Search

Background Treatment beyond progression with immunotherapy may be appropriate in selected patients based on the potential for late responses. The aim of this systematic review was to explore the impact of treatment beyond progression in patients receiving an anti-PD-1/PD-L1 based regimen for an advanced solid tumor. Methods A systematic literature search was performed to identify prospective clinical trials reporting data on overall response rate by immune-related criteria and/or the number of patients treated beyond conventional criteria-defined PD and/or the number of patients achieving a clinical benefit after an initial PD with regimens including an anti-PD-1/PD-L1 agent which received the FDA approval for the treatment of an advanced solid tumor. Results 254 (4.6%) responses after an initial RECIST-defined progressive disease were observed among 5588 patients, based on 35 trials included in our analysis reporting this information. The overall rate of patients receiving treatment beyond progressive disease was 30.2%, based on data on 5334 patients enrolled in 36 trials, and the rate of patients who achieved an unconventional response among those treated beyond progressive disease was 19.7% (based on 25 trials for a total of 853 patients). Conclusion The results of our systematic review support the clinical relevance of unconventional responses to anti-PD-1/PD-L1-based regimens; however, most publications provided only partial information regarding immune-related clinical activity, or did not provide any information at all, highlighting the need of a more comprehensive report of such data in trials investigating immunotherapy for the treatment of patients with advanced tumors.

Data on spectrum and grade of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in long-term responders to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are lacking.We performed a retrospective multicenter study to characterized irAEs occurring after a 12-months minimum treatment period with PD-(L)1 ICIs in advanced cancer patients. IrAEs were categorized into “early” (≤12 months) and “late” (>12 months).From September 2013 to October 2019, 436 consecutive patients were evaluated. 223 experienced any grade early-irAEs (51.1%), while 132 experienced any grade late-irAEs (30.3%) (p < 0.0001). Among the latter, 29 (22%) experienced a recurrence of an early-irAEs, while 103 (78%) experienced de novo late-irAEs involving different system/organ. Among patients with late-irAEs, 21 experienced G3/G4 irAEs (4.8%). Median time to onset of early-irAEs was 3.4 months (95%CI: 2.8-4.2), while the median time to onset of late-irAEs was 16.6 months (95%CI: 15.8-17.6). Cumulative time-adjusted risk of disease progression according to both the early-irAEs (HR = 0.63 [95%CI: 0.30-1.29], p = 0.204) and late-irAEs occurrence revealed no statistically significant differences (HR = 0.75 [95%CI: 0.37-1.56], p = 0.452). Also the time-adjusted cumulative risk of death according to both early-irAEs (HR = 0.79 [95%CI: 0.34-1.86], p = 0.598) and late-irAEs (HR = 0.92 [95%CI: 0.49-1.74], p = 0.811) did not show statistically significant differences.Although less frequent than early-irAEs, late-irAEs are quite common in long responders to PD-(L)1 ICIs, and are different in terms of spectrum and grade. Time-adjusted analysis revealed that the cumulative risk of disease progression and death were not significantly reduced in patients who experienced late-irAEs.

