Becker, Livingstone, Meier, Hassel, Schadendorf, Hanoun, Heinzerling and Zimmer.)

Background: Combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors and mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway inhibitors (MAPKi) has been proposed to enhance the durability of anti-tumour responses induced by MAPKi. Here, we present phase I safety results from an open-label, phase I/II study of pembrolizumab (PEM), encorafenib (ENC) and binimetinib (BIN) triplet therapy in advanced, B-Raf proto-oncogene serine/threonine kinase (BRAF) V600 -mutated melanoma (IMMU-TARGET, NCT02902042)., Methods: The dose finding phase I part used a 3 + 3 design, starting with the approved doses of PEM (200 mg every three weeks), ENC (450 mg once daily [QD]) and BIN (45 mg twice daily [BID]) as dose level (DL) 0. Reduction of the ENC and BIN doses (300 mg QD and 30 mg BID at DL-1 and 200 mg QD and 30 mg BID at DL-2) was preplanned in case of ≥2 dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). Primary objectives were to estimate the recommended phase II dose of the triplet combination, DLT and safety. As per the sponsor's decision, the study was terminated after the phase I part, as the clinical efficacy of the combination is currently being investigated in a pivotal, placebo-controlled (PEM mono), double-blinded phase III trial (STARBOARD,NCT04657991)., Results: Fifteen patients were enrolled. DLTs of DL0 were creatine phosphokinase (CPK) elevation plus cytokine release syndrome (n = 1) and gamma glutamyl transferase (GGT) increase (n = 1). No DLT was observed in further 3 + 3 patients at DL-1. One (isolated GGT elevations) DLT of DL0 was questionable, as the patient had further episodes of isolated GGT elevations after treatment discontinuation. Hence, further 6 patients were enrolled at DL0: here, no DLT occurred. In total, 13 of 15 patients (87%) experienced a treatment-related adverse event (TRAE) and 8 patients (53%), a grade ≥III TRAE; there were no TRAE-related deaths. Increases in aspartate aminotransferases, GGT (6/15 patients) and CPK elevations (4/15) were the most common grade III-IV TRAE. In median, patients received triplet therapy for 24 weeks (interquartile range [IQR], 12-45). Of the 14 patients evaluable for efficacy, the overall response rate was 64% (95% confidence interval [CI], 35-87). At a median follow-up of 25 months (IQR, 9-28), progression-free survival at 12 months was 41% (95% CI, 13-68)., Conclusions: Triplet therapy with PEM, ENC and BIN as used in the study was feasible and safe and led to clinically meaningful disease control., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: PD-1-based immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) is a highly effective therapy in metastatic melanoma. However, 40-60% of patients are primarily resistant, with valid predictive biomarkers currently missing. This study investigated the digitally quantified tumor PD-L1 expression for ICB therapy outcome prediction., Patients and Methods: Tumor tissues taken prior to PD-1-based ICB for unresectable metastatic disease were collected within the prospective multicenter Tissue Registry in Melanoma (TRIM). PD-L1 expression (clone 28-8; cut-off=5%) was determined by digital and physician quantification, and correlated with therapy outcome (best overall response, BOR; progression-free survival, PFS; overall survival, OS)., Results: Tissue samples from 156 patients were analyzed (anti-PD-1, n=115; anti-CTLA-4+anti-PD-1, n=41). Patients with PD-L1-positive tumors showed an improved response compared to patients with PD-L1-negative tumors, by digital (BOR 50.5% versus 32.2%; p=0.026) and physician (BOR 54.2% versus 36.6%; p=0.032) quantification. Tumor PD-L1 positivity was associated with a prolonged PFS and OS by either digital (PFS, 9.9 versus 4.6 months, p=0.021; OS, not reached versus 13.0 months, p=0.001) or physician (PFS, 10.6 versus 5.6 months, p=0.051; OS, not reached versus 15.6 months, p=0.011) quantification. Multivariable Cox regression revealed digital (PFS, HR=0.57, p=0.007; OS, HR=0.44, p=0.001) and physician (OS, HR=0.54, p=0.016) PD-L1 quantification as independent predictors of survival upon PD-1-based ICB. The combination of both methods identified a patient subgroup with particularly favorable therapy outcome (PFS, HR=0.53, p=0.011; OS, HR=0.47, p=0.008)., Conclusion: Pre-treatment tumor PD-L1 positivity predicted a favorable outcome of PD-1-based ICB in melanoma. Herein, digital quantification was not inferior to physician quantification, and should be further validated for clinical use., Competing Interests: J-MP served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis and received travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis and Therakos. PT declares Invited Speaker´s honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD, Pierre-Fabre, CureVac, Roche, Kyowa Kirin, Biofrontera, Advisory Board honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Merck Serono, Sanofi, Roche, Kyowa Kirin, and Travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Pierre-Fabre. JoU is on the advisory board or has received honoraria and travel support from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, LeoPharma, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi outside the submitted work. ClP received honoraria (speaker honoraria or honoraria as a consultant) and travel support from: Novartis, BMS, Roche, Merck Serono, MSD, Celgene, AbbVie, AMGEN, SUNPHARMA, Allergy Therapeutics and LEO. LZ served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, and Sanofi; Research funding to institution: Novartis; travel support from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre-Fabre, and Novartis, outside the submitted work. EL served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Amgen, Actelion, Roche, Bris-tol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Janssen, Medac, Sanofi, Sunpharma and travel support from Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Sunpharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work. JB is receiving speaker’s bureau honoraria from Amgen, Pfizer, MerckSerono, Recordati and Sanofi, is a paid consultant/advisory board member/DSMB member for 4SC, Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, ICON, InProTher, MerckSerono, Pfizer, and Sanofi/Regeneron. His group receives research grants from Merck Serono, HTG, IQVIA, and Alcedis. GL has received travel support from Sun Pharma. AR reported grants from Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Adtec; personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme; and nonfinancial support from Amgen, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Teva. DS received grants and other support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Amgen; personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim; personal fees from InFlarX; personal fees and other support from Roche; grants, personal fees and other support from Novartis; personal fees from Incyte; personal fees and other support from Regeneron; personal fees from 4SC; personal fees from Sanofi; personal fees from Neracare; personal fees from Pierre-Fabre; personal fees and other support from Merck-EMD; personal fees from Pfizer; personal fees and other support from Philiogen; personal fees from Array, personal fees and other support from MSD Sharp & Dohme, outside the submitted work. SU declares research support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Serono; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis and Roche, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The authors declare that this study received funding from Bristol Myers Squibb. The funder had the following involvement with the study: Financing of test material., (Copyright © 2021 Placke, Soun, Bottek, Herbst, Terheyden, Utikal, Pföhler, Ulrich, Kreuter, Pfeiffer, Mohr, Gutzmer, Meier, Dippel, Weichenthal, Zimmer, Livingstone, Becker, Lodde, Sucker, Griewank, Horn, Hadaschik, Roesch, Schadendorf, Engel and Ugurel.)

