Search

Immune checkpoint blockers (ICB) have become pivotal therapies in the clinical armamentarium against metastatic melanoma (MMel). Given the frequency of immune related adverse events and increasing use of ICB, predictors of response to CTLA-4 and/or PD-1 blockade represent unmet clinical needs. Using a systems biology-based approach to an assessment of 779 paired blood and tumor markers in 37 stage III MMel patients, we analyzed association between blood immune parameters and the functional immune reactivity of tumor-infiltrating cells after ex vivo exposure to ICB. Based on this assay, we retrospectively observed, in eight cohorts enrolling 190 MMel patients treated with ipilimumab, that PD-L1 expression on peripheral T cells was prognostic on overall and progression-free survival. Moreover, detectable CD137 on circulating CD8+ T cells was associated with the disease-free status of resected stage III MMel patients after adjuvant ipilimumab + nivolumab (but not nivolumab alone). These biomarkers should be validated in prospective trials in MMel.The clinical management of metastatic melanoma requires predictors of the response to checkpoint blockade. Here, the authors use immunological assays to identify potential prognostic/predictive biomarkers in circulating blood cells and in tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes from patients with resected stage III melanoma.

Purpose: The EORTC 18991 trial assessed the effect of long-term adjuvant pegylated interferon (Peg-IFN) alpha-2b administered weekly in patients with lymph node-positive melanoma. Serum concentrations were analyzed to determine exposure to Peg-IFN alpha-2b.Methods: After surgery, patients were randomized to receive Peg-IFN alpha-2b or to observation only. The treatment group received 6 microg/kg/week Peg-IFN alpha-2b subcutaneously for 8 weeks, followed by a maintenance dose of 3 microg/kg/week for up to 5 years. Blood samples were collected between months 3 and 60.Results: A total of 208 Peg-IFN alpha-2b concentrations from 48 patients were available. Serum trough concentrations increased in a dose-related manner. Mean dose-normalized serum concentrations and intersubject variability over the 5-year study period in patients with melanoma were similar to those observed in patients with chronic hepatitis.Conclusion: Data suggest that the exposure to Peg-IFN alpha-2b was sustained during long-term adjuvant treatment with Peg-IFN alpha-2b in patients with melanoma, consistent with the EORTC 18991 trial's conclusion of a significant, sustained, and relapse-free survival benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Any benefit of adjuvant interferon alfa-2b for melanoma could depend on dose and duration of treatment. Our aim was to determine whether pegylated interferon alfa-2b can facilitate prolonged exposure while maintaining tolerability.Methods: 1256 patients with resected stage III melanoma were randomly assigned to observation (n=629) or pegylated interferon alfa-2b (n=627) 6 mug/kg per week for 8 weeks (induction) then 3 mug/kg per week (maintenance) for an intended duration of 5 years. Randomisation was stratified for microscopic (N1) versus macroscopic (N2) nodal involvement, number of positive nodes, ulceration and tumour thickness, sex, and centre. Randomisation was done with a minimisation technique. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00006249.Findings: All randomised patients were included in the primary efficacy analysis. 608 patients in the interferon group and 613 patients in the observation group were included in safety analyses. The median length of treatment with pegylated interferon alfa-2b was 12 (IQR 3.8-33.4) months. At 3.8 (3.2-4.2) years median follow-up, 328 recurrence events had occurred in the interferon group compared with 368 in the observation group (hazard ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.71-0.96; p=0.01); the 4-year rate of recurrence-free survival was 45.6% (SE 2.2) in the interferon group and 38.9% (2.2) in the observation group. There was no difference in overall survival between the groups. Grade 3 adverse events occurred in 246 (40%) patients in the interferon group and 60 (10%) in the observation group; grade 4 adverse events occurred in 32 (5%) patients in the interferon group and 14 (2%) in the observation group. In the interferon group, the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were fatigue (97 patients, 16%), hepatotoxicity (66, 11%), and depression (39, 6%). Treatment with pegylated interferon alfa-2b was discontinued because of toxicity in 191 (31%) patients.Interpretation: Adjuvant pegylated interferon alfa-2b for stage III melanoma has a significant, sustained effect on recurrence-free survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The high frequency of relapse after induction chemotherapy of advanced ovarian carcinoma calls for new therapeutic approaches. Lysis of ovarian carcinoma cells can be achieved by retargeting of T lymphocytes using F(ab')2 fragments of the bispecific monoclonal antibody (MAb) OC/TR, which is directed to the CD3 molecule on T lymphocytes and to the folate receptor on ovarian carcinoma cells.Purpose: Our purpose was to assess in ovarian carcinoma patients the antitumor activity of in vitro-activated autologous peripheral blood T lymphocytes retargeted with OC/TR.Methods: Patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stages III and IV) meeting specific criteria were eligible to enter a phase II immunotherapy trial. Before immunotherapy, the 28 patients who entered the trial underwent laparotomy to reduce their tumor load and to allow measurement of all indicator lesions. They then received two cycles of five daily intraperitoneal infusions of autologous in vitro activated peripheral blood T lymphocytes retargeted with OC/TR plus recombinant interleukin 2 (IL-2) with (n = 11) or without (n = 17) a second daily infusion of OC/TR F(ab')2 and IL-2. Response to treatment could be assessed in 26 patients following explorative laparotomy; time to progression could be assessed in 27 patients.Results: Seven patients had clinical evidence of progressive disease after treatment