Advanced age is associated with comorbidities and immune system impairment, which may influence the efficacy and tolerability of immune checkpoint inhibitors. There is evidence that anti-PD1 antibodies in advanced melanoma are equally effective in patients65 years. However, data on patients75 years are lacking as co-morbidities and logistics often exclude them from clinical trials.We retrospectively reviewed the clinical records of older patients with advanced melanoma undergoing any-line treatment with an anti-PD1 (nivolumab/pembrolizumab) to investigate its clinical effectiveness and toxicity in a real-life setting. Clinical response was assessed using RECIST criteria and toxicity was evaluated according to CTCAE 4.0. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method and the Cox model was used to assess potential prognostic factors.174 patients were considered; 59.2% males, median age 79 years (range 75-93). The majority had a performance status of 0 and normal lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels (55.2% and 52.4%, respectively). 69.1% had multiple co-morbidities. 56.9% received nivolumab. 36.7% of cases showed an objective response and the disease control rate was 56.3%. Median OS was 17.2 months [95% CI: 8.87-not reached] and a better prognosis was observed for patients with normal LDH (p .001) and lower performance status (p .001). Treatment was well tolerated, only 11 patients experiencing severe (grade 3/4) toxicity. There were no treatment-related deaths. Adverse events were managed with corticosteroids and additional immunosuppressive agents were unnecessary.Anti-PD1 antibodies appear effective and well tolerated in older patients with advanced melanoma.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors, including ipilimumab (IPI), achieve a clinical benefit in a small proportion of melanoma patients highlighting the need to investigate predictive biomarkers. In this study, we characterized tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), focusing on the CTLA-4+ subset, and evaluated their possible predictive significance. We characterized TIL density, cell type, and localization in 40 melanoma lesions from 17 patients treated with IPI. Associations of TILs with IPI timing, tissue localization, and response to IPI were estimated using a linear mixed-effects modelling approach. We found that most of TIL subsets increased in situ upon IPI therapy, with particular reference to FoxP3+ cells. TILs and TIL subsets, such as CD3+, CD45RO+, CTLA-4+, CD4+, CD8+ T cells, CD20+ B cells, and NKp46+ NK cells, showed significantly different spatial distributions in the tumor microenvironment being higher at the invasive margin (IM) as compared to the tumor center (TC) (P value

Durch die Weiterentwicklung der Therapien konnten die Ergebnisse von Patienten mit nicht kleinzelligem Lungenkarzinom (NSCLC) in den letzten Jahren deutlich verbessert werden. Während molekulare zielgerichtete Therapien bei bestimmten Subgruppen von Patienten wirksam sind, hatten insbesondere Immuncheckpoint-Inhibitoren (ICIs) starken Einfluss auf die Outcomes von einem Großteil der Patienten mit nicht kleinzelligem Lungenkarzinom. Die Aktivität von Nivolumab wurde anfangs unabhängig von prädiktiven Biomarkern bewertet; in den nachfolgenden zulassungsrelevanten Studien mit anderen PD-1/PD-L1-Inhibitoren bei vorbehandelten Patienten mit fortgeschrittenem NSCLC (Atezolizumab in der OAK-Studie und Pembrolizumab in der KEYNOTE-010-Studie) wurde dagegen erstmals über eine Korrelation von klinischem Outcome und PD-L1-Expression berichtet. Die PD-L1-Expression allein reichte jedoch nicht aus, um Patienten auszuwählen, die möglicherweise von einer Immuntherapie profitieren. In zahlreichen Studien wurde versucht, präzisere, aus Tumorgewebe oder dem peripheren Blut stammende Marker zu finden. In der vorliegenden Übersichtsarbeit sollen sämtliche Charakteristika des Immunogramms, die als prädiktive Biomarker für das Ansprechen auf Immuncheckpoint-Inhibitoren herangezogen werden können, untersucht werden. Ferner beschreiben wir die wichtigste genetische Veränderung, die als Prädiktor für die Wirksamkeit der Immuntherapie dienen könnte.

The past 5 years have witnessed the results of many practice-changing studies that have dramatically improved the landscape of adjuvant therapy in patients with resected, high-risk melanoma. After a 20-year era of adjuvant interferon, the anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 immune-checkpoint inhibitors, and MAPK-directed targeted therapy brought a revolution into the adjuvant treatment of melanoma. These results came along with the practice-changing results of two large multicenter studies showing no benefit in terms of overall survival for completion lymph node dissection after positive sentinel node biopsy. In this review, we summarized the current state of the art of the adjuvant treatment of high-risk melanoma, with a view on future perspectives.

Melanoma has always been described as an immunogenic tumor. Despite that, until 2011 the standard of care in metastatic melanoma was chemotherapy, with low response rates and no clear impact on overall survival. Melanoma was the first cancer type to drive the use of immune-checkpoint inhibitors into clinical practice, which revolutionized the therapeutic paradigm not only in melanoma, but also in an increasing number of tumors. In this review, the preclinical bases and the main clinical studies that led to the approval of immune-checkpoint inhibitors in advanced melanoma will be described with insights on novel combinations of treatments and on prognostic and predictive biomarkers.