Forty to 60% of patients with advanced or metastatic melanoma respond to first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and half of all patients in the metastatic setting eventually progress. This review evaluated the latest long-term data from clinical trials. It also considered data from recent retrospective studies, as these address important questions for clinical practice. 'Retreatment' defined as 'repeated treatment with the same therapeutic class following relapse after adjuvant treatment has ended' and showed activity in selected patients with recurrence after regular completion of adjuvant PD-1 treatment. In melanoma patients with adjuvant PD-1 monotherapy who recur during adjuvant treatment, further treatment with PD-1 monotherapy seems to have no clinical utility, indicating the need for a therapy switch or escalation in these patients. Targeted therapy with BRAF/MEK inhibitors and ipilimumab-based therapy (alone or combined with PD-1 blockade) show clinical activity in patients who recur during and after adjuvant treatment. 'Rechallenge', defined as 'repeated treatment with the same therapeutic class following disease progression in patients who had clinical benefit with prior treatment for unresectable or metastatic disease', with pembrolizumab at progression in the advanced setting achieving additional disease control. If possible, 'escalation' (PD-1 inhibitors combined with additional agents) should be preferred to PD-1 inhibitor monotherapy rechallenge as higher response rates were demonstrated. The combination of PD-1 plus CTLA-4 was found to be more effective but not more toxic than CTLA-4 alone. Promising antitumor activity was observed for escalation to lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, entinostat plus pembrolizumab, and relatlimab plus nivolumab. Retreatment, rechallenge and escalation are available options for patients with melanoma who relapse in the adjuvant or advanced setting., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement AZ reports receiving travel support from Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. AMME reports a consultant or advisor role for Ellipses Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, ISA Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sellas Life Sciences, Skyline Diagnostics, BioInvent, IO Biotech, CatalYm and Nektar, serving on the speaker's bureau for MSD and BIOCAD, receiving travel funding from Bristol Myers Squibb and received honoraria from Ellipses Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, ISA Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sellas Life Sciences, Skyline Diagnostics, BIOCAD, CatalYm, BioInvent, IO Biotech, and Nektar, providing expert testimony for Novartis and having stock and other ownership interest with RiverD, Skyline Diagnostics, and Theranovir, all outside the submitted work. CR reports participation in advisory boards for Roche; Pierre Fabre; Merck; Novartis; Amgen; Bristol-MyersSquibb; Novartis; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., asubsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, U.S.A. (MSD); and Sanofi. RD reports having intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationships with Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dhome (MSD), Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Roche, Amgen, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Catalym, Second Genome, Regeneron, Alligator, T3 Pharma, MaxiVAX SA and touchIME outside the submitted work. SU declares research support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Serono; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis and Roche, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Sharp & Dohme. EL reports serving as a consultant and/or receiving honoraria from Amgen, Actelion, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Janssen, Medac, Sanofi, Sunpharma and travel support from Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Sunpharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work. PAA reports a consultant/advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Array, Merck Serono, Pierre-Fabre, Incyte, Medimmune, AstraZeneca, Syndax, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Ultimovacs, Sandoz, Immunocore, 4SC, Alkermes, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Oncosec, Nouscom, Lunaphore, Seagen, and iTeos. He also reports receiving research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Array, and Sanofi and travel support from MSD. GVL reports being a consultant advisor for Aduro Biotech Inc, Amgen Inc, Array Biopharma Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Hexel AG, Highlight Therapeutics S.L., Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis Pharma AG, OncoSec, Pierre Fabre, QBiotics Group Limited, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc, SkylineDX B.V., and Specialised Therapeutics Australia Pty Ltd. DS reports personal fees and non-financial support from Roche/Genentech, grants, personal fees, non-financial support and other from BMS, personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, personal fees and non-financial support from Merck Serono, grant, personal fees and non-financial support from Amgen, personal fees from Immunocore, personal fees from Incyte, personal fees from 4SC, personal fees from Pierre Fabre, personal fees and non-financial support from Sanofi/Regeneron, personal fees from Array BioPharma, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Philogen, personal fees from Regeneron, personal fees from Nektar, personal fees from Sandoz, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, and personal fees and non-financial support from SunPharma, Replimune, Helsinn, OncoSec and InFlaRx outside the submitted work. LZ reports being a consultant and/or receiving honoraria from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Sunpharma and Sanofi; research funding to institution from Novartis; and travel support from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre-Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

We report a case of a 75-year-old man with facial edema that also affected the periorbital area who was admitted to the hospital with the suspected diagnosis of Quincke's edema. The diagnosis of cutaneous angiosarcoma was made by microscopic examination and immunohistochemical staining. Chemotherapy was initially initiated because the angiosarcoma was unresectable and the radiation situation was difficult. Therapy has to be switched to second and third line therapy due to disease progression. The case illustrates the complexity of diagnosis and therapy in patients with cutaneous angiosarcoma., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Gastritis induced by checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) is a rare but severe drug-related side effect. The reference standard for confirming CPI-associated gastritis (CPI-assGastritis) is histopathological assessment; however, the histopathological features of CPI-assGastritis are not yet adequately defined., Materials and Methods: Gastric biopsies of melanoma patients with histopathologically suspected CPI-assGastritis were compared with gastric biopsies of patients with inflammation free gastric mucosa (IFGM), type A, B, and C gastritis with respect to apoptosis count and predominant histopathological features. Immunohistochemical anti-caspase-3 staining was performed to identify apoptosis. Quantification was performed by manually counting the number of apoptotic events per 10 high-power fields (HPF). Clinical symptoms, treatment, and follow-up data of patients with CPI-assGastritis were examined. The nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test was used for statistical testing., Results: Five melanoma patients (three women, two men; median age: 45 years) were treated with PD-1-based CPI. The patients reported epigastric pain, weight loss, nausea, and vomiting. Histologically, the patients with CPI-assGastritis showed a partly lymphocytic, partly granulocytic inflammatory infiltrate. Manual counting of apoptotic cells in biopsy tissue slides stained against caspase 3 revealed a median of 6 apoptotic events/10 HPF (95% CI, 2.75-17.30) in the patients with CPI-assGastritis. Results for the comparison cohort (patients n = 21) were a median of 1 apoptotic event/10 HPF (95% CI, 0.5-4.5) for type-A gastritis (six patients), a median of 2 apoptotic events/10 HPF (95% CI, 0-4.5) for type-B gastritis (five patients), and no apoptosis for IFGM and type-C gastritis (five patients). Patients with CPI-assGastritis had a significantly higher apoptosis count than patients with IFGM (p<0.01), type A (p<0.05), B (p<0.05), and C gastritis (p<0.01). None of the CPI-assGastritis biopsies showed evidence of Helicobacter pylori . All CPI-assGastritis patients responded to systemic treatment with corticosteroids., Conclusion: CPI-assGastritis manifests with nonspecific symptoms but histologically shows a high number of apoptotic events, which can best be visualized by anti-caspase-3 immunohistochemistry. This histopathological feature may help to histologically differentiate CPI-assGastritis from other forms of gastritis and inform decision-making regarding its optimal management., Competing Interests: J-MP served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Novartis, and has received travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis and Therakos. HR is on the advisory board of Bristol-Myers Squibb, received honoraria from Roche and Bristol-Myers Squibb, received travel support from Philips, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, received grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb and holds shares of Bayer. EL served as consultant or/and has received honoraria from Amgen, Actelion, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Janssen, Medac, Sanofi, and Sunpharma, and travel support from Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre-Fabre, Sunpharma, and Novartis, outside the submitted work. SU received grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from Novartis, grants and non-financial support from Bristol-Myers Squibb; personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, and non-financial support from Amgen, outside the submitted work. DS received grants and other support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb during the conduct of the study, personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from InFlarX, personal fees and other support from Roche, grants, personal fees and other support from Novartis, personal fees from Incyte, personal fees and other support from Regeneron, personal fees from 4SC, personal fees from Sanofi, personal fees from Neracare, personal fees from Pierre-Fabre, personal fees and other support from Merck-EMD, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees and other support from Philogen, personal fees from Array, personal fees and other support from MSD Sharp & Dohme, outside the submitted work. AR reported grants from Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Adtec, personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, and nonfinancial support from Amgen, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Teva. LZ served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, and Sanofi, research funding to institution from Novartis, travel support from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre-Fabre, and Novartis, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Placke, Rawitzer, Reis, Rashidi-Alavijeh, Livingstone, Ugurel, Hadaschik, Griewank, Schmid, Schadendorf, Roesch and Zimmer.)

Background: Since there is no standardized and effective treatment for advanced uveal melanoma (UM), the prognosis is dismal once metastases develop. Due to the availability of immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) in the real-world setting, the prognosis of metastatic UM has improved. However, it is unclear how the presence of hepatic and extrahepatic metastasis impacts the response and survival after ICB., Methods: A total of 178 patients with metastatic UM treated with ICB were included in this analysis. Patients were recruited from German skin cancer centers and the German national skin cancer registry (ADOReg). To investigate the impact of hepatic metastasis, two cohorts were compared: patients with liver metastasis only (cohort A, n = 55) versus those with both liver and extra-hepatic metastasis (cohort B, n = 123). Data were analyzed in both cohorts for response to treatment, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). The survival and progression probabilities were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Log-rank tests, χ 2 tests, and t-tests were performed to detect significant differences between both cohorts., Results: The median OS of the overall population was 16 months (95% CI 13.4-23.7) and the median PFS, 2.8 months (95% CI 2.5-3.0). The median OS was longer in cohort B than in cohort A (18.2 vs. 6.1 months; p = 0.071). The best objective response rate to dual ICB was 13.8% and to anti-PD-1 monotherapy 8.9% in the entire population. Patients with liver metastases only had a lower response to dual ICB, yet without significance (cohort A 8.7% vs. cohort B 16.7%; p = 0.45). Adverse events (AE) occurred in 41.6%. Severe AE were observed in 26.3% and evenly distributed between both cohorts., Conclusion: The survival of this large cohort of patients with advanced UM was more favorable than reported in previous benchmark studies. Patients with both hepatic and extrahepatic metastasis showed more favorable survival and higher response to dual ICB than those with hepatic metastasis only.

Background: Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare and aggressive neuroendocrine cutaneous malignancy with poor prognosis. In Europe, approved systemic therapies are limited to the PD-L1 inhibitor avelumab. For avelumab-refractory patients, efficient and safe treatment options are lacking., Methods: At three different sites in Germany, clinical and molecular data of patients with metastatic MCC being refractory to the PD-L1 inhibitor avelumab and who were later on treated with combined IPI/NIVO were retrospectively collected and evaluated., Results: Five patients treated at three different academic sites in Germany were enrolled. Three out of five patients investigated for this report responded to combined IPI/NIVO according to RECIST 1.1. Combined immunotherapy was well tolerated without any grade II or III immune-related adverse events. Two out of three responders to IPI/NIVO received platinum-based chemotherapy in between avelumab and combined immunotherapy., Conclusion: In this small retrospective study, we observed a high response rate and durable responses to subsequent combined immunotherapy with IPI/NIVO in avelumab-refractory metastatic MCC patients. In conclusion, our data suggest a promising activity of second- or third-line PD-1- plus CTLA-4-blockade in patients with anti-PD-L1-refractory MCC.