and therefore did not undergo laparotomy. Of the 19 patients evaluated by surgery and histology, three showed complete response, one showed complete intraperitoneal response with progressive disease in retroperitoneal lymph nodes, three showed partial response, seven had stable disease, and five had progressive disease. The overall intraperitoneal response rate was 27% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 10%-44%). The complete responses seen in three patients lasted 26 months in one patient, 23 months in the second, and 18 months in the third. Two patients were not assessable for response. One of these patients had bowel perforation during catheter removal, which precluded further evaluation. The second patient was positive only by cytologic examination before immunotherapy, was tumor free at laparotomy after immunotherapy, and remained so for the entire 21 months of follow-up, as determined by cytologic examination of random biopsy specimens. The median time to disease progression in the 15 assessable patients plus those who had stable disease was 11 months (95% CI = 6-18 months). Immunotherapy-related toxic effects included mild to moderate fever, nausea, emesis, and fatigue. Anti-mouse antibodies were detectable by the end of the treatment in 21 of 25 patients tested.Conclusions: Locoregional immunotherapy of ovarian cancer with bispecific MAb-retargeted T lymphocytes can result in tumor regression. Toxicity was mild to moderate and only transient.Implications: Improvement in systemic antitumor responses is needed before this approach can prove useful as adjunctive treatment following induction chemotherapy in patients with minimal residual disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The disappointing results of the large, randomized, controlled trials showing no benefit of vaccines in patients with advanced and metastatic melanoma call for a reassessment of the development of therapeutic vaccines and the importance of better immune monitoring methodology, such as adoptive T-cell therapy with lymphodepletion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Chemoimmunotherapy for patients with metastatic melanoma is associated with high toxicity, and only a subset of patients will benefit. This randomised phase II study was performed with the primary objective of exploring whether two cycles of dacarbazine monotherapy could select the subset of patients that would benefit most from more intensive chemoimmunotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic melanoma were randomised to either receive chemoimmunotherapy with dacarbazine, cisplatin, interferon-alpha and interleukin-2 (arm A) or initial treatment with two cycles of dacarbazine monotherapy followed irrespective of response by the same 4-drug regimen of chemoimmunotherapy (arm B). Chemoimmunotherapy was continued in the absence of disease progression for a maximum of four cycles. Primary end-point was the disease stabilisation rate. RESULTS: A total of 93 patients were randomised, and 89 patients were eligible. Disease stabilisation (complete/partial response or stable disease) was achieved in 19 patients (42.2%) in arm A and 9 patients (20.5%) in arm B. In arm B 32 of the 44 patients continued chemoimmunotherapy after two cycles of dacarbazine. Of 20 patients with progressive disease (PD) after two cycles of dacarbazine in arm B, only 2 patients achieved an objective response. Median overall survival (OS) in arms A and B was 10.5 months and 9.5 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a lower initial stabilisation rate, the strategy of starting with 2 courses of DTIC prior to a 4-drug regimen led to comparable median overall survival. Only few transient responses were achieved with the 4-drug regimen in patients with disease progression on DTIC, suggesting frequent cross resistance. Two cycles of dacarbazine monotherapy cannot be recommended to select patients for more intensive chemoimmunotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patterns and trends of melanoma and skin carcinoma incidence and survival of European children (age 0-14 years) and adolescents (age 15-19 years) were investigated. Between 1978 and 1997, a total of 1419 melanoma and 485 skin carcinoma cases were recorded in the cancer registries contributing to the Automated Childhood Cancer Information System (ACCIS) study. During 1988-1997, the incidence of melanoma was 0.7 per million children and 12.9 per million adolescents; corresponding rates for skin carcinomas were 0.3 and 3.7 per million, respectively. The British Isles had the highest incidence of skin cancers in children and adolescents. For Europe, in adolescents melanomas were more common in the North and West, skin carcinomas in the South and East. Between 1978 and 1997 incidence increased annually in adolescents, by 4.1% for melanoma and 2.5% for skin carcinoma. Differences in aetiology between childhood and adolescent skin cancers cannot be excluded. Survival was relatively high and the geographical variations in incidence and survival seem to be associated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Methods to work-up sentinel nodes (SN) vary considerably between institutes. This single institution study evaluated the positive SN-identification rate of the EORTC Melanoma Group (MG) protocol and investigated the prognostic value of the SN status regarding disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) and evaluated the locoregional control after the SN procedure. Multivariate and univariate analyses using Cox's proportional hazard regression model was employed to assess the prognostic value of covariates regarding DFS and OS. The positive SN-identification rate was 29% at a median Breslow thickness of 2.00 mm and the false-negative rate was 9.4%. Breslow thickness and ulceration of the primary correlated with SN status. SN status, ulceration and site of the primary tumour correlated with DFS. SN status and ulceration of the primary correlated with OS. The in-transit metastasis rate correlated with SN-positivity, Breslow thickness and ulceration. Projected 3-year OS was 95% in SN-negative and 74% in SN-positive patients. Transhilar