BackgroundRetifanlimab (INCMGA00012) is a humanized, hinge-stabilized immunoglobulin G4 kappa (IgG4κ), anti-programmed cell death protein (PD)-1 monoclonal antibody with safety and clinical pharmacology that are characteristic for the class. Evaluation of retifanlimab in solid tumors is under investigation in phase 2 and 3 studies. POD1UM-201 is an open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase 2 study evaluating the efficacy and safety of retifanlimab in patients with chemotherapy-naïve or chemotherapy-refractory advanced/metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC). Updated results from the chemotherapy-naïve cohort are reported here.MethodsEligible patients were ≥18 years of age, had metastatic or recurrent unresectable loco-regional MCC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1, measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1, and had not received prior systemic treatment for MCC. Retifanlimab 500 mg IV every 4 weeks (Q4W) was administered for up to 2 years. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) assessed by independent central review per RECIST v1.1. Secondary endpoints included duration of response, disease control rate (DCR; defined as proportion of patients with either an objective response or stable disease lasting at least 6 months), progression-free survival, overall survival, safety, and pharmacokinetics.ResultsAs of April 16, 2021, 87 patients with chemotherapy-naïve advanced/metastatic MCC had received retifanlimab. Per protocol, the primary efficacy analyses are based on the first 65 patients assessed. At the data cutoff, 34 of these 65 patients (52.3%) were on treatment; 4 (6.2%) had completed treatment; and 27 (41.5%) had discontinued treatment for reasons including disease progression (18 [27.7%]), adverse event (AE; 7 [10.8%]), death (1 [1.5%]), and physician decision (1 [1.5%]). The ORR in these patients was 46.2% (n=30: complete response, 8 [12.3%]; partial response, 22 [33.8%]). The DCR was 53.8% (n=35). Other secondary efficacy results are not yet mature. Among all treated patients (n=87), 66 (75.9%) had a treatment-emergent AE (TEAE), 25 (28.7%) had a grade ≥3 TEAE, and 12 (13.8%) had a grade ≥3 treatment-related AE. Twenty-three patients (26.4%) had an immune-related AE (irAE), and 8 (9.2%) had a grade ≥3 irAE. Four patients (4.6%) discontinued treatment due to irAEs (peripheral sensorimotor neuropathy, pancreatitis, eosinophilic fasciitis, and polyarthritis [each n=1]). One patient (1.1%) had a grade 3 infusion reaction.ConclusionsThese data from the POD1UM-201 trial show that retifanlimab monotherapy at 500 mg Q4W continues to demonstrate promising clinical activity and safety in patients with advanced/metastatic chemotherapy-naïve MCC. Updated results will be presented at the meeting.AcknowledgementsThe study is sponsored by Incyte Corporation (Wilmington, DE). Statistical support was provided by Xiaohan Xu of Incyte Corporation. Editorial assistance was provided by Matthew Bidgood of Envision Pharma Group (Philadelphia, PA, USA).Trial RegistrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT03599713; EudraCT 2018-001627-39Ethics ApprovalThe study was approved by institutional review boards or independent ethics committees in Canada (McGill University Health Center-Research Ethics Board [MP-37-2019-5103, MEO-37-2019-1616]; Ontario Cancer Research Ethics Board [1728]; Health Research Ethics Board of Alberta – Cancer Committee [HREBA.CC-19-0004, HREBA.CC-19-0020]); Czech Republic (Eticka komise Fakultni nemocnice Kralovske Vinohrady, Eticka komise IKEM a FTNsP, Eticka komise Nemocnice Na Bulovce, Statni ustav pro kontrolu leciv, Eticka komise FN a LF UP Olomouc [169/18MEK24, LEK/04/07/2018, (L-18-85) 8522/23.3.2021, 22.3.2021/9965/EK-Z]); France (Comité de Protection des Personnes Ile de France X [CNRIPH : 18.11.19.49212/Id. 2043]; Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament et des Produits de Santé); Germany (Ethik-Kommission der Medizinischen Fakultaet der Universitaet Duisburg-Essen [18-8371-AF]; Bundesamt fuer Strahlenschutz; Paul-Ehrlich Institute); Hungary (Egeszsegugyi Tudomanyos Tanacs Klinikai Farmakologiai Etikai Bizottsaga [IV/2407-0/2021-EKL, OGYÉI/11697-2/2021]; Orszagos Gyogyszereszeti es Elelmezes-egeszsegugyi Intezet); Italy (Comitato Etico IRCCS Pascale Napoli [116/21 E - 87/18]; Comitato Etico IRCCS di Candiolo [232/2021]; Istituto Tumori Giovanni Paolo II IRCCS Ospedale Oncologico Bari [736/CE]; Comitato Etico Locale per la Sperim. Clin. dei Medicinali dell’Az. Osp.ra Univ.ria Senese di Siena [14107]; Comitato Etico dell’IRCCS Istituto Nazionale per la Ricerca sul Cancro di Genova [389/2018 - 24/05/2021]; Comitato etico degli IRCCS Istituto Europeo di Oncologia e Centro Cardiologico Monzino [IEO 948 - RE3065/IB Edition 7 dated 10Nov2020 (SA7)]; Comitato Etico, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, .c. Medicina Oncologica 1 – Fondazio [INT 01/19]; Comitato Etico IRCCS Istituto Oncologico Veneto di Padova [EM 109/2021]; Comitato Etico dell’IRCCS Istituto Dermopatico dell’Immacolata Ospedale Generale S. Carlo di Roma [550/7]; AIFA – Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco [0040152-01/04/2021-AIFA-AIFA_USC-P]; Comitatao Etico Policlinico di Modena [1017/2018/FARM/AOUMO - EMENDAMENTO SOSTANZIALE IB EDIZIONE 7 DEL 10/11/20 (201800162739-010) (p. 9869/21)]); Poland (Komisja Bioetyczna przy Centrum Onkologii [no. 55/2019]; Office for Registration of Medicinal Products, Medical Devices and Biocidal Products [UR/DBL/D/328/2019]); Spain (CEIC Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañon [280/18]; Agencia Española del Medicamento y Productos Sanitarios); Switzerland (Kantonale Ethikkommission Zürich (KEK-Zürich) [2019-00200]; Swissmedic [2019DR2035]); United Kingdom (North East – York Research Ethics Committee [248465]; Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency; Health Research Authority); United States (Copernicus Group IRB; Western Institutional Review Board [20181738, Work order number -– IQV1-18-309]; Roswell Park Cancer Institute IRB [STUDY00000802/P 75918]; Inova Institutional Review Board, Human Research Protection Program; Stanford IRB Research Compliance Office [48198]; Rush University Medical Center [18072304-IRB01]; University of Miami IRB; Mayo Clinic IRB – Rochester).

