Search

Vineyard row orientation and canopy side exert a significant role in determining grape microclimate. The latter can be further manipulated by selective defoliation in the bunch zone. The aim of this study was to investigate the combined effects of row orientation and basal leaf removal on grape ripening of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Agiorgitiko in Nemea, Southern Greece. The experiment was conducted in 2017, on two adjacent vineyard blocks planted in 1990 on a flat site with two row orientations, North-South and East-West. Both blocks were grafted onto 41B rootstock and trained on a double cordon vertical trellis with uniform vineyard operations. Defoliation treatments included full leaf removal in the bunch zone performed at berry set and a non defoliated control, replicated three times in both blocks. Grapes were sampled at three time points from veraison to harvest from all canopy sides (i.e. E and W on North-South oriented rows and N and S on East-West oriented rows) and defoliation treatments and were analyzed for yield components and berry chemical composition. In addition, approximately 5 kg of grapes were collected from all plots and processed according to a standard winemaking protocol. Total yield and berry mass were lowest in the W-exposed and in the defoliated grapes. Must sugar and acid content, as well as wine alcohol and acidity did not depend on either factor. Skin anthocyanins and phenolics generally increased with defoliation. Skin anthocyanins and total berry phenolics were highest for north-south oriented rows, in the grapes of the cooler canopy side (E). Wines made from grapes of the E and W canopy sides showed the highest wine color, phenolic richness and the lowest pH. No interaction between row orientation and defoliation was detected for any of the measured parameters. According to the results, the E-facing grapes on the north-south oriented rows showed generally a superior grape and wine composition for Agiorgitiko variety, under the semiarid conditions of the Nemea area.