Introduction: Cutaneous melanoma is notorious for the development of in-transit metastases (ITM). For unknown biological reasons, ITM remain the leading tumour manifestation without progression to distant sites in some patients., Methods: In total, 191 patients with initially unresectable stage III ITM and satellite metastases from 16 skin cancer centres were retrospectively evaluated for their tumour characteristics, survival and therapy response. Three groups according to disease kinetics (no distant progress, slow (>6 months) and fast (<6 months) distant progression) were analysed separately., Results: Median follow-up time was 30.5 (range 0.8-154.0) months from unresectable ITM. Progression to stage IV was observed in 56.5% of cases. Patients without distant metastasis were more often female, older (>70 years) and presented as stage III with lymph node or ITM at initial diagnosis in 45.7% of cases. Melanoma located on the leg had a significantly better overall survival (OS) from time of initial diagnosis compared to non-leg localised primaries (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-0.91; p = 0.017), but not from diagnosis of unresectable stage III (HR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.45-1.02; p = 0.06). Forty percent of patients received local therapy for satellite and ITM. Overall response rate (ORR) to all local first-line treatments was 38%; disease control rate (DCR) was 49%. In total, 72.3% of patients received systemic therapy for unresectable stage IIIB-D. ORR for targeted therapy (n = 19) was highest with 63.2% and DCR was 84.2% compared to an ORR of 31.4% and a DCR of 54.3% in PD-1 treated patients (n = 70). Patients receiving PD-1 and intralesional talimogene laherparepvec (n = 12) had an ORR of 41.7% and a DCR of 75%., Conclusion: Patients with unresectable ITM and without distant progression are more often female, older, and have a primary on the leg. Response to PD-1 inhibitors in this cohort was lower than expected, but further investigation is required to elucidate the biology of ITM development and the interplay with the immune system., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: A.Z.: received travel support from Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, and Bristol Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. M.P.: No relevant conflicts of interest. J.C.H.: received honoraria from talks: BMS, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Sun Pharma, Almirall, Sanofi, honoraria from adboards: Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, scientific grant: BMS. V.G.: received honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) and reports travel support from Novartis, Pierre Fabre Pharmaceuticals, BMS, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Sanofi Genzyme and SUN Pharmaceutical Industries outside the submitted work. Z.F.: No relevant conflicts of interest. C.L.: served as consult and and/or has received honoraria and or received travel support from Roche, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, MDS, Merck, BMS, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, Biontech, Kyowa Kirin, Almirall Hermal outside the submitted work. D. R.-S. has received honoraria for talks from Roche and Pierre Fabre and has received travel grants from Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi Genzyme. R. G.: received honoraria: Roche, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Amgen, Merck Serono, Almirall Hermal, SUN, Sanofi, Pierre Fabr; consultant or advisory role: BMS, Roche, Novartis, Almirall Hermal, MSD, Amgen, SUN, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, Merck Serono, Bayer, Pfizer; Funding: Novartis, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Amgen, Merck Serono, SUN Pharma, Sanofi; travel, accommodations, expenses: Roche, BMS, SUN, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre. J. U. is on the advisory board or has received honoraria and travel support from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, LeoPharma, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi outside the submitted work. Se.H.: served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Sanofi, Sun Pharma outside the submitted work. L.R.: No relevant conflicts of interest. K.C.K.: served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Amgen, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Medac, Sanofi, Sun Pharma and travel support from Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Sun pharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work. C.W.: served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Amgen, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Kyowa Kirin, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Sanofi, Takeda and travel support from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Curevac, Pierre Fabre and Novartis, outside the submitted work. A.M.: has received speaker or consultant fees from AbbVie, Almirall, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Roche, outside of the submitted work; A.M. is employed by Novartis; the work described in this publication was completed prior to his employment at Novartis. K. M.T.: served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, LEO, Galderma, and Candela and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Candela, outside the submitted work. T.W.: received honoraria and travel support from Amgen, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, outside the submitted work. C.P.: received honoraria (speaker honoraria or honoraria as a consultant) and travel support from: Novartis, BMS, Roche, Merck Serono, MSD, Celgene, AbbVie, Sanofi ‘Genzyme, Sun Pharma, Amgen and LEO. A. R.: reports non-financial support from Amgen, non-financial support from Roche, personal fees and non-financial support from Merck/MSD, grants and non-financial support from Novartis, grants and non-financial support from BMS, non-financial support from TEVA, grants from Adtec, outside the submitted work. S. U.: declares research support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Serono; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis and Roche, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. L.Z.: served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, and Sun Pharma and travel support from MSD, BMS, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi and Novartis, outside the submitted work. N.S.: No relevant conflicts of interest. A.S.: No relevant conflicts of interest. F.K.: No relevant conflicts of interest. L.H.: served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Amgen, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Curevac, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sun Pharma and a research grant from Novartis, outside the submitted work. Fri.M.: has received travel support or/and speaker's fees or/and advisor's honoraria by Novartis, Roche, BMS, MSD and Pierre Fabre and research funding from Novartis and Roche. Fra.M.: served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi Genzyme and travel support from Novartis, Sun Pharma and Bristol Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. M.S.: participated in advisory boards of Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Kyowa Kirin, Immunocore and Sanofi Genzyme. M.S. received travel accommodation and expenses by Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Sun Pharma, outside the submitted work. B.S.: received personal honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe & Dome, Novartis, Pfizer/EMD Serono, Pierre Fabre and Roche; has an advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe & Dome, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Roche; and has received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe & Dome, and Pierre Fabre, all paid to the institute. Su.H.: No relevant conflicts of interest. D.S: reports personal fees and non-financial support from Roche/Genentech, grants, personal fees, non-financial support and other from BMS, personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, personal fees and non-financial support from Merck Serono, grant, personal fees and non-financial support from Amgen, personal fees from Immunocore, personal fees from Incyte, personal fees from 4SC, personal fees from Pierre Fabre, personal fees and non-financial support from Sanofi/Regeneron, personal fees from Array BioPharma, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Philogen, personal fees from Regeneron, personal fees from Nektar, personal fees from Sandoz, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, personal fees and non-financial support from Sun Pharma, Replimune, Helsinn, OncoSec and InFlaRx outside the submitted work. E.L.: served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Amgen, Actelion, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Janssen, Medac, Sanofi, Sun Pharma and travel support from Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Radiological imaging such as computed tomography (CT) is used frequently for disease staging and therapy monitoring in advanced skin cancer patients. Detected lesions of unclear dignity are a common challenge for treating physicians. The aim of this study was to assess the frequency and outcome of CT-guided biopsy (CTGB) of radiologically unclear, suspicious lesions and to depict its usefulness in different clinical settings., Methods: This retrospective monocentric study included advanced skin cancer patients (melanoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, angiosarcoma, cutaneous lymphoma) with radiologically unclear lesions who underwent CTGB between 2010 and 2018., Results: Of 59 skin cancer patients who received CTGB, 47 received CTGB to clarify radiologically suspicious lesions of unclear dignity. 32 patients had no systemic therapy (cohort A), while 15 patients received systemic treatment at CTGB (cohort B). In both cohorts, CTGB revealed skin cancer metastasis in a large proportion of patients (37.5%, 40.0%, respectively), but benign tissue showing inflammation, fibrosis or infection in an equally large percentage (37.5%, 46.7%, respectively). Additionally, a significant number of other cancer entities was found (25.0%, 13.3%, respectively). In patients receiving BRAF/MEK inhibitors, CTGB confirmed suspicious lesions as skin cancer metastasis in 83.3%, leading to treatment change. In immune checkpoint inhibitor-treated patients, skin cancer metastasis was confirmed in 11.1% of patients only, whereas benign tissue changes (inflammation/fibrosis) were found in 77.8%., Conclusions: Our results highlight the relevance of clarifying radiologically unclear lesions by CTGB before start or change of an anti-tumour therapy to exclude benign alterations and secondary malignancies., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement All conflict of interest listed in the manuscript have been outside the submitted work and do not influence the submitted work. Therefore, the authors declare no competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. CF has been on the advisory board of or received honoraria from BMS and Novartis and received travel grants from BMS, Novartis and Pierre Fabre outside the submitted work. EL served as consultant or/and has received honoraria from Amgen, Actelion, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Janssen, Medac, Sanofi, Sun Pharma and travel support from Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma and Novartis outside the submitted work. JT served as a consultant or/and has received honoraria from Roche and Boston Scientific outside the submitted work. EH received honoraria for consulting and travel expenses from Biotest outside the submitted work. LZ: Honoraria from Roche, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre; Consultant or Advisory Role: BMS, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, MSD; Research funding to institution: Novartis; Travel support: BMS, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Amgen, Novartis, Sun Pharma. All fundings were outside the submitted work. DS declares advisory board and speakers honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, MSD, Merck-Serono, Sanofi, Nektar, Amgen, Hexal, InFlaRx, Array, Pierre Fabre, Immunocore, Philogen Sun Pharma, Regeneron and Ultimovacs, as well as grant and travel support from Roche, Novartis, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, MSD, Merck-Serono, and Sanofi outside the submitted work. SU declares research support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Serono; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis and Roche, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme outside the submitted work. AW, HAB, JH, IC, IS, JK, J-MP, GL declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Combined inhibition of BRAF/MEK is an established therapy for melanoma. In addition to its canonical mode of action, effects of BRAF/MEK inhibitors on antitumor immune responses are emerging. Thus, we investigated the effect of these on adaptive immune responses., Patients, Methods and Results: Sequential tumor biopsies obtained before and during BRAF/MEK inhibitor treatment of four (n = 4) melanoma patients were analyzed. Multiplexed immunofluorescence staining of tumor tissue revealed an increased infiltration of CD4 + and CD8 + T cells upon therapy. Determination of the T-cell receptor repertoire usage demonstrated a therapy induced increase in T-cell clonotype richness and diversity. Application of the Grouping of Lymphocyte Interactions by Paratope Hotspots algorithm revealed a pre-existing immune response against melanoma differentiation and cancer testis antigens that expanded preferentially upon therapy. Indeed, most of the T-cell clonotypes found under BRAF/MEK inhibition were already present in lower numbers before therapy. This expansion appears to be facilitated by induction of T-bet and TCF7 in T cells, two transcription factors required for self-renewal and persistence of CD8 + memory T cells., Conclusions: Our results suggest that BRAF/MEK inhibition in melanoma patients allows an increased expansion of pre-existing melanoma-specific T cells by induction of T-bet and TCF7 in these.