bivalving of the SN with step sections from the central planes is simple and had a high SN-positive detection rate of about 30%. The SN status is the most important predictive value for DFS and OS. In-transit metastasis rates correlated with SN-positivity, Breslow thickness and ulceration of the primary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the previously reported primary analyses of this phase 3 trial, 12 months of adjuvant pembrolizumab resulted in significantly longer recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) than placebo in patients with resected high risk stage III melanoma. Stability of these benefits when the median follow-up was 3.5 and 5 years was published. Here we report results with a longer follow-up., Methods: We randomized 1019 patients to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo, intravenously every 3 weeks for a total of 18 doses. RFS in the overall population and in the subgroup of patients with melanoma positive for the PD-1 ligand (PD-L1) were co-primary endpoints. DMFS in these two populations was a secondary and progression/recurrence-free survival 2 (PRFS2) an exploratory endpoint., Results: The median follow-up was 6.9 years. In the overall intention-to-treat population, RFS was longer in the pembrolizumab group than in the placebo group (HR 0.63, 95 % CI 0.53 to 0.74). RFS at 7 years was 50 % (95 % CI 46 % to 55 %) in the pembrolizumab and 36 % (95 % CI 32 % to 41 %) in the placebo group. Positive effects were present both for loco-regional recurrences and distant metastases, and across substages IIIA-IIIB-IIIC, and PD-L1 positive and PD-L1 negative as well as for BRAF mutant and BRAF wild type populations. DMFS was longer in the pembrolizumab group than in the placebo group (HR 0.64, 95 % CI 0.54 to 0.76). DMFS at 7 years was 54 % (95 % CI 50 % to 59 %) in the pembrolizumab and 42 % (95 % CI 37 % to 46 %) in the placebo group. PRFS2 was longer in the pembrolizumab group than in the placebo group (HR 0.69, 95 % CI 0.57 to 0.84). PRFS2 at 7 years was 61 % (95 % CI 57 % to 66 %) in the pembrolizumab and 53 % (95 % CI 49 % to 57 %) in the placebo group., Conclusions: The 7-year analysis of adjuvant therapy with pembrolizumab demonstrated a sustained improvement in the long-term RFS, DMFS and PRFS2 compared with placebo in patients with resected stage III melanoma., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Alexander MM Eggermont is an Editor-in-Chief for European Journal of Cancer and was not involved in the editorial review or the decision to publish this article. Susana Puig is an Editor for European Journal of Cancer Skin Cancer and was not involved in the editorial review or the decision to publish this article. Dirk Schadendorf is an Editor-in-Chief European Journal of Cancer Skin Cancer and was not involved in the editorial review or the decision to publish this article. The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Alexander C.J. van Akkooi: advisory board/consultancy honoraria from 4SC AG, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono-Pfizer, MSD-Merck, Neracare, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sirius Medical, SkylineDX; research grants from Amgen, Merck Serono-Pfizer, SkylineDX. Paolo A. Ascierto: a consultant/advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Merck Serono, Pierre-Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Sandoz, Immunocore, Italfarmaco, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Regeneron, Pfizer, Nouscom, Lunaphore, Medicenna, Bio-Al Health, ValoTX, Replimmune, Bayer, Erasca, Philogen, Biontech, Anaveon; research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Pfizer, Sanofi; travel support by Pfizer, Bio-Al Health, Replimmune, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Philogen. Victoria Atkinson: advisory board for and speeches fees from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Immunocore; travel support by Pierre Fabre. Christian U Blank: advisory role for BMS, MSD, Roche, Novartis, GSK, AZ, Pfizer, Lilly, GenMab, Pierre Fabre, Third Rock Ventures, Sandoz; research funding from BMS, Novartis, NanoString, 4SC; stock ownership of Flindr Therapeutics, Signature Oncology. Matteo Carlino: advisory boards or a consultant for Amgen, BMS, Eisai, Ideaya, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Oncosec, Pierre-Fabre, Qbiotics, Regeneron, Roche, Merck, and Sanofi; honoraria from BMS, MSD, and Novartis. Stéphane Dalle: research grants to institution from MSD, BMS, Pierre Fabre; advisory board paid to institution by MSD and BMS; spouse employment Sanofi. Alexander MM Eggermont: honoraria for scientific advisory board or data monitoring committee activities from Agenus, Bioinvent, BioNTech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Brenus, CatalYm, Eurobio, GenOway, Imcheck, IO Biotech, Ipsen, IQVIA, ISA Pharmaceuticals, Merck KGA, Merck&Co/MSD, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, QBiotics, Regeneron, Replimune, Sairopa BV, ScanCell, Scorpion Pharmaceuticals, Secarna, Sellas, SkylineDX BV, TigaTX, Thermosome, Trained Immunotherapeutics Discovery. Stock: IO Biotech, Sairopa BV, SkylineDX. Anna Maria Di Giacomo: advisor/board member for Merck, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Incyte, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, SunPharma, Immunocore; honoraria from Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, GlaxoSmithKline, SunPharma. Immunocore. Dmitri Grebennik: employee of Merck & Co. Jean-Jacques Grob: advisory boards for Novartis, BMS, MSD, Philogen, Pierre Fabr, Sanofi, Roche, Amgen. Ralf Gutzmer: honoraria for lectures and advice from BristolMyers Squibb, MerckSharpDohme, Novartis, Merck-Serono, Amgen, Almirall Hermal, Pierre-Fabre, Sun Pharma, Immunocore, 4SC, Delcath, Sanofi/Regeneron; support for participation in meetings from SUN Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim and PierreFabre; research support (to institution) from Sanofi/Regeneron, Merck Serono, Amgen, SUN Pharma, KyowaKirin, Almirall Hermal, Recordati. Andrew Haydon: advisory board member for BMS, MSD and Novartis. Rahima Jamal: honoraria for presentation and