Purpose: The interaction of gut microbiome and immune system is being studied with increasing interest. Disturbing factors, such as antibiotics may impact the immune system via gut and interfere with tumor response to immune checkpoint blockade (ICB)., Methods: In this multicenter retrospective cohort study exclusively treatment-naïve patients with cutaneous or mucosal melanoma treated with first-line anti-PD-1 based ICB for advanced, non-resectable disease between 06/2013 and 09/2018 were included. Progression-free (PFS), and overall survival (OS) according to antibiotic exposure (within 60 days prior to ICB and after the start of ICB vs. no antibiotic exposure) were analyzed. To account for immortal time bias, data from patients with antibiotics during ICB were analyzed separately in the time periods before and after start of antibiotics., Results: Among 578 patients with first-line anti-PD1 based ICB, 7% of patients received antibiotics within 60 days prior to ICB and 19% after starting ICB. Antibiotic exposure prior to ICB was associated with worse PFS (adjusted HR 1.75 [95% CI 1.22-2.52]) and OS (adjusted HR 1.64 [95% CI 1.04-2.58]) by multivariate analysis adjusting for potential confounders. The use of antibiotics after the start of ICB had no effect on either PFS (adjusted HR 1.19; 95% CI 0.89-1.60) or OS (adjusted HR 1.08; 95% CI 0.75-1.57)., Conclusions: Antibiotic exposure within 60 days prior to ICB seems to be associated with worse PFS and OS in melanoma patients receiving first-line anti-PD1 based therapy, whereas antibiotics after the start of ICB do not appear to affect PFS or OS., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest E.C. received travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, UCB and Almirall outside the submitted work. B.S. Honoraria from MSD, BMS, SUN Pharma, Allmiral, Novartis; Advisory Board for MSD, BMS, Pierre Fabre Pharma, Sanofi; travel support from BMS, Novartis, Pierre Fabre Pharma; Research Funding from Novartis; all outside the submitted work. M.S. received speaker honoraria from Novartis and advisory board honoraria from Sanofi Genzyme. R.G. declares research support from Novartis, Amgen, Sanofi, Merck-Serono, Admiral, SUN Pharma and Kyowa-Kirin; honoraria for lectures from Roche Pharma, Bristol-Myers Scuibb, Novartis, MSD. Almirall, Amgen, Merck-Serono, SUN Pharma, Pierre-Fabre, and Sanofi; advisory honoraria from Roche Pharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD, Admiral, Amgen, Pierre-Fabre, Merck-Serono, 4SC, Sun Pharma, Merck-Serono, Sanofi, Delcath and Immunocore. C.L. receives personal fees and travel reimbursement from MSD, BMS, Merck, Sanofi, Almirall Hermal, Kyowa Kirin, Biontech, Pierre Fabre, Novartis and Sun Pharma outside the submitted work. K.K. 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. A.Z.M. received travel support from Novartis, Genzyme, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. J.M.P. served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi and received travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Therakos. E.G. received travel support from Pierre-Fabre, outside the submitted work. A.M. received travel support from Novartis, 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. declares research support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Serono; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, and Novartis; and meeting and travel support from Almirall, Bristol-Myers Squibb, IGEA Clinical Biophysics, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Sun Pharma; 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 and/or has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma, Takeda and travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre- Fabre, Sunpharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work.A.S. L.Z. served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, and Sanofi; and travel support from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre-Fabre, and Novartis, outside the submitted work. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Worldwide mass vaccination for COVID-19 started in late 2020. COVID-19 vaccines cause benign hypermetabolic lymphadenopathies. Clinical stratification between vaccine-associated benign lymphadenopathies and malignant lymphadenopathies through ultrasound, MRI or FDG PET-CT is not feasible. This leads to unnecessary lymph node biopsies, excisions and even radical lymph node dissections. Therefore, to avoid unnecessary surgeries, we assessed whether noninvasive multispectral optoacoustic tomography (MSOT) enables a better differentiation between benign and malignant lymphadenopathies., Patients and Methods: All patients were vaccinated for COVID-19. We used MSOT to image deoxy- and oxyhaemoglobin levels in lymph nodes of tumour patients to assess metastatic status. MSOT imaging results were compared with standard ultrasound and pathological lymph node analysis. We also evaluated the influences of gender, age and time between vaccination and MSOT measurement of lymph nodes on the measured deoxy- and oxyhaemoglobin levels in patients with reactive lymph node changes., Results: Multispectral optoacoustic tomography was able to identify cancer-free lymph nodes in vivo without a single false negative (33 total lymph nodes), with 100% sensitivity and 50% specificity. A statistically significant higher deoxyhaemoglobin content was detected in patients with tumour manifestations in the lymph node (p = 0.02). There was no statistically significant difference concerning oxyhaemoglobin (p = 0.65). Age, sex and time between vaccination and MSOT measurement had statistically non-significant impact on deoxy- and oxyhaemoglobin levels in patients with reactive lymph nodes., Conclusion: Here, we show that MSOT measurement is an advantageous clinical approach to differentiate between vaccine-associated benign lymphadenopathy and malignant lymph node metastases based on the deoxygenation level in lymph nodes., (© 2023 The Authors. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)

(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.

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).)

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.)

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.)

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.)