Background: The combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors has become standard of care in the treatment of metastatic BRAF V600-mutated melanoma. Clinical factors for an early prediction of tumor response are rare. The present study investigated the association between the development of an early exanthema induced by vemurafenib or vemurafenib plus cobimetinib and therapy outcome., Methods: This multicenter retrospective study included patients with BRAF V600-mutated irresectable AJCC-v8 stage IIIC/D to IV metastatic melanoma who received treatment with vemurafenib (VEM) or vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (COBIVEM). The development of an early exanthema within six weeks after therapy start and its grading according to CTCAEv4.0 criteria was correlated to therapy outcome in terms of best overall response, progression-free (PFS), and overall survival (OS)., Results: A total of 422 patients from 16 centers were included (VEM, n=299; COBIVEM, n=123). 20.4% of VEM and 43.1% of COBIVEM patients developed an early exanthema. In the VEM cohort, objective responders (CR/PR) more frequently presented with an early exanthema than non-responders (SD/PD); 59.0% versus 38.7%; p=0.0027. However, median PFS and OS did not differ between VEM patients with or without an early exanthema (PFS, 6.9 versus 6.0 months, p=0.65; OS, 11.0 versus 12.4 months, p=0.69). In the COBIVEM cohort, 66.0% of objective responders had an early exanthema compared to 54.3% of non-responders (p=0.031). Median survival times were significantly longer for patients who developed an early exanthema compared to patients who did not (PFS, 9.7 versus 5.6 months, p=0.013; OS, not reached versus 11.6 months, p=0.0061). COBIVEM patients with a mild early exanthema (CTCAEv4.0 grade 1-2) had a superior survival outcome as compared to COBIVEM patients with a severe (CTCAEv4.0 grade 3-4) or non early exanthema, respectively (p=0.047). This might be caused by the fact that 23.6% of patients with severe exanthema underwent a dose reduction or discontinuation of COBIVEM compared to only 8.9% of patients with mild exanthema., Conclusions: The development of an early exanthema within 6 weeks after treatment start indicates a favorable therapy outcome upon vemurafenib plus cobimetinib. Patients presenting with an early exanthema should therefore be treated with adequate supportive measures to provide that patients can stay on treatment., Competing Interests: KK has served as consultant or/and has received honoraria from Amgen, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre, and Novartis, and received travel support from Amgen, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Medac, and Novartis. RG received honoraria for lectures and advisory boards, research support and meeting support from Almirall Hermal, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Leo, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Regeneron, Sun Pharma, Takeda, Pfizer, Novartis, Johnson&Johnson, 4SC, and Incyte. FM has received travel support or/and speaker’s fees or/and advisor’s honoraria by Novartis, Roche, BMS, MSD and Pierre Fabre, and research funding from Novartis and Roche. LZ has served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi, and received travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, and Novartis. MH has received consultant and/or speaker honoraria form Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Sanofi, Roche and travel support from Novartis, and Bristol Myers Squibb. AG reports speakers honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and Roche, advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi Genzyme, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, and Roche. K-MT received honoraria for lectures and advisory boards from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Novartis, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre, LEO, Galderma, AbbVie, La Roche-Posay and Candela, and travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Novartis, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre, LEO, and Candela. JU is on the advisory board or has received honoraria and travel support from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, LeoPharma, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi outside the submitted work. JH reports speakers honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and Roche, advisory board honoraria from Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Sunpharma and Sanofi Genzyme, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, and Pierre Fabre. CL declares speakers and advisory board honoraria and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, and Sun Pharma. CP received speaker or consultant honoraria and travel support from Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Celgene, AbbVie, and LEO. LH received grants from Novartis, and has received speaker or consultant fees personal fees from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Roche, Curevac, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Novartis, and Sanofi. MK has received grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Leo, Novartis, and Roche. DG declares speakers and advisory honoraria as well as travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi Genzyme, Amgen, Galderma, Janssen, and Roche. DS declares advisory board and speakers honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, MSD, Merck-Serono, Sanofi, Nektar, Amgen, Hexal, InFlaRx, Array, Pierre Fabre, Immunocore, Philogen Sun Pharma, Regeneron, and Ultimovacs, as well as grant and travel support from Roche, Novartis, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, MSD, Merck-Serono, and Sanofi. SU declares research support from Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck Serono, speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis and Roche, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp, and Dohme. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Kähler, Gutzmer, Meier, Zimmer, Heppt, Gesierich, Thoms, Utikal, Hassel, Loquai, Pföhler, Heinzerling, Kaatz, Göppner, Pflugfelder, Bohne, Satzger, Reinhardt, Placke, Schadendorf and Ugurel.)

Adjuvant treatment of melanoma patients with immune-checkpoint inhibition (ICI) and targeted therapy (TT) significantly improved recurrence-free survival. This study investigates the real-world situation of 904 patients from 13 German skin cancer centers with an indication for adjuvant treatment since the approval of adjuvant ICI and TT. From adjusted log-binomial regression models, we estimated relative risks for associations between various influence factors and treatment decisions (adjuvant therapy yes/no, TT vs. ICI in BRAF mutant patients). Of these patients, 76.9% (95% CI 74-80) opted for a systemic adjuvant treatment. The probability of starting an adjuvant treatment was 26% lower in patients >65 years (RR 0.74, 95% CI 68-80). The most common reasons against adjuvant treatment given by patients were age (29.4%, 95% CI 24-38), and fear of adverse events (21.1%, 95% CI 16-28) and impaired quality of life (11.9%, 95% CI 7-16). Of all BRAF -mutated patients who opted for adjuvant treatment, 52.9% (95% CI 47-59) decided for ICI. Treatment decision for TT or ICI was barely associated with age, gender and tumor stage, but with comorbidities and affiliated center. Shortly after their approval, adjuvant treatments have been well accepted by physicians and patients. Age plays a decisive role in the decision for adjuvant treatment, while pre-existing autoimmune disease and regional differences influence the choice between TT or ICI.

The advent of BRAF/MEK inhibitors (BRAFi/MEKi) has significantly improved progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients with advanced BRAF-V600-mutant melanoma. Long-term survivors have been identified particularly among patients with a complete response (CR) to BRAF/MEK-directed targeted therapy (TT). However, it remains unclear which patients who achieved a CR maintain a durable response and whether treatment cessation might be a safe option in these patients. Therefore, this study investigated the impact of treatment cessation on the clinical course of patients with a CR upon BRAF/MEK-directed-TT. We retrospectively selected patients with BRAF-V600-mutant advanced non-resectable melanoma who had been treated with BRAFi ± MEKi therapy and achieved a CR upon treatment out of the multicentric skin cancer registry ADOReg. Data on baseline patient characteristics, duration of TT, treatment cessation, tumor progression (TP) and response to second-line treatments were collected and analyzed. Of 461 patients who received BRAF/MEK-directed TT 37 achieved a CR. TP after initial CR was observed in 22 patients (60%) mainly affecting patients who discontinued TT (n = 22/26), whereas all patients with ongoing TT (n = 11) maintained their CR. Accordingly, patients who discontinued TT had a higher risk of TP compared to patients with ongoing treatment ( p < 0.001). However, our data also show that patients who received TT for more than 16 months and who discontinued TT for other reasons than TP or toxicity did not have a shorter PFS compared to patients with ongoing treatment. Response rates to second-line treatment being initiated in 21 patients, varied between 27% for immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and 60% for BRAFi/MEKi rechallenge. In summary, we identified a considerable number of patients who achieved a CR upon BRAF/MEK-directed TT in this contemporary real-world cohort of patients with BRAF-V600-mutant melanoma. Sustained PFS was not restricted to ongoing TT but was also found in patients who discontinued TT.