advisory board with Merck. PI in Merck-sponsored trials. Adnan Khattak: speaker honoraria, advisory board, and travel sponsorship from MSD. Michal Kicinski: research funding from MSD, BMS, Pierre Fabre, Immunocore, and JnJ. Clemens Kreplere: employee and shareholder of Merck & Co. James Larkin: relationships with the following companies: iOnctura, Apple Tree, Merck, BMS, MSD, Telix, Novartis, Philogen, Pfizer, Incyte, Eisai, Debipharm, GCO, TouchIME, Immatics, Insighter, Agence Unik, VJOncology, Royal College of General Practioners, Cambridge Healthcare Research, Royal College of Physicians, TouchExperts. Georgina V Long: consultant advisor for Agenus, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BioNTech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Evaxion, GI Innovation, Hexal AG (Sandoz Company), Highlight Therapeutics S.L., IOBiotech, Immunocore, Innovent Biologics USA, MSD, Novartis, PHMR Ltd, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Scancell, SkylineDX B.V. Paul Lorigan: support for travel from MSD; research funding from Pierre Fabre and BMS; speakers bureau/consultancy for BMS and Pierre Fabre. Mario Mandala: advisory board and lectures for: MSD, BMS, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sun Pharma; research grant from Novartis. Susana Puig: speaker for Almirall, BMS, Cantabria, ISDIN, La Roche Posay, Leo Pharma, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sunpharma; advisory board of Almirall, BMS, ISDIN, La Roche Posay, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Sun Pharma; involvement in research and trials of Abbvie, Almirall, Amgen, BMS, Biofrontera, Canfield, Cantabria, Fotofinder, GSK, ISDIN, La Roche Posay, Leo Pharma, MSD, MEDA, Novartis, Polychem, Roche, Sun Pharma; husband has relationship with Almirall, Amgen, BMS, Biofrontera, Canfield, Cantabria, Fotofinder, GSK, ISDIN, La Roche Posay, Leo, Mavig, Nevisence, Novartis, Polychem, Roche, Sun Pharma. Educational activities for Abbie, Lilly, and ISD; ownership of Athena Tech & Dermavision Solutions. Caroline Robert: consultant/advisory board of Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, BMS, MSD, Novaris, Merck, Roche, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, Ultimovacs, Regeneron, Egle, Philogen, Maat Pharma; consultant steering committee for Novartis, Regeneron, Pfizer, IO Biotech; consultant IDMC for Ultimovacs; speaker for Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, BMS, MSD, Novaris; travel by Pierre Fabre. Piotr Rutkowski: honoraria for lectures and advisory boards from MSD, BMS, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Genesis Pharma, Medison Pharma. Shahneen Sandhu: research funding from Novartis/AAA, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Amgen, Genentech, Senwha, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Healthcare and Pfizer; participation on advisory boards for Merck Sharp and Dohme, AstraZeneca, Novartis, SkylineDx and Abbvie (fees for attending go to research funds at the institution); honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Janssen (all paid to the institution); chair of DSMB for 2 Novartis/AAA sponsored Phase III trials (no fee accepted for chair role). Dirk Schadendorf: a member of the advisory board, consultant or received speakers´ honoraria from: Astra Zeneca, BMS, CureVac, Daiichi Sankyo, Erasca, Haystack, Immatics, Immunocore, InFlarX, Lapcorp, Merck-Serono, MSD, Neracare, Novartis, Novogenix, PamGene, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Regeneron, Replimune, Sanofi, Seagen, Sun Pharma, UltraVacs; research funding from BMS, Roche, MSD, Amgen & Novartis. Stefan Suciu: DSMB member of the NADINA study. Alfonsus JM van den Eertwegh: study grant from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Idera; travel expenses by Ipsen; advisory board of Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology, Ipsen, Pierre Fabre, Janssen Cilag BV. The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

The 2022 yearly Think Tank Meeting in Siena, Tuscany (Italy), organized by the Italian Network for Tumor Biotherapy (NIBIT) Foundation, the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy and the World Immunotherapy Council, included a focus on the future of integrating and expanding the use of targeting cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4). The conference members exchanged their views on the lessons from targeting CTLA-4 and compared the effect to the impact of blocking Programmed cell death protein 1 (PD1) or its ligand (PDL1). The increasing experience with both therapeutic approaches and their combination suggests that targeting CTLA-4 may lead to more durable responses for a sizeable proportion of patients, though the specific mechanism is not entirely understood. Overcoming toxicity of blocking CTLA-4 is currently being addressed with different doses and dose regimens, especially when combined with PD1/PDL1 blocking antibodies. Novel therapeutics targeting CTLA-4 hold the promise to reduce toxicities and thus allow different combination strategies in the future. On the whole, the consent was that targeting CTLA-4 remains an important strategy to improve the efficacy of cancer immunotherapies., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:, (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Stage IIB/IIC melanoma has a high risk of recurrence after surgical resection. While, for decades, surgery was the only option for high-risk stage II disease in most countries, adjuvant therapies now exist. Anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) antibodies significantly improve recurrence-free survival versus placebo in patients with fully resected stage IIB/IIC melanoma. Combined BRAF MEK inhibitor therapy showed benefits in high-risk stage III and advanced disease; however, its role in patients with fully resected stage BRAF -mutated IIB/IIC melanoma is still unknown. Here we describe the rationale and design of the ongoing randomized, placebo-controlled COLUMBUS-AD trial, the first study of a BRAF-MEK inhibitor combination therapy (encorafenib + binimetinib) in patients with BRAF V600-mutated stage IIB/IIC melanoma.