Accurate classification of melanocytic proliferations has important implications for prognostic prediction, treatment and follow-up. Although most melanocytic proliferations can be accurately classified using clinical and pathological criteria, classification (specifically distinction between nevus and melanoma) can be challenging in a subset of cases, including those with spitzoid morphology. Genetic studies have shown that mutation profiles differ between primary melanoma subtypes and Spitz nevi. These differences may aid in distinguishing benign from malignant in some melanocytic tumours. Here, we present a selection of melanocytic proliferations with equivocal histopathological criteria, wherein genetic analysis was requested to help guide classification. In two of four cases, the genetic results offered valuable insights, allowing a definitive diagnosis, indicating the diagnostic value of mutation profiling in a real-world routine clinical setting. Although histopathological assessment remains decisive in melanocytic proliferation classification, we recommend including genetic profiling in cases of borderline or atypical lesion to support accurate classification., 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 (BMS), outside the submitted work. G.L. received travel support from Sun Pharma, outside the submitted work. R.M. reports no relevant conflicts of interest. M.P. reports no relevant conflicts of interest. I.C. reports no relevant conflicts of interest. P.J. reports no relevant conflicts of interest. E.C. received travel support from BMS, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD) and Novartis, outside the submitted work. C.R. reports no relevant conflicts of interest. B.H. reports no relevant conflicts of interest. J.M. received travel support from BMS, Novartis and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, outside the submitted work. C.M.T. reports no relevant conflicts of interest. J.K. reports no relevant conflicts of interest. I.M. reports no relevant conflicts of interest. A.S. reports no relevant conflicts of interest. A.P. reports no relevant conflicts of interest. E.L. served as a consultant for and/or has received honoraria from Amgen, Actelion, Roche, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Janssen, Medac, Sanofi and Sun Pharma and reports travel support from Amgen, MSD, BMS, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work. L.Z. served as a consultant for and/or has received honoraria from Roche, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi and Sun Pharma and reports travel support from MSD, BMS, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work. S.H. reports no relevant conflicts of interest. D.S. reports grants and other from BMS and personal fees from BMS, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Amgen; personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim; personal fees from InflaRx; personal fees and other from Roche; grants, personal fees and other from Novartis; personal fees from Incyte; personal fees and other from Regeneron; personal fees from 4SC; personal fees from Sanofi; personal fees from NeraCare; personal fees from Pierre Fabre; personal fees and other from Merck-EMD; personal fees from Pfizer; personal fees and other from Philogen; personal fees from Array and personal fees and other from MSD, outside the submitted work. E.H. reports no relevant conflicts of interest. K.G. reports no relevant conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Anti-[programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)] antibodies nivolumab and pembrolizumab were approved for adjuvant treatment of melanoma as they demonstrated improved relapse-free survival. Currently, combined anti-PD-1 plus anti-[cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA4)] blockade is being investigated in adjuvant and neoadjuvant trials. Sarcoidosis-like reactions have been described for immune checkpoint inhibitors and are most likely drug-induced. The reported rate of sarcoidosis/sarcoidosis-like reactions within clinical melanoma trials is <2%. We observed that a remarkably higher number of melanoma patients (10/45 patients, 22%) treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) within an adjuvant clinical trial-developed drug induced sarcoidosis-like reaction (DISR) mimicking metastasis., Case Presentation: Of 45 stage III melanoma patients who were treated at our institute with adjuvant ICI (either nivolumab alone or in combination with ipilimumab) within a two-armed, blinded clinical trial, ten developed a DISR. Three of the ten patients were men, median age was 52 years (range, 32-70 years). DISRs were asymptomatic and generally detected radiographically at first radiographic imaging after the start of therapy (median time, 2.8 months) and described as a differential diagnosis to tumour progression. In one patient, DISR was only apparent 13.1 months after start of therapy and 4 weeks after the end of ICI treatment. DISR presented as mediastinal/hilar lymphadenopathy in 8/10 patients (as only site or in addition to lung, skin and/or bone involvement), one patient had only lung and cutaneous, one patient only cutaneous DISR. Biopsies from lymph nodes, skin and bone were taken in 8/10 patients, and histology confirmed sarcoidosis-like reactions (SLRs). As patients were asymptomatic, no treatment for DISR was required, and study treatment was stopped for DISR in only one patient due to bone involvement. DISRs have resolved or are in remission in all patients. At a median follow-up time of 15.3 months (range, 12-17.6 months), two patients experienced melanoma relapse., Conclusions: In most cases, sarcoidosis could only be differentiated from melanoma progression on biopsy. Treating physicians as well as radiologists have to be aware of the potentially higher rate of DISR in patients receiving adjuvant ICI. A thorough interdisciplinary workup is required to discriminate from true melanoma progression and to decide on continuation of adjuvant ICI treatment., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement E.C.: reports travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD SHARP & DOHME and Novartis.T.K.: reports travel support from Novartis, Amgen, Celgene, Lilly and Pierre-Fabre. 