Objective: The development of leptomeningeal disease (LMD) among melanoma patients is associated with short survival. Unspecific clinical symptoms and imprecise diagnostic criteria often delay diagnosis. Because melanoma patients with LMD have been excluded from most clinical trials, the efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) and targeted therapies (TTs) has not been adequately investigated among these patients., Methods: We performed a retrospective study in two tertiary-referral skin cancer centres to evaluate the clinical characteristics, diagnostics, treatments, and overall survival (OS) of melanoma patients with LMD between June 2011 and March 2019., Results: In total, 52 patients were included. The median age at LMD diagnosis was 58 years. Most patients (n = 30, 58%) were men. The median time from the first diagnosis of unresectable disease to the first diagnosis of LMD was 8.5 months (range 0-91.5 months). Most patients (65%, n = 34) were BRAF V600 mutated. Sixteen patients (31%) presented with LMD only, whereas 36 patients (69%) presented with concomitant brain metastases at LMD diagnosis. Eleven patients (21%) showed no evidence of extracranial disease. Forty-four patients (85%) had clinical symptoms at LMD diagnosis. Forty-two patients (81%) had received at least one prior therapy. Forty patients (77%) received at least one treatment after LMD diagnosis, including TT (n = 17), ICB (n = 13), bevacizumab (n = 1), radiotherapy (n = 3), and intrathecal chemotherapy (n = 1); five patients received both TT and ICB. Twelve patients (23%) received no treatment because of rapid progression of LMD. The median OS for the entire cohort was 2.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.7-4.1). Among patients receiving systemic therapy, OS was 3.7 months (95% CI 2.4-4.9)., Conclusions: Systemic treatment with TT or ICB seems to improve OS among patients with LMD. However, despite new therapy modalities, the prognosis of LMD remains poor., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement E.C. received travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Novartis, outside the submitted work. T.K. received travel support from Novartis, Amgen, Celgene, Lilly, and Pierre-Fabre, outside the submitted work. A.Z. received travel support from Novartis, Genzyme, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. F.R. received travel support from Pierre-Fabre, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Novartis, outside the submitted work. S.Kn. received travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Amgen, outside the submitted work. E.G. received travel support from Pierre-Fabre, outside the submitted work. A.R. received grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from Novartis; grants and non-financial support from Bristol-Myers Squibb; personal fees and non-financial support from Roche; personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme; and non-financial support from Amgen, outside the submitted work. S.U. received grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from Novartis; grants and non-financial support from Bristol-Myers Squibb; personal fees and non-financial support from Roche; personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme; and non-financial support from Amgen, outside the submitted work. D.S. received grants and other support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Amgen; personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim; personal fees from InFlarX; personal fees and other support from Roche; grants, personal fees and other support from Novartis; personal fees from Incyte; personal fees and other support from Regeneron; personal fees from 4SC; personal fees from Sanofi; personal fees from NeraCare; personal fees from Pierre-Fabre; personal fees and other support from Merck-EMD; personal fees from Pfizer; personal fees and other support from Philiogen; personal fees from Array, personal fees and other support from MSD Sharp & Dohme, outside the submitted work. E.L.: served as consultant or/and has received honoraria from Amgen, Actelion, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Janssen, Medac, Sanofi, and Sun Pharma; and travel support from Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre-Fabre, Sun Pharma, and Novartis, outside the submitted work. M.G. reports work as a consultant/independent contractor with Roche Pharma, Janssen, Novartis, AbbVie Inc, Novocure Inc, and Daiichi-Sankyo; honorarium from Novartis, UCB Inc, TEVA Pharmaceuticals, Bayer Corp, Novocure Inc, Medac, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, and Kyowa Kirin Group; grants from Novocure and Medac and travel fees from Novocure Inc and Medac, outside the submitted work. L.Z. served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, and Sanofi; research funding to institution from Novartis; travel support from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre-Fabre, and Novartis, outside the submitted work. Other authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: Immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) triggers immune-related adverse events (irAEs). The relevance of lipase elevation remains unclear., Patients and Methods: Skin cancer patients with newly detected serum lipase elevation (at least twofold upper normal limit) or newly diagnosed type I diabetes mellitus upon ICI therapy were retrospectively collected at 14 German skin cancer centres., Results: We identified 68 patients with lipase elevation occurring after a median time of 19 (range 1-181) weeks on ICI, 15 (22%) thereof had symptoms consistent with pancreatitis. Forty-seven patients (73%) had other irAE, mainly colitis. Discontinuation (n = 24, 35%) or interruption (n = 26, 38%) of ICI resulted in decrease of lipase after reinduction of ICI lipase levels increased again in 12 of 24 patients. In 18 patients (27%), ICI was continued unchanged, and in 12 (67%) of them, lipase levels normalised. Twenty-two patients were identified with newly diagnosed type I diabetes mellitus related to ICI, and 12 (55%) thereof had also lipase elevation mainly shortly before or after the diagnosis of diabetes. Fourteen (64%) patients had other irAE, mainly thyroiditis. Irrespective of lipase elevation, patients frequently showed a rapid onset with ketoacidosis, decreased c-peptide, and strongly increased blood glucose levels., Conclusion: Increased serum lipase during ICI is often not associated with pancreatitis but with other irAE as possible cause. Therefore, it might be sufficient to regularly monitor blood glucose levels and perform further workup only in case of signs or symptoms of pancreatitis and/or exocrine pancreas insufficiency., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement Honoraria: R.G. (Roche, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Amgen, Merck Serono, Almirall Hermal, SUN, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre), C.P. (Roche, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Merck Serono, Celgene, AbbVie, LEO), L.Z. (Roche, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre), K.-M.T. (Roche, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, LEO, Galderma, Candela, CSL Behring), K.C.K. (Merck sharp and Dohme, Novartis and Bristol Myers Squibb and travel support from Novartis), J.C.H. (BMS, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Sanofi), S.U. (BMS, MSD, Merck Serono, Novartis and Roche), C.B. (Roche, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis), D.D. (MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi), J.U. (Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, LEO Pharma, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi), R.H. (Roche, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre), L.H. (BMS, Roche, Novartis, MSD, Amgen, CureVac, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre), C.L. (Roche, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, BMS, MSD, Merck, Almirall Hermall, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, BioNTech, Kyowa Kirin), F.M. (Novartis, Roche, BMS, MSD, Pierre Fabre), I.G. (Novartis, Roche, BMS, MSD, Sanofi), T.K.E. (Roche, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, BMS, MSD, Sanofi). Consultant or Advisory Role: R.G. (BMS, Roche, Novartis, Almirall Hermal, MSD, Amgen, SUN, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, Merck Serono, Bayer, Pfizer), C.P. (Roche, Novartis, Merck Serono), L.Z. (MSD, BMS, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi), K.-M.T. (Roche, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, LEO, CSL Behring) K.C.K. (BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre), J.C.H. (MSD, Sun Pharma, Pierre Fabre), S.U. (BMS, MSD, Merck Serono, Novartis and Roche), C.B. (Roche, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Merck Serono, Sanofi-Aventis, Pierre Fabre), D.D. (Novartis, Roche, Sanofi), J.U. (Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Leo Pharma, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi), R.H. (Roche, BMS, Novartis, Pierre Fabre), L.H. (BMS, Roche, Novartis, MSD, Amgen, Curevac, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre), C.L. (Roche, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, BMS, MSD, Merck, Almirall Hermal, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, BioNTech, Kyowa Kirin), F.M. (Novartis, Roche, BMS, MSD, Pierre Fabre), I.G. (Novartis, Roche, BMS, MSD, Sanofi), T.K.E. (Roche, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, BMS, MSD, Sanofi). Research Funding: R.G. (Novartis, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Amgen, Merck Serono, SUN Pharma, Sanofi), L.Z. (Novartis), K.C.K. (Novartis, Merck Sharp and Dohme), J.C.H. (BMS), S.U. (BMS, Merck Serono), J.U. (Apogenix, NOXXON Pharma, Elsalys Biotech, TILT Biotherapeutics, BioNTech RNA Pharmaceuticals, RHEACELL, Merck), L.H. (Novartis), F.M. (Novartis, Roche), I.G. (Roche, Pfizer, Novartis). Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: R.G. (Roche, BMS, SUN, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre), C.P. (Roche, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Merck Serono, Celgene, AbbVie, LEO), L.Z. (BMS, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, Novartis), K.-M.T. (Roche, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, LEO, Candela) K.C.K. (MSD, Novartis and Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis), J.C.H. (Pierre Fabre, BMS), S.U. (BMS, MSD), D.D. (Amgen, BMS, MSD, Mylan, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi), J.U. (Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Leo Pharma, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi), C.L. (Roche, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, BMS, MSD, Merck, Almirall Hermall, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, BioNTech, Kyowa Kirin), F.M. (Novartis, Roche, BMS, MSD, Pierre Fabre), I. G. (Novartis, Roche, BMS, MSD). Stock ownership: none. Patent application/registration: none. Employment: none. No conflict of interest: C.R. and C.K. had no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) is a known predictive and prognostic factor for a poor outcome in patients with metastatic melanoma. It is unclear whether first-line targeted therapy (TT) or immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) is more beneficial in melanoma patients with elevated LDH because prospective studies in this area are lacking., Methods: This multicentre retrospective cohort study was conducted at 25 melanoma centres worldwide to analyse progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) among melanoma patients with elevated LDH. The role of confounders was addressed by using inverse probability of treatment weighting., Results: Among 173 BRAFV600-mutant patients, PFS at 12 months in the TT group was 22% compared with 52% in the combined anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 group (HR 0.6, 95% CI 0.4-1.0, p = 0.07) and 18% in the anti-PD-1 monotherapy group (HR 1.8, 95% CI 1.2-2.8, p = 0.003). Twelve months' OS was 48% in the TT group compared with 83% in the combined anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 group (HR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-1.0, p = 0.03) and 50% in the anti-PD-1 monotherapy group (HR 1.2, 95% CI 0.8-2.0, p = 0.37). The ORR in the TT group was 63%, compared with 55% and 20% in the combined anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 monotherapy group, respectively. Among 314 patients receiving ICI first-line, PFS at 12 months was 33% in the anti-PD-1 group versus 38% in the combined anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 group (HR 0.8, 95% CI 0.6-1.0; p = 0.07). OS at 12 months was 54% in the anti-PD-1 group versus 66% in the combined ICI group (HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.5-1.0; p = 0.03). The ORR was 30% in the anti-PD-1 monotherapy group and 43% in the combined anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 group. Results from multivariate analysis confirmed the absence of qualitative confounding., Conclusions: Among BRAF-mutant patients with elevated LDH, combined anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 blockade seems to be associated with prolonged OS compared with first-line TT. Among patients receiving ICI as a first-line treatment, OS appears to be longer for the combination of anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 than for anti-PD-1 alone., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Sarah Knispel: Travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Amgen. Maximilian Gassenmaier: Consultant or Advisory Role: Novartis; Research funding: Novartis. Carmen Loquai: Advisory role/Speakers fee/Travel support: BMS, MSD, Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sunpharma, Sanofi, Roche, Almirall Hermal, Biontech, Kyowa Kirin. Cindy Franklin: Advisory board or received honoraria of BMS and Novartis and received travel grants from BMS, Novartis and Pierre Fabre. Ralf Gutzmer: Personal Honoraria from Roche, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Amgen, Merck Serono, Almirall Hermal, SUN, Sanofi, Pierre-Fabre. Consultant or advisory role: BMS, Roche, Novartis, Almirall Hermal, MSD, Amgen, SUN, Sanofi, Pierre-Fabre, MerckSerono, Bayer, Pfizer. Research funding: Novartis, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Amgen, Merck-Serono, SUN Pharma, Sanofi, all