Background Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionised clinical practice in oncology in the last years, leading to a survival benefit in several tumour types. To investigate whether these benefits are associated with improved quality of life, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between ICIs and standard chemotherapy (CT) in patients with advanced solid tumours. Methods Clinical trials comparing the efficacy of ICIs (either programmed death receptor-1 and programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors or cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 inhibitors, as single agent or in combination) versus CT were included. Trials evaluating treatment with ICIs plus CT versus CT alone were also included, whereas studies in which the control arm included other anticancer agents (such as targeted therapy and other ICIs) or placebo alone were excluded. The aim of our meta-analysis was to compare PROs in subjects treated with ICIs or ICIs plus CT (intervention) with those reported by patients receiving CT (control). The co-primary endpoints were time from baseline to first deterioration in PROs, defined as the time from baseline to the first clinically significant deterioration in PROs, and the changes in PROs from baseline to follow-up between ICI and CT treatment groups (PROSPERO registration number CRD42021247440). Results A total of 8341 patients from 17 randomised trials of ICI versus CT were included in the analysis. Treatment with ICI delayed clinical deterioration over standard CT in Global Health Status/QoL EORTC QLQ-C30 (hazard ratio [HR] 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74–0.89), and in both EQ-5D utility index (HR 0.65; 95% CI, 0.52–0.82) and EQ-5D visual analogue scale (VAS; HR 0.70; 95% CI, 0.61–0.80). The difference in mean change between the ICI-treated group and the CT-treated group was 5.82 (95% CI, 4.11–7.53) in favour of ICI. Similarly, in the EQ-5D, the mean change differences favoured treatment with ICIs in both Utility Index and VAS, with differences of 0.05 (95% CI, 0.03–0.07) and 5.41 (95% CI, 3.39–7.43), respectively. Conclusions ICIs are associated with higher levels of quality of life and longer time to clinical deterioration on several PROs scales compared with CT in different types of solid tumours.