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 travel support from MSD, BMS, Amgen, Pierre Fabre and Novartis. E.H.: reports no conflict of interest. S.U.: reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, grants and non-financial support from BMS, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, personal fees from MSD Sharp & Dohme, non-financial support from Amgen, outside the submitted work. E.G.: reports travel support from Pierre-Fabre. A.R.: reports 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 MSD Sharp & Dohme, non-financial support from Amgen, outside the submitted work . F.B.: reports personal fees and non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche Pharma, personal fees from Galapagos, outside the submitted work. T.E.W: reports no conflict of interest. J.W.: reports no conflict of interest. D.T.: reports no conflict of interest. D.S: reports grants and other from BMS, personal fees from BMS, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from InFlarX, personal fees and other from Roche, grants, personal fees and other from Novartis, personal fees from Incyte, personal fees and other from Regeneron, personal fees from 4SC, personal fees from Sanofi, personal fees from Neracare, personal fees from Pierre Fabre, personal fees and other from Merck-EMD, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees and other from Philiogen, personal fees from Array, personal fees and other from MSD, outside the submitted work. E.L.: served as consultant or/and has received honoraria from Amgen, Actelion, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Novartis, Janssen, Medac, and travel support from Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Sunpharma and Novartis., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) is an essential treatment option in melanoma. Its outcome may be improved by a preceding radiation of metastases. This study aimed to investigate the impact of a preceding radiotherapy on the clinical outcome of ICI treatment., Methods: This multicenter retrospective cohort study included patients who received anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) or anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) ICI with or without preceding radiotherapy for unresectable metastatic melanoma. ICI therapy outcome was measured as best overall response (BOR), progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Response and survival analyses were adjusted for confounders identified by directed acyclic graphs. Adjusted survival curves were calculated using inverse probability treatment weighting., Results: 835 patients who received ICI (anti-CTLA-4, n=596; anti-PD-1, n=239) at 16 centers were analyzed, whereof 235 received a preceding radiotherapy of metastatic lesions in stage IV disease. The most frequent organ sites irradiated prior to ICI therapy were brain (51.1%), lymph nodes (17.9%) and bone (17.9%). After multivariable adjustment for confounders, no relevant differences in ICI therapy outcome were observed between cohorts with and without preceding radiotherapy. BOR was 8.7% vs 13.0% for anti-CTLA-4 (adjusted relative risk (RR)=1.47; 95% CI=0.81 to 2.65; p=0.20), and 16.5% vs 25.3% for anti-PD-1 (RR=0.93; 95% CI=0.49 to 1.77; p=0.82). Survival probabilities were similar for cohorts with and without preceding radiotherapy, for anti-CTLA-4 (PFS, adjusted HR=1.02, 95% CI=0.86 to 1.25, p=0.74; OS, HR=1.08, 95% CI=0.81 to 1.44, p=0.61) and for anti-PD-1 (PFS, HR=0.84, 95% CI=0.57 to 1.26, p=0.41; OS, HR=0.73, 95% CI=0.43 to 1.25, p=0.26). Patients who received radiation last before ICI (n=137) revealed no better survival than those who had one or more treatment lines between radiation and start of ICI (n=86). In 223 patients with brain metastases, we found no relevant survival differences on ICI with and without preceding radiotherapy., Conclusions: This study detected no evidence for a relevant favorable impact of a preceding radiotherapy on anti-CTLA-4 or anti-PD-1 ICI treatment outcome in metastatic melanoma., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SK has received travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Amgen. AS received speaker honoraria from Merck Serono. 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 has received travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Amgen, Pierre Fabre 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. LH has received grants from Novartis and has received personal fees from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Roche, Curevac, Pierre Fabre, Novartis and Sanofi. CW has served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Curevac, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda, and has received travel support from Leo and Teva. 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. 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. RH declares speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, and Roche. KCK has served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Amgen, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre, and Novartis and has received travel support from Amgen, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Medac, and Novartis. BW reports grants and personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Philogen and Merck Sharp and Dohme, and personal fees from Roche, Novartis, and Curevac. CB reports grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, and 4SC, personal fees and non-financial support from Pierre Fabre and Sanofi Aventis as well as grants from Array Pharma and Regeneron. 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. JU is on the advisory board or has received honoraria and travel support from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Leo, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Roche. PT has received speakers honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Roche, consultants honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Roche, and travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pierre-Fabre. MK has received grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Leo, Novartis and Roche. MS received honoraria for lectures from Merck Sharp and Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, and Pierre Fabre, and served on advisory boards for Novartis, Roche, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and Pierre-Fabre. AK declares advisory board and speakers honoraria from Merck Sharp and Dohme, Sanofi Pasteur, and AbbVie. JU declares research support from Novartis, speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Roche and Sanofi, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Medac. PM declares research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merck Sharp and Dohme, speakers and advisory board honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck Serono, Sanofi, Novartis, Roche, and Pierre Fabre, and travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre and Novartis. EL has served as consultant or/and has received honoraria from Amgen, Actelion, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Janssen, Medac, and travel support from Amgen, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, and Novartis. JCB has received speakers honoraria from Amgen, MerckSerono, and Pfizer, advisory board honoraria from 4SC, Amgen, CureVac, eTheRNA, Lytix, MerckSerono, Novartis, Pfizer, Rigontec, and Sanofi as well as research funding from Alcedis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, IQVIA, and Merck Serono; he also received travel support from 4SC and Incyte. MW declares speakers and advisory board honoraria from Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Novartis, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, Beiersdorf, Sun Pharma, and Takeda. EC received travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and Novartis. DS declares advisory board and speakers honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim and Leo, as well as grant and travel support from Roche, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim and Leo. 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. All remaining authors declared 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.)