paid to the institution. Travel, accommodations, expenses: Roche, BMS, SUN, Merck-Serono, Pierre-Fabre. Bastian Schilling: Personal honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe and Dome, Novartis, Pfizer/EMD Serono, Pierre Fabre and Roche; has an advisory role for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe and Dome, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Roche; and has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe and Dome, and Pierre Fabre, all paid to the institute. Andreas Stang: Speaker honoraria from Merck Serono. Selma Ugurel: Research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merck Serono; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis and Roche, and Travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Lisa Zimmer: Honoraria from Roche, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre; Consultant or advisory role: BMS, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sunpharma, Sanofi, MSD; Research funding to institution: Novartis; Travel support: BMS, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Amgen, Novartis, Sunpharma. Carina N Owen: Travel support from Merck Sharp Dohme. Jessica C Hassel: Honoraria from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi; Consultant or advisory role: MSD, Pierre Fabre, Sunpharma; Research funding: BMS; Travel support: Pierre Fabre. Friedegund Meier has received travel support or/and speaker's fees or/and advisor's honoraria by Novartis, Roche, BMS, MSD and Pierre Fabre and research funding from Novartis and Roche. Carola Berking: Honoraria from BMS, Immunocore, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis for consultancy and/or presentations on scientific symposia. Douglas B Johnson: Advisory boards for Array Biopharma, BMS, Iovance, Jansen, Merck and Novartis and research funding from BMS and Incyte. Elisabeth Livingstone: Intermittent advisory board relationships with Roche, BMS, Novartis, Sanofi and Actelion and has received travel grants and honoraria from Roche, BMS, MSD, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, SunPharma, Novartis, Boehringer-Ingelheim, medac. Alexander M Menzies: Advisory boards for BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pierre-Fabre, QBiotics. Simone M Goldinger: past advisory boards for BMS, MSD, Roche and Novartis. Kai-Martin Thoms: Honoraria from BMS, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, LEO, Candela; Consultant or advisory role: BMS, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, LEO; Travel support: BMS, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, LEO. Dirk Schadendorf: Has/had a consultant/advisory role in the last 2 years for Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Roche-Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Array, Immunocore, InFlaRX, Nektar, Novartis, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Philogen, Regeneron, SunPharma, Sandoz, Sanofi, Ultimovacs and 4SC. He also received research funds from Bristol-MyersSquibb, Roche, Amgen and Novartis. Travel support: BMS, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Nektar, Novartis, Roche, Merck Serono and Sunpharma. Dennis Niebel: Has received speakers’ honoraria or travel expense reimbursements from BMS, Novartis, GSK, Celgene and MSD. Judith Sirokay: Honoraria from Roche, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Consultant or advisory role: Novartis, MSD; Travel support: BMS, Pierre Fabre. Peter Mohr: Has/had a consultant/advisory role in the last 2 years for Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Roche-Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Novartis, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Philogen, Sanofi. He also received research funds from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD) and Novartis. Travel support: Amgen, BMS, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Novartis, Roche and Sunpharma. Laura Susok: Collaboration with BMS, Novartis, Sunpharma, MSD, Roche, Pierre Fabre. Paolo Ascierto: Has/had a consultant/advisory role for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Array, Merck Serono, Pierre-Fabre, Incyte, Medimmune, AstraZeneca, Syndax, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Ultimovacs, Sandoz, Immunocore, 4SC, Alkermes, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo. He also received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Array and travel support from MSD. Claudia Pföhler: Consultancy, speaker fees, travel grants: BMS, MSD, Merck Serono, Roche, Amgen, GSK, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, Pierre Fabre, LEO, UCB, Sunpharma. Clinical studies: Novartis, BMS. Lucie Heinzerling: Consultant or advisory role: Amgen, BMS, Curevac, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, MSD; research funding (to institution): Novartis. Patrick Schummer: honoraria: Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS); institutional research grant: Novartis; Travel support: Novartis, Lilly and BMS. Thomas Eigentler: Has/had a consultant/advisory role in the last 2 years for Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Roche-Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Philogen, Sanofi. He also received research funds from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD) and Novartis. Katharina C. Kähler: Serves as consultant to Roche, BMS, MSD, Pierre Fabre and received travel grants and speaker fees from Roche, BMS, MSD, Amgen, Pierre Fabre and Philogen. Julia Tietze: Honoraria from Roche, BMS, MSD, Amgen, Sanofi, Travel support: Pierre Fabre, Novartis, BMS. Georgina V. Long: Is consultant advisor for Aduro Biotech Inc, Amgen Inc, Array Biopharma Inc, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Highlight Therapeutics S.L., Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis Pharma AG, QBiotics Group Limited, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc, SkylineDX B.V. All other authors (Felix Kiecker, Raphael Reinhard, Konstantin Drexler, Christopher Cann, Lydia Reinhardt, Carsten Weishaupt, Maria I Fleischer, Leonie Bluhm) declared to have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: With the increasing use of checkpoint inhibitors, rare immune-related adverse events (irAE) are being identified. Haematological irAE (hem-irAE) are difficult to treat and have shown high mortality rates. In order to improve side-effect management for these potentially life-threatening events, we analysed frequency, severity and outcomes., Patients and Methods: Patients who developed hem-irAE while being treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) therapy were retrospectively identified from 18 international cancer centres., Results: In total, more than 7626 patients treated with ICI were screened, and 50 patients with hem-irAE identified. The calculated incidence amounts to 0.6% and median onset was 6 weeks after the ICI initiation (range 1-128 weeks). Thrombocytopenia and leucopaenia were the most frequent hem-irAE with 34% (17/50) and 34% (17/50), respectively, followed by anaemia 28% (14/50), hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (4% (2/50)), aplastic anaemia (2% (1/50)), acquired haemophilia A (2% (1/50)) and coagulation deficiency (2% (1/50)). Simultaneous thrombocytopenia and neutropenia occurred in two patients, concurrent anaemia and thrombocytopenia in one patient. Other than cessation of ICI (in 60%) and corticosteroids (in 78%), treatment included second-line immunosuppression in 24% of cases. Events resolved in 78% (39/50), while 18% (9/50) had persistent changes, and 2% (1/50) had fatal outcomes (agranulocytosis)., Conclusion: Hem-irAE can affect all haematopoietic blood cell lineages and may persist or even be fatal. Management may require immunosuppression beyond corticosteroids. Although these irAE are rare, treating physicians should be aware, monitor blood counts regularly and promptly act upon detection., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships, which may be considered as potential competing interests: Rafaela Kramer: NoneZaremba Anne: Received travel support from Novartis, Genzyme and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Alvaro Moreira: Speaker's honoraria from AbbVie, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer and Roche; consultant's honoraria from Almirall. Selma Ugurel: Selma Ugurel declares research support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Serono; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis and Roche, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp and Dohme. Douglas Johnson: Advisory boards for Array Biopharma, BMS, Catalyst, Iovance, Jansen, Merck, Novartis, and research funding from BMS and Incyte. Jessica C. Hassel: honoraria from BMS, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi; consultant's honoraria from Pierre Faber, MSD, Sunpharma; science grant from BMS. Martin Salzmann: honoraria and travel grants from Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Novartis and Pfizer. Anja Gesierich: speaker's honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD Sharp and Dohme and Roche; Consultant's honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi Genzyme; travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre Pharmaceuticals and Roche. Clinical studies: Amgen, Array, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GSK, Novartis, Merck, MSD Sharp and Dohme, Pfizer and Roche. Alisonn Weppler: none. Lavinia Spain: Honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb for Advisory Boards Carmen Loquai: Advisory board, speakers fee, travel reimbursement: Roche, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, BMS, Merck, MSD, Biontech, Almiral Hermal, Kyowa Kirin, Sun Pharma, Sanofi Milena Dudda: none. Claudia Pföhler: Consultancy, speaker fees, travel grants: BMS, MSD, Merck, Roche, Amgen, GSK, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, Pierre Fabre, LEO. Clinical studies: Novartis, BMS. Adriana Hepner: AH is employee of AstraZeneca with stock options in the company, has received honoraria from Novartis and travel expenses from Roche. Georgina V. Long: consultant advisor for Aduro Biotech Inc, Amgen Inc, Array Biopharma inc, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Highlight Therapeutics S.L., Merck Sharpe and Dohme, Novartis Pharma AG, QBiotics Group Limited, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc, SkylineDX B.V. Alexander Menzies: advisory board BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pierre-Fabre, QBiotics Matteo S. Carlino: MSC has served on advisory boards for Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Amgen, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Merck, Ideaya, Regeneron, Nektar, Eisai and honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis Michael M. Sachse: Speaker fees: Roche, MSD, Novartis Céleste Lebbé: Consultancy, speaker fees, travel grants or research funding: BMS, MSD, Merck, Roche, Amgen, Novartis, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre. Clinical studies: BMS, MSD, Merck, Sanofi, Incyrte, Roche, Amgen, GSK, Curevac, Genentech and Novartis Barouyr Baroudjian: Consultancy, speaker fees, travel grants: BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre Tomohiro Enokida: none. Makoto Tahara: reports grants and personal fees from Ono Pharmaceutical, grants and personal fees from MSD, grants and personal fees from BMS, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from Bayer, grants and personal fees from Eisai, grants and personal fees from Merck serono, personal fees from LOXO, grants and personal fees from Pfizer, grants and personal fees from Rakuten Medical, personal fees from Celgene, personal fees from Amgen, grants and personal fees from Novartis, outside the submitted work. Max Schlaak: Consultancy, speaker fees or travel grants: BMS, MSD, Roche, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma Kinan Hayani: none. Paul Bröckelmann: PJB declares honoraria and non-financial support by Bristol-Myers Squibb and research funding by Bristol-Myers Squibb and MSD Sharp and Dohme. Friedegund Meier: F.M. has received travel support or/and speaker’s fees or/and advisor’s honoraria by Novartis, Roche, BMS, MSD and Pierre Fabre and research funding from Novartis and Roche. Lydia Reinhardt: none. Philip Friedlander: none. Thomas Eigentler: received fees for advisory boards from Roche, Novartis, MSD, BMS, Sanofi and Philogen Katharina C. Kähler: serves as consultant to Roche, BMS, MSD, Pierre Fabre and received travel grants and speaker fees from Roche, BMS, MSD, Amgen, Pierre Fabre and Philogen. Lisa Zimmer: LZ has received honoraria from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, research funding from Novartis and has served on advisory boards for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sunpharma, Sanofi, Merck Sharp and Dohme; travel support: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Amgen, Novartis, Sunpharma Lucie Heinzerling: Consultancy, speaker fees, travel grants or research funding: BMS, MSD, Merck, Roche, Amgen, Curevac, Novartis, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre. Clinical studies: BMS, MSD, Merck, Roche, Amgen, GSK, Curevac and Novartis., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a highly invasive and metastatic skin cancer. While high expression of miR-375 is a characteristic of MCC, it seems not to contribute to the malignant phenotype of MCC cells. miR-375 enrichment in MCC-derived extracellular vesicles suggests its intercellular signaling function. Here, we demonstrate that horizontally transferred miR-375 causes fibroblast polarization toward cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs). The polarization is evidenced by phenotypic changes and induction of α-SMA, CXCL2, and IL-1β. Fibroblast polarization is inhibited by specific antagomirs and mimicked by experimental miR-375 expression. Mechanistically, miR-375 downregulates RBPJ and p53, two key players regulating fibroblast polarization. In clinical MCC samples, in situ hybridization located miR-375 in CAFs, which correlated with high α-SMA protein and low RBPJ and TP53 expression; single-cell RNAseq revealed a disparate fibroblast polarization negatively correlating with p53 pathway-related gene expression. Thus, the functional role of miR-375 in MCC is to generate a pro-tumorigenic microenvironment by inducing fibroblast polarization.

