Search

PURPOSE: Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is an aggressive skin cancer with a 40% recurrence rate, lacking effective prognostic biomarkers and surveillance methods. This prospective, multicenter, observational study aimed to evaluate circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) as a biomarker for detecting MCC recurrence. METHODS: Plasma samples, clinical data, and imaging results were collected from 319 patients. A tumor-informed ctDNA assay was used for analysis. Patients were divided into discovery (167 patients) and validation (152 patients) cohorts. Diagnostic performance, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV), was assessed. RESULTS: ctDNA showed high sensitivity, 95% (discovery; 95% CI, 87 to 99) and 94% (validation; 95% CI, 85 to 98), for detecting disease at enrollment, with corresponding specificities of 90% (95% CI, 82 to 95) and 86% (95% CI, 77 to 93). A positive ctDNA during surveillance indicated increased recurrence risk, with hazard ratios (HRs) of 6.8 (discovery; 95% CI, 2.9 to 16) and 20 (validation; 95% CI, 8.3 to 50). The PPV for clinical recurrence at 1 year after a positive ctDNA test was 69% (discovery; 95% CI, 32 to 91) and 94% (validation; 95% CI, 71 to 100), respectively. The NPV at 135 days after a negative ctDNA test was 94% (discovery; 95% CI, 90 to 97) and 93% (validation; 95% CI, 89 to 97), respectively. Patients positive for ctDNA within 4 months after treatment had higher rates of recurrence, with 1-year rates of 74% versus 21% (adjusted HR, 7.4 [95% CI, 2.7 to 20]). CONCLUSION: ctDNA testing exhibited high prognostic accuracy in detecting MCC recurrence, suggesting its potential to reduce frequent surveillance imaging. ctDNA also identifies high-risk patients who need more frequent imaging and may be best suited for adjuvant therapy trials.

In this randomized phase 2 trial, blockade of cytotoxic T-lymphocyte protein 4 (CTLA-4) with continuation of programmed death protein 1 (PD-1) blockade in patients with metastatic melanoma who had received front-line anti-PD-1 or therapy against programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 and whose tumors progressed was tested in comparison with CTLA-4 blockade alone. Ninety-two eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 3:1 ratio to receive the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab, or ipilimumab alone. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints included the difference in CD8 T cell infiltrate among responding and nonresponding tumors, objective response rate, overall survival and toxicity. The combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab resulted in a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival over ipilimumab (hazard ratio = 0.63, 90% confidence interval (CI) = 0.41-0.97, one-sided P = 0.04). Objective response rates were 28% (90% CI = 19-38%) and 9% (90% CI = 2-25%), respectively (one-sided P = 0.05). Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in 57% and 35% of patients, respectively, which is consistent with the known toxicity profile of these regimens. The change in intratumoral CD8 T cell density observed in the present analysis did not reach statistical significance to support the formal hypothesis tested as a secondary endpoint. In conclusion, primary resistance to PD-1 blockade therapy can be reversed in some patients with the combination of CTLA-4 and PD-1 blockade. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03033576 .

BackgroundWhether pembrolizumab given both before surgery (neoadjuvant therapy) and after surgery (adjuvant therapy), as compared with pembrolizumab given as adjuvant therapy alone, would increase event-free survival among patients with resectable stage III or IV melanoma is unknown.MethodsIn a phase 2 trial, we randomly assigned patients with clinically detectable, measurable stage IIIB to IVC melanoma that was amenable to surgical resection to three doses of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab, surgery, and 15 doses of adjuvant pembrolizumab (neoadjuvant-adjuvant group) or to surgery followed by pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for a total of 18 doses) for approximately 1 year or until disease recurred or unacceptable toxic effects developed (adjuvant-only group). The primary end point was event-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Events were defined as disease progression or toxic effects that precluded surgery; the inability to resect all gross disease; disease progression, surgical complications, or toxic effects of treatment that precluded the initiation of adjuvant therapy within 84 days after surgery; recurrence of melanoma after surgery; or death from any cause. Safety was also evaluated.ResultsAt a median follow-up of 14.7 months, the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group (154 patients) had significantly longer event-free survival than the adjuvant-only group (159 patients) (P = 0.004 by the log-rank test). In a landmark analysis, event-free survival at 2 years was 72% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64 to 80) in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 49% (95% CI, 41 to 59) in the adjuvant-only group. The percentage of patients with treatment-related adverse events of grades 3 or higher during therapy was 12% in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 14% in the adjuvant-only group.ConclusionsAmong patients with resectable stage III or IV melanoma, event-free survival was significantly longer among those who received pembrolizumab both before and after surgery than among those who received adjuvant pembrolizumab alone. No new toxic effects were identified. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and Merck Sharp and Dohme; S1801 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03698019.).