Background There is a concern that influenza vaccination may increase the incidence of immune‐related adverse events in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the available data on the safety and efficacy of influenza vaccination in cancer patients receiving ICIs. Methods Studies reporting safety and efficacy outcomes of influenza vaccination in cancer patients receiving ICIs were included. Only descriptive statistics were conducted to obtain a pooled rate of immune‐related adverse events in vaccinated patients. Results Ten studies assessing the safety and eight assessing the efficacy of influenza vaccination in cancer patients receiving ICIs were identified, for a total of 1124 and 986 vaccinated patients, respectively. Most patients had melanoma or lung cancer and received a single agent anti‐PD‐1, but also other tumour types and immunotherapy combinations were represented. No severe vaccination‐related toxicities were reported. The pooled incidence of any grade immune checkpoint inhibitor–related adverse events was 28.9%. In the 6 studies specifying the incidence of grade 3‐4 toxicities, the pooled incidence was 7.5%. No grade 5 toxicities were reported. No pooled descriptive analysis was conducted in studies reporting efficacy outcomes due to the heterogeneity of endpoints and data reporting. Nevertheless, among the eight studies included, seven reported positive efficacy outcomes of influenza vaccination. Conclusion The results of this systematic review support the safety and efficacy of influenza vaccination in cancer patients receiving ICIs. These results are particularly relevant in the context of the SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic.

Simple Summary In our study, we retrospectively collected data of patients with germline CDKN2A pathogenic variants who received targeted therapy for advanced melanoma across four European centers. Since loss of CDKN2A function may intrinsically limit the activity of MAPK-directed targeted therapy, we decided to assess whether patients with germline CDKN2A pathogenic variants may achieve suboptimal results with BRAF and MEK inhibitors. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study reporting on patients with BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma and a germline CDKN2A pathogenic variant who received treatment with BRAF with or without MEK inhibitors. Despite the limitations of our study, mostly due to the rare frequency of CDKN2A pathogenic variants, a challenge for the conduction of prospective trials with proper sample size, our results support treatment with targeted therapy in this subset of patients. Abstract Inherited pathogenic variants (PVs) in the CDKN2A tumor suppressor gene are among the strongest risk factors for cutaneous melanoma. Dysregulation of the p16/RB1 pathway may intrinsically limit the activity of MAPK-directed therapy due to the interplay between the two pathways. In our study, we assessed, for the first time, whether patients with germline CDKN2A PVs achieve suboptimal results with BRAF inhibitors (BRAFi)+/−MEK inhibitors (MEKi). We compared the response rate of nineteen CDKN2A PVs carriers who received first-line treatment with BRAFi+/−MEKi with an expected rate derived from phase III trials and “real-world” studies. We observed partial response in 16/19 patients (84%), and no complete responses. The overall response rate was higher than that expected from phase III trials (66%), although not statistically significant (p-value = 0.143; 95% CI = 0.60–0.97); the difference was statistically significant (p-value = 0.019; 95% CI = 0.62–0.97) in the comparison with real-world studies (57%). The clinical activity of BRAFi+/−MEKi in patients with germline CDKN2A PV was not inferior to that of clinical trials and real-world studies, which is of primary importance for clinical management and genetic counseling of this subgroup of patients.