Background: Checkpoint inhibitors show impressive and durable responses in various cancer types and provide new avenues for cancer immunotherapy. However, these drugs have a variety of adverse events. Common autoimmune-related adverse effects include fatigue, hepatitis, skin rash, endocrine deficiencies, and colitis. Neurotoxicity has been reported, but its incidence and course remain unclear., Methods: To illustrate the broad spectrum of neurotoxicity, we exemplarily report the neurological adverse events of five patients with melanoma and one patient with differentiated thyroid cancer who received checkpoint inhibitors at Essen University Hospital (Essen, Germany)., Results: After treatment with ipilimumab, nivolumab or pembrolizumab, neurotoxic effects included hypophysitis-associated neck pain and headache, Guillain-Barré syndrome, transverse myelitis, acute brachial plexus neuritis, and ocular myasthenia gravis., Conclusions: Checkpoint inhibitor therapy remains a success story; however, neurological immune-related adverse events may cause severe life-threatening conditions. We propose a guide for the early detection of neurological adverse events during routine clinical treatment to prevent more severe courses of checkpoint inhibitor-induced neurotoxicity., Competing Interests: SB received travel support from Octapharma (Lachen, Schweiz). EL served as consultant and/or received honoraria from Amgen (Thousand Oaks, CA, USA), Actelion (Allschwil, Switzerland), Roche (Basel, Switzerland), Bristol-Myers Squibb (New York, NY, USA), Merck Sharp & Dohme (Kenilworth, NJ, USA), Novartis (Basel, Switzerland), Janssen (Beerse, Belgium), Medac (Wedel, Germany), and travel support from Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Medac, Pierre Fabre (Paris, France), Sunpharma (Mumbai, India) and Novartis. SU declares research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merck Serono (Geneva, Switzerland); speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis and Roche, and travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme. LZ served as consultant or/and received honoraria from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Sanofi (Paris, France), and Pierre Fabre, and travel support from Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi. Tim Hagenacker received travel compensation, advisory board and lecture honoraria from CSL Behring (King of Prussia, PA, USA), Biogen and Alexion and is and editorial board member (associate editor) of BMC Neurology. TR, MF, BS, AT, KK, MG and CK have no conflicts of interest., (© 2021 The Author(s).)

Background: GNAQ and GNA11 mutant nonuveal melanoma represent a poorly characterized rare subgroup of melanoma with a gene mutation profile similar to uveal melanoma., Objectives: To characterize these tumours in terms of clinical behaviour and genetic characteristics., Methods: Patients with nonuveal GNAQ/11 mutated melanoma were identified from the prospective multicentre tumour tissue registry ADOREG, Tissue Registry in Melanoma (TRIM) and additional cooperating skin cancer centres. Extensive data on patient, tumour and treatment characteristics were collected retrospectively. Targeted sequencing was used to determine tumour mutational burden. Immunohistochemistry staining was performed for programmed death-ligand 1 and BRCA1-associated protein (BAP)1. Existing whole-exome cutaneous and uveal melanoma data were analysed for mutation type and burden., Results: We identified 18 patients with metastatic GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanoma. Tumours had a lower tumour mutational burden and fewer ultraviolet signature mutations than cutaneous melanomas. In addition to GNAQ and GNA11 mutations (nine each), six splicing factor 3b subunit 1 (SF3B1), three eukaryotic translation initiation factor 1A X-linked (EIF1AX) and four BAP1 mutations were detected. In contrast to uveal melanoma, GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas frequently metastasized lymphatically and concurrent EIF1AX, SF3B1 and BAP1 mutations showed no apparent association with patient prognosis. Objective response to immunotherapy was poor with only one partial response observed in 10 treated patients (10%)., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas are a subtype of melanoma that is both clinically and genetically distinct from cutaneous and uveal melanoma. As they respond poorly to available treatment regimens, novel effective therapeutic approaches for affected patients are urgently needed. What is already known about this topic? The rare occurrence of GNAQ/11 mutations in nonuveal melanoma has been documented. GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas also harbour genetic alterations in EIF1AX, SF3B1 and BAP1 that are of prognostic relevance in uveal melanoma. What does this study add? GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas show metastatic spread reminiscent of cutaneous melanoma, but not uveal melanoma. GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas have a low tumour mutational burden that is higher than uveal melanoma, but lower than cutaneous melanoma. What is the translational message? Primary GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas are a subtype of melanoma that is clinically and genetically distinct from both cutaneous and uveal melanoma. As metastatic GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas respond poorly to available systemic therapies, including immune checkpoint inhibition, novel therapeutic approaches for these tumours are urgently needed. Linked Comment: Rafei-Shamsabadi. Br J Dermatol 2020; 183:806-807., (© 2020 The Authors. British Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

The integrity of the immune system represents a pivotal risk factor and prognostic biomarker for Merkel cell carcinoma. A higher density of tumor-associated T cells correlates with improved Merkel cell carcinoma-specific survival, but the prognostic importance of the T-cell infiltrate reactivity is unknown. We evaluated the T-cell receptor repertoire associated with 72 primary Merkel cell carcinomas and correlated metrics of the T-cell receptor repertoire with clinicopathologic characteristics and patient outcomes. We showed that a high Simpson's Dominance index (SDom) was significantly associated with fewer metastases (P = 0.01), lower stage at presentation (P = 0.02), lower final stage at last follow-up (P = 0.05), and longer time to first lymph node metastasis (P = 0.04). These correlations were mostly preserved in the Merkel cell polyomavirus-negative subgroup. Combining SDom with CD3 + or CD8 + T-cell density revealed three distinct prognostic groups with respect to disease-specific survival. Patients with both high SDom and high CD3 + or CD8 + T-cell density had markedly improved disease-specific survival compared with patients with low SDom and low CD3 + or CD8 + T-cell density (P = 0.002 and P = 0.03, respectively). Patients with either high SDom or high CD3 + or CD8 + had intermediate disease-specific survival. Our findings demonstrate that the quality of the tumor-associated T-cell infiltrate informs patient prognosis in primary Merkel cell carcinoma beyond the T-cell density., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Skin cancers are known for their strong immunogenicity, which may contribute to a high treatment efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI). However, a considerable proportion of patients with skin cancer is immuno-compromised by concomitant diseases. Due to their previous exclusion from clinical trials, the ICI treatment efficacy is poorly investigated in these patients. The present study analyzed the ICI treatment outcome in advanced patients with skin cancer with a concomitant hematological malignancy., Methods: This retrospective multicenter study included patients who were treated with ICI for locally advanced or metastatic melanoma (MM), cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), or Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), and had a previous diagnosis of a hematological malignancy irrespective of disease activity or need of therapy at ICI treatment start. Comparator patient cohorts without concomitant hematological malignancy were extracted from the prospective multicenter skin cancer registry ADOREG. Treatment outcome was measured as best overall response, progression-free (PFS), and overall survival (OS)., Results: 84 patients (MM, n=52; cSCC, n=15; MCC, n=17) with concomitant hematological malignancy were identified at 20 skin cancer centers. The most frequent concomitant hematological malignancies were non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (n=70), with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (n=32) being the largest entity. While 9 patients received ICI in an adjuvant setting, 75 patients were treated for advanced non-resectable disease (55 anti-PD-1; 8 anti-PD-L1; 5 anti-CTLA-4; 7 combinations). In the latter 75 patients, best objective response (complete response+partial response) was 28.0%, disease stabilization was 25.3%, and 38.6% showed progressive disease (PD). Subdivided by skin cancer entity, best objective response was 31.1% (MM), 26.7% (cSCC), and 18.8% (MCC). Median PFS was 8.4 months (MM), 4.0 months (cSCC), and 5.7 months (MCC). 