The Great Debate session at the 2022 Melanoma Bridge congress (December 1-3) featured counterpoint views from leading experts on five contemporary topics of debate in the management of melanoma. The debates considered the choice of anti-lymphocyte-activation gene (LAG)-3 therapy or ipilimumab in combination with anti-programmed death (PD)-1 therapy, whether anti-PD-1 monotherapy is still acceptable as a comparator arm in clinical trials, whether adjuvant treatment of melanoma is still a useful treatment option, the role of adjuvant therapy in stage II melanoma, what role surgery will continue to have in the treatment of melanoma. As is customary in the Melanoma Bridge Great Debates, the speakers are invited by the meeting Chairs to express one side of the assigned debate and the opinions given may not fully reflect personal views. Audiences voted in favour of either side of the argument both before and after each debate., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Bempegaldesleukin (BEMPEG: NKTR-214) is an immunostimulatory IL-2 cytokine prodrug engineered to deliver a controlled, sustained and preferential IL-2 pathway signal. Nivolumab (NIVO), a PD-1 inhibitor, has been shown to prolong survival in patients with advanced melanoma and recurrence-free survival in the adjuvant setting. PIVOT-02 showed that BEMPEG plus NIVO was well-tolerated and demonstrated clinical activity as first-line therapy in metastatic melanoma. PIVOT-12 is a randomized, phase III, global, multicenter, open-label study comparing adjuvant therapy with BEMPEG plus NIVO versus NIVO alone in adult and adolescent patients with completely resected cutaneous stage III/IV melanoma at high risk of recurrence. The primary objective is to compare the efficacy, as measured by recurrence-free survival, of BEMPEG plus NIVO versus NIVO.

Background: In the phase III double-blind European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 1325/KEYNOTE-054 trial, pembrolizumab improved recurrence-free and distant metastasis-free survival in patients with stage III cutaneous melanoma with complete resection of lymph nodes. In the pembrolizumab group, the incidence of grade I-V and of grade III-V immune-related adverse events (irAEs) was 37% and 7%, respectively., Methods: Patients were randomised to receive intravenous (i.v.) pembrolizumab 200 mg (N = 514) or placebo (N = 505) every 3 weeks, up to 1 year. On recurrence, patients could enter part 2 of the study: pembrolizumab 200 mg i.v. every 3 weeks up to 2 years, for crossover (those who received placebo) or rechallenge (those who had recurrence ≥6 months after completing 1-year adjuvant pembrolizumab therapy). For these patients, we present the safety profile and efficacy outcomes., Results: At the clinical cut-off (16-Oct-2020), in the placebo group, 298 patients had a disease recurrence, in which 155 (52%) crossed over ('crossover'). In the pembrolizumab group, 297 patients completed the 1-year treatment period; 47 had a recurrence ≥6 months later, in which 20 (43%) entered the rechallenge part 2 ('rechallenge'). In the crossover group, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 8.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.7-15.2) and the 3-year PFS rate was 32% (95% CI 25-40%). Among 80 patients with stage IV evaluable disease, 31 (39%) had an objective response: 14 (18%) patients with complete response (CR) and 17 (21%) patients with partial response. The 2-year PFS rate from response was 69% (95% CI 48-83%). In the rechallenge group, the median PFS was 4.1 months (95% CI 2.6-NE). Among 9 patients with stage IV evaluable disease, 1 had an objective response (CR). Among the 175 patients, 51 (29%) had a grade I-IV irAE and 11 (6%) had a grade III-IV irAE., Conclusions: Pembrolizumab treatment after crossover yielded an overall 3-year PFS rate of 32% and a 39% ORR in evaluable patients, but the efficacy (11% ORR) was lower in those rechallenged., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement A.M.M.E.—consulting fees: Biocad, BioInvent, BioNTech, BMS, CatalYm, Ellipses, GSK, IO Biotech, ISA Pharmaceuticals, Merck/MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, SAiRoPA, Sellas, SkylineDx, TigaTx, TTxDiscovery; payment or honoraria: Biocad, BMS, Merck/MSD, Novartis; payment for expert testimony: Novartis; support for attending meetings and/or travel: BMS; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: GSK, Novartis and Pfizer; leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid: European Academy Cancer Sciences Gerrman Cancer Aid; stock or stock options: SkylineDx and SAiRoPA P.L.—personal fees, advisory, speaker, trial grants: BMS, Merck, Novartis, GSK, Amgen, Chugai, Pierre Fabre, NeraCare, Roche and Oncology Education Canada. N.I.—stock or stock options: Merck stock; other financial interest: employee Merck & Co. M.K.—study funding from Merck to institution; grants or contacts: Pierre Fabre; sponsor and provider of an academic grant for different melanoma studies (money paid to the author’s institution); BMS Sponsor and provider of an academic grant for different melanoma studies (money paid to the author’s institution). S.S.—Merck is the sponsor of this study; payment was made to the author’s institution; grants or contracts: BMS, Pierre Fabre—sponsor and provider of academic grants to other EORTC melanoma studies; payments were made to the author’s institution. C.R.—consulting fees: occasional consultant for Roche, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, MSD, BMS, Sanofi, Pfizer; payment or honoraria: occasional consultant for Roche, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, MSD, BMS, Sanofi and Pfizer. A.M.—grants or contracts: Merck Sharp Dohme Pharmaceuticals and Bristol Myers Squibb; payment or honoraria: Merck Sharp Dohme Pharmaceuticals and Bristol Myers Squibb; support for attending meetings: Merck Sharp Dohme Pharmaceuticals and Bristol Myers Squibb. V.A.—payment or honoraria: BMS, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Q Biotics, Roche and Limbic Ad Boards. C.K.—stock or stock options: Merck & Co. C.B.