Objective: The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th staging system introduced several revisions. To assess the impact of the 8th edition American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC8) staging system on subgrouping and survival, patients with melanoma from two tertiary skin cancer centres were classified according to both the 7th edition American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC7) and AJCC8., Methods: A total of 1948 patients aged ≥18 years with cutaneous melanoma stage II-IV were included. The impact of sex and age on reclassification was assessed by log binomial models. The inverse probability of censoring weighting method was used to compute ROC curves from time-to-event data to assess the discriminatory ability of AJCC7 and AJCC8. Melanoma-specific survival (MSS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated, and age- and sex-adjusted MSS hazard ratios were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models., Results: Of all, 23.5% of patients were assigned a different subgroup when classified according to AJCC8. Owing to upshifting to stage IIIC (AJCC7 24.8% vs. AJCC8 50.8%), patient numbers of stages IIIA and IIIB decreased from 28.7% to 16.2% and 46.5% to 28.3%. The prediction accuracy for AJCC7 and AJCC8 was comparable (integrated time-dependent area under the curve [AUC] of 0.75 and 0.74, respectively). Five-year MSS of IIB and IIC AJCC8 was poor and lower than that of IIIA AJCC8 (80%, 67% and 89%, respectively). Compared to results of the International Melanoma Database and Discovery Platform, 5-year MSS was 10-15% points lower for stages IIC, IIIB and IIIC., Conclusions: Upshifting affects primarily stage III subgroups, while effects in stage II are minor. Stage IIB/C (AJCC8) patients have 67-80% MSS and should be considered for adjuvant treatment, while in stage IIIA, the indication of adjuvant treatment is questionable., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors are promising approaches for advanced Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC). Nevertheless, these inhibitors bear a high risk for induction of immune-related adverse events (irAEs), particularly flares of preexisting autoimmune diseases. Neurological irAEs of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors are possibly underestimated and potentially fatal toxicities. Additionally, exacerbations of preexisting myasthenia gravis (MG) with a high MG-specific-related mortality have been reported., Case Presentation: A 61-year-old woman with a history of MG since 2005 was treated with azathioprine and pyridostigmine after thymectomy. In March 2016, she was diagnosed with MCC. Six months later the tumor had progressed to stage IV and metastases were detected in lymph nodes and the pancreas. The immunosuppressive therapy was therefore changed to mycophenolatmofetil (MMF) and an immune checkpoint blockade with the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab was initiated in November 2016. Due to MMF-induced liver toxicity, MMF was switched to cyclosporine A (CsA) with normalized liver transaminases six weeks later. After six cycles of pembrolizumab the patient achieved a partial response. Follow up analysis sixty-five weeks later revealed a long-lasting tumor response with a partial remission of pancreatic and inguinal metastases and no flare of MG., Conclusions: Patients with a preexisting MG can be considered for treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors if they have a life-threatening cancer and if other effective, long-lasting treatment options are not available. The risks and benefits of therapy should be weighed in a multidisciplinary setting and should be discussed thoroughly with the patient. Exacerbation of underlying MG can be potentially life-threatening and requires close monitoring in collaboration with neuromuscular specialists.