PurposeCombination programmed cell death protein 1/cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4-blockade and dual BRAF/MEK inhibition have each shown significant clinical benefit in patients with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma, leading to broad regulatory approval. Little prospective data exist to guide the choice of either initial therapy or treatment sequence in this population. This study was conducted to determine which initial treatment or treatment sequence produced the best efficacy.Patients and methodsIn a phase III trial, patients with treatment-naive BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma were randomly assigned to receive either combination nivolumab/ipilimumab (arm A) or dabrafenib/trametinib (arm B) in step 1, and at disease progression were enrolled in step 2 to receive the alternate therapy, dabrafenib/trametinib (arm C) or nivolumab/ipilimumab (arm D). The primary end point was 2-year overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were 3-year OS, objective response rate, response duration, progression-free survival, crossover feasibility, and safety.ResultsA total of 265 patients were enrolled, with 73 going onto step 2 (27 in arm C and 46 in arm D). The study was stopped early by the independent Data Safety Monitoring Committee because of a clinically significant end point being achieved. The 2-year OS for those starting on arm A was 71.8% (95% CI, 62.5 to 79.1) and arm B 51.5% (95% CI, 41.7 to 60.4; log-rank P = .010). Step 1 progression-free survival favored arm A (P = .054). Objective response rates were arm A: 46.0%; arm B: 43.0%; arm C: 47.8%; and arm D: 29.6%. Median duration of response was not reached for arm A and 12.7 months for arm B (P < .001). Crossover occurred in 52% of patients with documented disease progression. Grade ≥ 3 toxicities occurred with similar frequency between arms, and regimen toxicity profiles were as anticipated.ConclusionCombination nivolumab/ipilimumab followed by BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy, if necessary, should be the preferred treatment sequence for a large majority of patients.

ImportanceLaser-assisted drug delivery (LADD) is used for various medical and cosmetic applications. However, there is insufficient evidence-based guidance to assist clinicians performing LADD.ObjectiveTo develop recommendations for the safe and effective use of LADD.Evidence reviewA systematic literature review of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and MEDLINE was conducted in December 2019 to identify publications reporting research on LADD. A multidisciplinary panel was convened to draft recommendations informed by the systematic review; they were refined through 2 rounds of Delphi survey, 2 consensus meetings, and iterative review by all panelists until unanimous consensus was achieved.FindingsOf the 48 published studies of ablative fractional LADD that met inclusion criteria, 4 were cosmetic studies; 21, oncologic; and 23, medical (not cosmetic/oncologic), and 6 publications of nonablative fractional LADD were included at the request of the expert panel, producing a total of 54 studies. Thirty-four studies (63.0%) were deemed to have low risk of bias, 17 studies (31.5%) had moderate risk, and 3 (5.5%) had serious risk. The key findings that informed the guidelines developed by the expert panel were as follows: LADD is safe in adults and adolescents (≥12 years) with all Fitzpatrick skin types and in patients with immunosuppression; it is an effective treatment for actinic keratosis, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in situ, actinic cheilitis, hypertrophic scars, and keloids; it is useful for epidermal and dermal analgesia; drug delivery may be increased through the application of heat, pressure, or occlusion, or by using an aqueous drug solution; laser settings should be selected to ensure that channel diameter is greater than the delivered molecule; antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended, except with impaired wound healing; antiviral prophylaxis is recommended when treating the face and genitalia; and antifungal prophylaxis is not recommended. The guideline's 15 recommendations address 5 areas of LADD use: (I) indications and contraindications; (II) parameters to report; (III) optimization of drug delivery; (IV) safety considerations; and (V) prophylaxis for bacterial, viral, and fungal infections.Conclusions and relevanceThis systematic review and Delphi consensus approach culminated in an evidence-based clinical practice guideline for safe and effective use of LADD in a variety of applications. Future research will further improve our understanding of this novel treatment technique.

BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitor-associated acute kidney injury (ICPi-AKI) has emerged as an important toxicity among patients with cancer.MethodsWe collected data on 429 patients with ICPi-AKI and 429 control patients who received ICPis contemporaneously but who did not develop ICPi-AKI from 30 sites in 10 countries. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of ICPi-AKI and its recovery. A multivariable Cox model was used to estimate the effect of ICPi rechallenge versus no rechallenge on survival following ICPi-AKI.ResultsICPi-AKI occurred at a median of 16 weeks (IQR 8-32) following ICPi initiation. Lower baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate, proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use, and extrarenal immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were each associated with a higher risk of ICPi-AKI. Acute tubulointerstitial nephritis was the most common lesion on kidney biopsy (125/151 biopsied patients [82.7%]). Renal recovery occurred in 276 patients (64.3%) at a median of 7 weeks (IQR 3-10) following ICPi-AKI. Treatment with corticosteroids within 14 days following ICPi-AKI diagnosis was associated with higher odds of renal recovery (adjusted OR 2.64; 95% CI 1.58 to 4.41). Among patients treated with corticosteroids, early initiation of corticosteroids (within 3 days of ICPi-AKI) was associated with a higher odds of renal recovery compared with later initiation (more than 3 days following ICPi-AKI) (adjusted OR 2.09; 95% CI 1.16 to 3.79). Of 121 patients rechallenged, 20 (16.5%) developed recurrent ICPi-AKI. There was no difference in survival among patients rechallenged versus those not rechallenged following ICPi-AKI.ConclusionsPatients who developed ICPi-AKI were more likely to have impaired renal function at baseline, use a PPI, and have extrarenal irAEs. Two-thirds of patients had renal recovery following ICPi-AKI. Treatment with corticosteroids was associated with improved renal recovery.