—grants or contracts: BMS, Novartis and NanoString Payments were made to the author’s institution; consulting fees: BMS, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, GSK, GenMab and Pierre Fabre; payments were made to the author’s institution. Third Rock Venture: payments were made to the author; stock or stock options: Unity Cars—Stocks; Immagene BV - Co-founder. A.C.J.v.A.—grants or contracts from any entity: Amgen, Merck-Pfizer, all paid to the institute and unrelated to current work; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD-Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sirius Medical, 4SC, all paid to the institute and unrelated to current work M.M.—payment or honoraria: BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi. G.V.L. is 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., specialised Therapeutics Australia Pty Ltd; payment or honoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb—personal—one hour lecture of the author’s own slides; Pierre Fabre—personal—one hour lecture of the author’s own slides. A.M.D.G.—payment or honoraria: BMS, MSD, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre; compensated educational activities; support for attending meetings and/or travel: Pierre Fabre and BMS; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: BMS, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Incyte, GSK and Novartis. S.S.—grants or contracts from any entity: Advanced Accelerators Applications (a Novartis company), Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Genentech, AstraZeneca; funding to the institution; consulting fees: Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, AstraZeneca and Bristol Myer Squibb (funding to the institution). R.K.—consulting fees: Merck, Array/Pfizer, BMS and Regeneron; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: Merck, Array/Pfizer, Regeneron and BMS P.L.O.R.—patents planned, issued or pending: PLCG1 for T-cell lymphoma. Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: Novartis, Takeda, Kyowa, 4SC, Helsinn, Recordati Rare Diseases, Innate Pharma, MIRAGEN advisory boards; payments to the author, receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts or other services: MEDA (Viatris) support for the investigator-initiated clinical trial. I.M.S.—all support for the present manuscript: MSD/EORTC partly covering of trial-associated expenses to the author’s institution; consulting fees: MSD - Webpage text, personal fee; support for attending meetings and/or travel: MSD—Conference in oncology; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: Roche/Genentech—IDSM, personal fee, Pierre Fabre; Novartis—Adv board, personal fee. S.P.—grants or contracts from any entity: Almirall—to the author’s institution; ISDIN—to the author’s institution; La Roche-Posay—to the author’s institution; consulting fees: ISDIN, Almirall—to the author; Sanofi, Sun Pharma—to the author; Pfizer, Roche and Regeneron—to the author; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: ISDIN, La Roche-Posay—to the author; Pfizer, Roche and Regeneron—to the author. BMS, Sun Pharma—to the author; support for attending meetings and/or travel: Almirall—to the author; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board orAdvisory Board: Roche and Sanofi—to the author; Sun Pharma and Almirall—to the author; ISDIN, Pfizer and Novartis—to the author. Pi.Q.—payment or honoraria: BMS, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Novartis and Roche; support for attending meetings and/or travel: BMS, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Novartis and Roche. Pa.Q.—payment or honoraria: Roche, Novartis, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, BMS, MSD, Merck Serono and Pierre Fabre. P.M.—payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Amgen, Allmiral-Hermal, Beiersdorf, BMS, Medac, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Roche and Sanofi Genzyme; support for attending meetings and/or travel: Amgen, Allmiral-Hermal, Beiersdorf, BMS, Medac, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Roche and Sanofi Genzyme; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: CureVac AG. M.H.—payment or honoraria: MSD, BMS, Novartis; lecture at MSD symposium; payment for expert testimony: Pierre Fabre—A written statement to the Finnish Pricing Board; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: MSD, BMS, Novartis, Varian—Participation on National and Nordic advisory boards A.H.—Grants or contracts from any entity: clinical trial support (grant to the institution): MSD/Merck, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Novartis Pharma and Eisai; consulting fees: clinical trial support (grant to the institution): MSD/Merck, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Novartis Pharma and Eisai; Payment or honoraria: MSD/Merck, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Novartis Pharma and Eisai; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: MSD/Merck, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Novartis Pharma, Eisai, Immunocore, Replimune and Seagen. N.Y.—grants or contracts from any entity: ONO Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis Pharma K.K.，MSD K.K, Merck Serono Co., Ltd.; payment or honoraria: ONO Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis Pharma K.K.，MSD K.K., Merck Serono Co., Ltd. and Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. The other authors have no disclosures., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The Great Debate session at the 2020 Melanoma Bridge virtual congress (December 3rd-5th, Italy) featured counterpoint views from experts on five specific controversial issues in melanoma. The debates considered whether or not innate immunity is important in the response to cancer and immunotherapy, how useful are the revised American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) classification for the staging of patients, the use of sentinel node biopsy for staging patients, the use of triplet combination of targeted therapy plus immunotherapy versus combined immunotherapy, and the respective benefits of neoadjuvant versus adjuvant therapy. As is usual with Bridge congresses, the debates were assigned by meeting Chairs and positions taken by experts during the debates may not have necessarily reflected their own personal opinion.