1-year OS rates were 78.4% (MM), 65.8% (cSCC), and 47.4% (MCC). Comparison with respective ADOREG patient cohorts without hematological malignancy (n=392) revealed no relevant differences in ICI therapy outcome for MM and MCC, but a significantly reduced PFS for cSCC (p=0.002)., Conclusions: ICI therapy showed efficacy in advanced patients with skin cancer with a concomitant hematological malignancy. Compared with patients without hematological malignancy, the observed ICI therapy outcome was impaired in cSCC, but not in MM or MCC patients., Competing Interests: Competing interests: UL: relevant financial activities (research support from Merck Sharp and Dohme; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis and Roche, Sanofi Aventis and travel support from Sun Pharma). CL: relevant financial activities (speakers, advisory board honoraria and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Kiowa Kirin, Sanofi, Biontech, Allmiral Hermal). DR-S: relevant financial activities (speakers and advisory board honoraria from Novartis and Roche; travel support from Sanofy Genzyme, Roche and Novartis). JCH: relevant financial activities (research support from Bristol Myers Squibb; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Roche, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi Aventis, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Pierre Fabre). VG: relevant financial activities (honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, advisory board honoraria from Novartis and reports travel support from Novartis, Pierre Fabre Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Sanofi Genzyme). JS: relevant financial activities (speakers’ honoraria and/or travel expense reimbursements from Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre and Roche). AR: relevant financial activities (travel grants and lecture fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen and Roche). RG: relevant financial activities (personal fees and non-financial support from Bristol Myers Squibb, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Merck Serono, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Amgen, personal fees and non-financial support from Pierre Fabre, personal fees and non-financial support from Sanofi Regeneron, personal fees from Merck Sharp and Dohme, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, personal fees from Almirall Hermal, grants and personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from SUN Pharma, personal fees from 4SC, grants from Johnson&Johnson). KCK: relevant financial activities (research support, travel grants and honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Sharp and Dohme).TG: relevant financial activities (speakers and/or advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi-Genzyme, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis Pharma, Roche, Abbvie, Almirall, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Merck-Serono). KS: relevant financial activities (speakers and advisory board honoraria from AMGEN Oncology, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Roche, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and TEVA/Cephalon Pharma). CP: relevant financial activities (speaker honoraria or honoraria as a consultant and travel support from Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Celgene, AbbVie, Lilly and LEO). CF: relevant financial activities (travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Pierre Fabre; advisory board or honararia from Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis). PT: relevant financial activities (speaker's honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre-Fabre, CureVac and Roche, consultant's honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Merck Serono, Sanofi und Roche and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre-Fabre and Roche). SH: relevant financial activities (research support from Bristol Myers Squibb; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Sanofi and Roche). PM: relevant financial activities (honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Sanofi and Roche). LH: relevant financial activities (speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis, Amgen, Curevac, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi and Roche). EL: relevant financial activities (served as consultant or/and has received honoraria from Amgen, Actelion, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Janssen, Medac, and travel support from Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Sunpharma and Novartis). DS: relevant financial activities (Roche, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sanofi, Regeneron, Array, Pierre Fabre, 4SC, Helsinn, Philogen, InFlarX, Merck-Serono, SunPharma, Ultimovacs, Sandoz). CG: relevant financial activities (personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, grants and personal fees from Novartis, grants and personal fees from NeraCare, grants and personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, personal fees from Pierre Fabre, personal fees from Philogen, grants and personal fees from Roche, grants and personal fees from Sanofi). JCB: relevant financial activities (speaker honoraria from Amgen, MerckSerono, Pfizer, Sanofi; advisory board honoraria from 4SC, Amgen, CureVac, eTheRNA, MerckSerono, Novartis and InProTher; research funding from Alcedis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, IQVIA, and MerckSerono; travel support from 4SC and Incyte). SU: relevant financial activities (research support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Serono; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis and Roche, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp and Dohme). All other authors (Lena Bischof, Ulrike Keim, Andreas Meiwes, Lydia Reinhardt, Nora Schlecht) declared to have no conflicts of interest., (© 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.)

Background: Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) is one of the most common malignancies of the skin. Even though most patients are sufficiently treated by surgical resection, some will eventually metastasize and need systemic therapy. Phase I and II studies have shown efficacy for programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitors, but cohort sizes are low and real-world data especially on long-term outcome are pending., Methods: Patients from six German skin cancer centers treated with PD-1 inhibitors (pembrolizumab, nivolumab or cemiplimab) for advanced cSCC were retrospectively studied. Internal patient records were analyzed for clinical outcome including response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and toxicity., Results: Of 46 evaluable patients (median age: 76 years), the overall response rate (RR) was 58.7%, including 15.2% with complete response. The disease control rate was 80.4%. Both median PFS and OS were not reached, Kaplan-Meier estimated 1-year PFS was 58.8%. Patients responding to therapy showed durable remission. Response was independent of the PD-1 inhibitor used and also independent of the presence of distant metastases vs. locally advanced disease. Two predictive factors were found: Patients with primaries located on the leg had a poorer therapy outcome and patients with high lactate dehydrogenase serum levels at baseline. Treatment was overall tolerated well, with less than 10% of patients discontinuing therapy due to toxicity., Conclusions: PD-1 inhibitors fulfill the need for an efficient systemic therapy for advanced cSCC and should be the new standard of care. With high RRs and durable disease control, neoadjuvant and adjuvant regimens should be evaluated., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement M.S. received honoraria and travel grants from Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD) and Novartis and Pfizer. U.L. has received honoraria from Roche, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, SUN, Sanofi; has received speaker fees and advisory Board honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Sun, Sanofi; has received research funding from MSD. C.L. has been a member of the advisory board of BMS, MSD, Merck, Sanofi, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Amgen, Biontech, Almirall Hermal, Kiowa Kirin, Novartis; has received speaker fees and travel reimbursement from BMS, MSD, Merck, Sanofi, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Amgen, Biontech, Almirall Hermal, Kiowa Kirin, and Novartis. L.Z. has received honoraria from Roche, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre; has been a consultant or a member of the advisory role from BMS, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sunpharma, Sanofi, MSD; has received research funding from Novartis; has received travel support from BMS, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Amgen, Novartis, and Sunpharma. S.U. has received research support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Serono; has received speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis and Roche; has received travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme. R.G. has received honoraria from Roche, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Amgen, Merck Serono, Almirall Hermal, SUN, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre; has been as a consultant or a member of the advisory role from BMS, Roche, Novartis, Almirall Hermal, MSD, Amgen, SUN, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, 4SC; has received research Funding from Novartis, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Amgen, Merck Serono; has received travel fees, accommodation fees and expenses from Roche, BMS, SUN, Merck Serono and Pierre Fabre. K.M.T. has received honoraria from BMS, Roche, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, LEO, AbbVie, Galderma, Candela; has been as a consultant or a member of the advisory role from BMS, Roche, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, LEO, Sun Pharma, AbbVie; has received travel grants from BMS, Roche, Novartis and Pierre Fabre. A.H.E has received advisory honoraria from Biotest AG, MSD Oncology, Galderma, Janssen Cilag, AbbVie, as well as speaker's honoraria from Roche Pharma. J.C.H. has received honoraria for talks from BMS, MSD, Roche, Novartis; has been an advisory board member for MSD and Pierre Fabre; has received scientific grant support from BMS; has received travel grants from BMS and Pierre Fabre., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Understanding tumor resistance to T cell immunotherapies is critical to improve patient outcomes. Our study revealed a role for transcriptional suppression of the tumor-intrinsic HLA class I (HLA-I) antigen processing and presentation machinery (APM) in therapy resistance. Low HLA-I APM mRNA levels in melanoma metastases before immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) correlated with nonresponsiveness to therapy and poor clinical outcome. Patient-derived melanoma cells with silenced HLA-I APM escaped recognition by autologous CD8+ T cells. However, targeted activation of the innate immunoreceptor RIG-I initiated de novo HLA-I APM transcription, thereby overcoming T cell resistance. Antigen presentation was restored in interferon-sensitive (IFN-sensitive) but also immunoedited IFN-resistant melanoma models through RIG-I-dependent stimulation of an IFN-independent salvage pathway involving IRF1 and IRF3. Likewise, enhanced HLA-I APM expression was detected in RIG-Ihi (DDX58hi) melanoma biopsies, correlating with improved patient survival. Induction of HLA-I APM by RIG-I synergized with antibodies blocking PD-1 and TIGIT inhibitory checkpoints in boosting the antitumor T cell activity of ICB nonresponders. Overall, the herein-identified IFN-independent effect of RIG-I on tumor antigen presentation and T cell recognition proposes innate immunoreceptor targeting as a strategy to overcome intrinsic T cell resistance of IFN-sensitive and IFN-resistant melanomas and improve clinical outcomes in immunotherapy.