Five years ago, the Melanoma Research Foundation (MRF) conducted an assessment of the challenges and opportunities facing the melanoma research community and patients with melanoma. Since then, remarkable progress has been made on both the basic and clinical research fronts. However, the incidence, recurrence, and death rates for melanoma remain unacceptably high and significant challenges remain. Hence, the MRF Scientific Advisory Council and Breakthrough Consortium, a group that includes clinicians and scientists, reconvened to facilitate intensive discussions on thematic areas essential to melanoma researchers and patients alike, prevention, detection, diagnosis, metastatic dormancy and progression, response and resistance to targeted and immune-based therapy, and the clinical consequences of COVID-19 for patients with melanoma and providers. These extensive discussions helped to crystalize our understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing the broader melanoma community today. In this report, we discuss the progress made since the last MRF assessment, comment on what remains to be overcome, and offer recommendations for the best path forward.

Combining PD-L1 blockade with inhibition of oncogenic mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling may result in long-lasting responses in patients with advanced melanoma. This phase 1, open-label, dose-escalation and -expansion study (NCT02027961) investigated safety, tolerability and preliminary efficacy of durvalumab (anti-PD-L1) combined with dabrafenib (BRAF inhibitor) and trametinib (MEK inhibitor) for patients with BRAF-mutated melanoma (cohort A, n = 26), or durvalumab and trametinib given concomitantly (cohort B, n = 20) or sequentially (cohort C, n = 22) for patients with BRAF-wild type melanoma. Adverse events and treatment discontinuation rates were more common than previously reported for these agents given as monotherapy. Objective responses were observed in 69.2% (cohort A), 20.0% (cohort B) and 31.8% (cohort C) of patients, with evidence of improved tumor immune infiltration and durable responses in a subset of patients with available biopsy samples. In conclusion, combined MAPK inhibition and anti-PD-L1 therapy may provide treatment options for patients with advanced melanoma.

In recent years, several studies have presented evidence suggesting a potential role for metformin in anti-cancer therapy. Preclinical studies have demonstrated several anticancer molecular mechanisms of metformin including mTOR inhibition, cytotoxic effects, and immunomodulation. Epidemiologic data have demonstrated decreased cancer incidence and mortality in patients taking metformin. Several clinical trials, focused on evaluation of metformin as an anti-cancer agent are presently underway. Data published from a small number of completed trials has put forth intriguing results. Clinical trials in pre-surgical endometrial cancer patients exhibited a significant decrease in Ki67 with metformin monotherapy. Another interesting observation was made in patients with breast cancer, wherein a trend towards improvement in cancer proliferation markers was noted in patients without insulin resistance. Data on survival outcomes with the use of metformin as an anti-cancer agent is awaited. This manuscript will critically review the role of metformin as a potential cancer treatment.

Mucosal melanoma remains a rare cancer with high mortality and a paucity of therapeutic options. This is due in significant part to its low incidence leading to limited patient access to expert care and downstream clinical/basic science data for research interrogation. Clinical challenges such as delayed and at times inaccurate diagnoses, and lack of consensus tumor staging have added to the suboptimal outcomes for these patients. Clinical trials, while promising, have been difficult to activate and accrue. While individual institutions and investigators have attempted to seek solutions to such problems, international, national, and local partnership may provide the keys to more efficient and innovative paths forward. Furthermore, a mucosal melanoma coalition would provide a potential network for patients and caregivers to seek expert opinion and advice. The Melanoma Research Foundation Mucosal Melanoma Meeting (December 16, 2022, New York, USA) highlighted the current clinical challenges faced by patients, providers, and scientists, identified current and future clinical trial investigations in this rare disease space, and aimed to increase national and international collaboration among the mucosal melanoma community in an effort to improve patient outcomes. The included proceedings highlight the clinical challenges of mucosal melanoma, global clinical trial experience, basic science advances in mucosal melanoma, and future directions, including the creation of shared rare tumor registries and enhanced collaborations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]