PD-1/PD-L1-checkpoint blockade therapy is generally thought to relieve tumor cell-mediated suppression in the tumor microenvironment but PD-L1 is also expressed on non-tumor macrophages and conventional dendritic cells (cDCs). Here we show in mouse tumor models that tumor-draining lymph nodes (TDLNs) are enriched for tumor-specific PD-1 + T cells which closely associate with PD-L1 + cDCs. TDLN-targeted PD-L1-blockade induces enhanced anti-tumor T cell immunity by seeding the tumor site with progenitor-exhausted T cells, resulting in improved tumor control. Moreover, we show that abundant PD-1/PD-L1-interactions in TDLNs of nonmetastatic melanoma patients, but not those in corresponding tumors, associate with early distant disease recurrence. These findings point at a critical role for PD-L1 expression in TDLNs in governing systemic anti-tumor immunity, identifying high-risk patient groups amendable to adjuvant PD-1/PD-L1-blockade therapy., Competing Interests: Declaration of Interests The authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Lorlatinib is a third-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine kinase inhibitor with proven efficacy in patients with ALK-rearranged lung cancer previously treated with first- and second-generation ALK inhibitors. Beside compound mutations in the ALK kinase domain, other resistance mechanisms driving lorlatinib resistance remain unknown. We aimed to characterize the mechanisms of resistance to lorlatinib occurring in patients with ALK -rearranged lung cancer and design new therapeutic strategies in this setting., Experimental Design: Resistance mechanisms were investigated in 5 patients resistant to lorlatinib. Longitudinal tumor biopsies were studied using high-throughput next-generation sequencing. Patient-derived models were developed to characterize the acquired resistance mechanisms, and Ba/F3 cell mutants were generated to study the effect of novel ALK compound mutations. Drug combinatory strategies were evaluated in vitro and in vivo to overcome lorlatinib resistance., Results: Diverse biological mechanisms leading to lorlatinib resistance were identified. Epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) mediated resistance in two patient-derived cell lines and was susceptible to dual SRC and ALK inhibition. We characterized three ALK kinase domain compound mutations occurring in patients, L1196M/D1203N, F1174L/G1202R, and C1156Y/G1269A, with differential susceptibility to ALK inhibition by lorlatinib. We identified a novel bypass mechanism of resistance caused by NF2 loss-of-function mutations, conferring sensitivity to treatment with mTOR inhibitors., Conclusions: This study shows that mechanisms of resistance to lorlatinib are diverse and complex, requiring new therapeutic strategies to tailor treatment upon disease progression., (©2019 American Association for Cancer Research.)

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

PD-1 blockade represents a major therapeutic avenue in anticancer immunotherapy. Delineating mechanisms of secondary resistance to this strategy is increasingly important. Here, we identified the deleterious role of signaling via the type I interferon (IFN) receptor in tumor and antigen presenting cells, that induced the expression of nitric oxide synthase 2 (NOS2), associated with intratumor accumulation of regulatory T cells (Treg) and myeloid cells and acquired resistance to anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody (mAb). Sustained IFNβ transcription was observed in resistant tumors, in turn inducing PD-L1 and NOS2 expression in both tumor and dendritic cells (DC). Whereas PD-L1 was not involved in secondary resistance to anti-PD-1 mAb, pharmacological or genetic inhibition of NOS2 maintained long-term control of tumors by PD-1 blockade, through reduction of Treg and DC activation. Resistance to immunotherapies, including anti-PD-1 mAb in melanoma patients, was also correlated with the induction of a type I IFN signature. Hence, the role of type I IFN in response to PD-1 blockade should be revisited as sustained type I IFN signaling may contribute to resistance to therapy.

Advances in the treatment of metastatic melanoma have improved responses and survival. However, many patients continue to experience resistance or toxicity to treatment, highlighting a crucial need to identify biomarkers and understand mechanisms of response and toxicity. Neoadjuvant therapy for regional metastases might improve operability and clinical outcomes over upfront surgery and adjuvant therapy, and has become an established role for drug development and biomarker discovery in other cancers (including locally advanced breast cancer, head and neck squamous cell carcinomas, gastroesophageal cancer, and anal cancer). Patients with clinically detectable stage III melanoma are ideal candidates for neoadjuvant therapy, because they represent a high-risk patient population with poor outcomes when treated with upfront surgery alone. Neoadjuvant therapy is now an active area of research for melanoma with numerous completed and ongoing trials (since 2014) with disparate designs, endpoints, and analyses under investigation. We have, therefore, established the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium with experts in medical oncology, surgical oncology, pathology, radiation oncology, radiology, and translational research to develop recommendations for investigating neoadjuvant therapy in melanoma to align future trial designs and correlative analyses. Alignment and consistency of neoadjuvant trials will facilitate optimal data organisation for future regulatory review and strengthen translational research across the melanoma disease continuum., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Preventing the immune escape of tumor cells by blocking inhibitory checkpoints, such as the interaction between programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) and programmed death-1 (PD-1) receptor, is a powerful anticancer approach. However, many patients do not respond to checkpoint blockade. Tumor PD-L1 expression is a potential efficacy biomarker, but the complex mechanisms underlying its regulation are not completely understood. Here, we show that the eukaryotic translation initiation complex, eIF4F, which binds the 5' cap of mRNAs, regulates the surface expression of interferon-γ-induced PD-L1 on cancer cells by regulating translation of the mRNA encoding the signal transducer and activator of transcription 1 (STAT1) transcription factor. eIF4F complex formation correlates with response to immunotherapy in human melanoma. Pharmacological inhibition of eIF4A, the RNA helicase component of eIF4F, elicits powerful antitumor immune-mediated effects via PD-L1 downregulation. Thus, eIF4A inhibitors, in development as anticancer drugs, may also act as cancer immunotherapies.

Introduction: Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is increasingly recognised as an important end-point in cancer clinical trials. The concept of minimally important difference (MID) enables interpreting differences and changes in HRQOL scores in terms of clinical meaningfulness. We aimed to estimate MIDs for interpreting group-level change of European Organisation for Research and Treatment for Cancer Quality of life Questionnaire core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) scores in patients with malignant melanoma., Methods: Data were pooled from three published melanoma phase III trials. Anchors relying on clinician's ratings, e.g. performance status, were selected using correlation strength and clinical plausibility of associating the anchor/EORTC QLQ-C30 scale pair. HRQOL change was evaluated between time periods that were common to all trials: start of treatment to end of treatment and end of treatment to end of follow-up. Three change status groups were formed: deteriorated by one anchor category, improved by one anchor category and no change. Patients with greater anchor change were excluded. The mean change method and linear regression were used to estimate MIDs for change in HRQOL scores within the group and between the groups of patients, respectively., Results: MIDs varied according to QLQ-C30 scale, direction (improvement versus deterioration), anchor and period. MIDs for within-group change ranged from 4 to 18 points (improvement) and -16 to -4 points (deterioration), and MIDs for between-group change ranged from 3 to 16 points and from -16 to -3 points. MIDs for most of QLQ-C30 scales ranged from 5 to 10 points in absolute values., Conclusions: These results are useful for interpreting changes in EORTC QLQ-C30 scores over time and for performing more accurate sample size calculations in adjuvant melanoma settings., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Sarcomas are rare mesenchymal malignancies whose pathogenesis is poorly understood; both environmental and genetic risk factors could contribute to their aetiology., Methods and Results: We performed whole-exome sequencing (WES) in a familial aggregation of three individuals affected with soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) without TP53 mutation (Li-Fraumeni-like, LFL) and found a shared pathogenic mutation in CDKN2A tumour suppressor gene. We searched for individuals with sarcoma among 474 melanoma-prone families with a CDKN2A -/+ genotype and for CDKN2A mutations in 190 TP53 -negative LFL families where the index case was a sarcoma. Including the initial family, eight independent sarcoma cases carried a germline mutation in the CDKN2A /p16 INK4A gene. In five out of seven formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded sarcomas, heterozygosity was lost at germline CDKN2A mutations sites demonstrating complete loss of function. As sarcomas are rare in CDKN2A /p16 INK4A carriers, we searched in constitutional WES of nine carriers for potential modifying rare variants and identified three in platelet-derived growth factor receptor ( PDGFRA ) gene. Molecular modelling showed that two never-described variants could impact the PDGFRA extracellular domain structure., Conclusion: Germline mutations in CDKN2A /P16 INK4A , a gene known to predispose to hereditary melanoma, pancreatic cancer and tobacco-related cancers, account also for a subset of hereditary sarcoma. In addition, we identified PDGFRA as a candidate modifier gene., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Background: Nodal staging with sentinel node biopsy (SNB) and completion lymph node dissection (CLND) provides prognostic information to patients with melanoma and their physicians. It is not known whether the timing of CLND is associated with survival outcome and/or CLND tumour load. This study investigated whether CLND timing is associated with CLND tumour load, disease-free survival (DFS) and/or melanoma-specific survival (MSS)., Methods: A retrospective cohort of patients with SNB-positive melanoma from nine European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Melanoma Group centres undergoing surgery between 1993 and 2009 were examined. Patients were selected based on availability of CLND and follow-up data. The CLND interval was defined as the number of days between diagnosis and CLND. Patient and tumour characteristics were collected. Five-year DFS and MSS rates were calculated. Cox and logistic regression analysis were performed, adjusting for known prognostic/predictive indicators., Results: A total of 784 patients were included in the study. Their median age was 51 (i.q.r. 40-62) years, and 418 patients (53·3 per cent) were men. Median Breslow thickness was 3·0 (i.q.r. 2·0-5·0) mm, and 148 patients (18·9 per cent) had a residual tumour load. Median CLND interval was 84 (i.q.r. 65-105) days. Five-year DFS and MSS rates were not significantly different for patients operated on with a median CLND interval of less than 84 days and those with an interval of at least 84 days (DFS: 54·2 versus 53·3 per cent respectively; MSS: 66·9 versus 65·1 per cent). In a multivariable Cox model, CLND interval was not a significant prognostic indicator. CLND interval was negatively correlated with identification of positive non-sentinel nodes, but following adjustment for known risk factors this effect was no longer found., Conclusion: The time interval between diagnosis of melanoma and CLND did not influence CLND tumour load, DFS or MSS., (© 2017 BJS Society Ltd Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Existing clinical, anatomopathological and molecular biomarkers fail to reliably predict the prognosis of cutaneous melanoma. Biomarkers for determining which patients receive adjuvant therapies are needed. The emergence of new technologies and the discovery of new immune populations with different prognostic values allow the immune network in the tumor to be better understood. Importantly, new molecules identified and expressed by immune cells have been shown to reduce the antitumor immune efficacy of therapies, prompting researchers to develop antibodies targeting these so-called "immune checkpoints", which have now entered the oncotherapeutic armamentarium.

Raman spectroscopy is a noninvasive and label-free optical technique that provides detailed information about the molecular composition of a sample. In this study, we evaluated the potential of Raman spectroscopy to predict skin toxicity due to tyrosine kinase inhibitors treatment. We acquired Raman spectra of skin of patients undergoing treatment with MEK, EGFR, or BRAF inhibitors, which are known to induce severe skin toxicity; for this pilot study, three patients were included for each inhibitor. Our algorithm, based on partial least squares-discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) and cross-validation by bootstrapping, discriminated to variable degrees spectra from patient suffering and not suffering cutaneous adverse events. For MEK and EGFR inhibitors, discriminative power was more than 90% in the viable epidermis skin layer; whereas for BRAF inhibitors, discriminative power was 71%. There was a 81.5% correlation between blood drug concentration and Raman signature of skin in the case of EGFR inhibitors and viable epidermis skin layer. Our results demonstrate the power of Raman spectroscopy to detect apparition of skin toxicity in patients treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors at levels not detectable via dermatological inspection and histological evaluation. Cancer Res; 77(2); 557-65. ©2016 AACR., (©2016 American Association for Cancer Research.)