Background The favourable safety profile and the increasing confidence with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) might have boosted their prescription in frail patients with short life expectancies, who usually are not treated with standard chemotherapy. Methods The present analysis aims to describe clinicians’ attitudes towards ICIs administration during late stages of life within a multicenter cohort of advanced cancer patients treated with single agent PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors in Italy. Results Overall, 1149 patients with advanced cancer who received single agent PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors were screened. The final study population consisted of 567 deceased patients. 166 patients (29.3%) had received ICIs within 30 days of death; among them there was a significantly higher proportion of patients with ECOG-PS ≥ 2 (28.3% vs 11.5%, p Conclusion Our results confirmed a trend toward an increasing ICIs prescription in frail patients, during the late stages of life. Caution should be exercised when evaluating an ICI treatment for patients with a poor PS and a high burden of disease.

Simple Summary Despite improvements in the early identification and successful control of primary uveal melanoma, 50% of patients will develop metastatic disease with only marginal improvements in survival. This review focuses on the tumor microenvironment and the cross-talk between tumor and immune cells in a tumor characterized by low mutational load, the induction of immune-suppressive cells, and the expression of alternative immune checkpoint molecules. The choice of combining different strategies of immunotherapy remains a feasible and promising option on selected patients. Abstract Uveal melanoma (UM), though a rare form of melanoma, is the most common intraocular tumor in adults. Conventional therapies of primary tumors lead to an excellent local control, but 50% of patients develop metastases, in most cases with lethal outcome. Somatic driver mutations that act on the MAP-kinase pathway have been identified, yet targeted therapies show little efficacy in the clinics. No drugs are currently available for the G protein alpha subunits GNAQ and GNA11, which are the most frequent driver mutations in UM. Drugs targeting the YAP–TAZ pathway that is also activated in UM, the tumor-suppressor gene BRCA1 Associated Protein 1 (BAP1) and the Splicing Factor 3b Subunit 1 gene (SF3B1) whose mutations are associated with metastatic risk, have not been developed yet. Immunotherapy is highly effective in cutaneous melanoma but yields only poor results in the treatment of UM: anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 blocking antibodies did not meet the expectations except for isolated cases. Here, we discuss how the improved knowledge of the tumor microenvironment and of the cross-talk between tumor and immune cells could help to reshape anti-tumor immune responses to overcome the intrinsic resistance to immune checkpoint blockers of UM. We critically review the dogma of low mutational load, the induction of immune-suppressive cells, and the expression of alternative immune checkpoint molecules. We argue that immunotherapy might still be an option for the treatment of UM.

Concomitant medications are known to impact on clinical outcomes of patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We aimed weighing the role of different concomitant baseline medications to create a drug-based prognostic score.We evaluated concomitant baseline medications at immunotherapy initiation for their impact on objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in a single-institution cohort of patients with advanced cancer treated with ICIs (training cohort, N = 217), and a drug-based prognostic score with the drugs resulting significantly impacting the OS was computed. Secondly, we externally validated the score in a large multicenter external cohort (n = 1012).In the training cohort (n = 217), the median age was 69 years (range: 32-89), and the primary tumours were non-small-cell lung cancer (70%), melanoma (14.7%), renal cell carcinoma (9.2%) and others (6%). Among baseline medications, corticosteroids (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.60-3.30), systemic antibiotics (HR = 2.07; 95% CI: 1.31-3.25) and proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) (HR = 1.57; 95% CI: 1.13-2.18) were significantly associated with OS. The prognostic score was calculated using these three drug classes, defining good, intermediate and poor prognosis patients. Within the training cohort, OS (p 0.0001), PFS (p 0.0001) and ORR (p = 0.0297) were significantly distinguished by the score stratification. The prognostic value of the score was also demonstrated in terms of OS (p 0.0001), PFS (p 0.0001) and ORR (p = 0.0006) within the external cohort.Cumulative exposure to corticosteroids, antibiotics and PPIs (three likely microbiota-modulating drugs) leads to progressively worse outcomes after ICI therapy. We propose a simple score that can help stratifying patients in routine practice and clinical trials of ICIs.

Ipilimumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that activates the immune system by targeting the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4), a co-receptor with inhibitory properties expressed by T lymphocytes. Ipilimumab was the first immune-checkpoint inhibitor which received an indication by the regulatory agencies for the treatment of a solid tumor after the results of a phase 3 trial in patients with advanced melanoma. Later, but only in the United States, it was also approved by the FDA for the adjuvant treatment of high-risk, resected melanoma. Ipilimumab lost its role as a frontline and adjuvant treatment of patients with melanoma after the results of phase 3 trials with anti-PD-1 drugs, which outperformed the anti-CTLA-4 agent in terms of both efficacy and safety. The purpose of this chapter is to report the most relevant results of ipilimumab from selected clinical trials and real world studies, to discuss how the introduction of ipilimumab into clinical practice challenged the evaluation of tumor response and management of toxicity, and to discuss the role of ipilimumab in the era of anti-PD-1 agents.

Melanoma is the skin cancer with the highest malignant potential. Early diagnosis is vital for a good prognosis. Indeed, the 5-year survival rate can range from 99% for a thin melanoma to about 85% in case of a thick and ulcerated melanoma.

The past few years have witnessed the practice-changing results of adjuvant clinical trials that have dramatically improved the outcomes of patients with resected, high-risk melanoma. After a 20-year era of adjuvant interferon, checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy and BRAF+MEK inhibitors revolutionized the management of melanoma in everyday clinical practice. In this review, we summarize the current state of the art of the adjuvant treatment of high-risk melanoma, with a view on the future developments in the field such as the translation of these treatments into the neoadjuvant setting.

Staging is a critical tool to assess the prognosis of patients and to assist physicians in making clinical decisions in everyday clinical practice. The new eighth edition of the AJCC (American Joint Committee on Cancer) melanoma staging system was introduced into clinical practice on January 1st, 2018, bringing many changes in every disease stage compared with the seventh edition (introduced in 2009 and implemented in 2010).

Introduction: In recent years, the introduction of targeted therapy and immunotherapy into clinical practice has radically changed the management of advanced melanoma. More recently, these treatments also became the standard of care in the adjuvant setting. However, high-risk resectable stage III melanoma (i.e. with clinically detected regional lymph node involvement and/or satellites/in transit metastases) still has a high risk of relapse, even after adjuvant treatment, suggesting that the activity of immunotherapy and targeted therapy may play a relevant role in a neoadjuvant setting.Area covered: In this review, we discuss the results of the main clinical trials conducted in the neoadjuvant setting for patients with resectable stage III and stage IV melanoma, with a focus on the hot topics and a look at the future perspectives of the field.Expert opinion: The long-term effects of immunotherapy and the high response rate of targeted therapy provided the strong rationale to start neoadjuvant clinical trials for patients with resectable stage III and oligometastatic stage IV melanoma. Neoadjuvant therapy may play an important role not only for its possible impact on overall survival, but also as a predictive biological marker to allow for a more accurate personalization of adjuvant treatments.

In recent years, the evolution of treatments has made it possible to significantly improve the outcomes of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In particular, while molecular targeted therapies are effective in specific patient sub-groups, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have greatly influenced the outcomes of a large proportion of NSCLC patients. While nivolumab activity was initially assessed irrespective of predictive biomarkers, subsequent pivotal studies involving other PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in pre-treated advanced NSCLC (atezolizumab within the OAK study and pembrolizumab in the Keynote 010 study) reported the first correlations between clinical outcomes and PD-L1 expression. However, PD-L1 could not be sufficient on its own to select patients who may benefit from immunotherapy. Many studies have tried to discover more precise markers that are derived from tumor tissue or from peripheral blood. This review aims to analyze any characteristics of the immunogram that could be used as a predictive biomarker for response to ICIs. Furthermore, we describe the most important genetic alteration that might predict the activity of immunotherapy.

The contribution of recently established or candidate susceptibility genes to melanoma missing heritability has yet to be determined. Multigene panel testing could increase diagnostic yield and better define the role of candidate genes. We characterized 273 CDKN2A/ARF and CDK4-negative probands through a custom-designed targeted gene panel that included CDKN2A/ARF, CDK4, ACD, BAP1, MITF, POT1, TERF2IP, ATM, and PALB2. Co-segregation, loss of heterozygosity (LOH)/protein expression analysis, and splicing characterization were performed to improve variant classification. We identified 16 (5.9%) pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants in established high/medium penetrance cutaneous melanoma susceptibility genes (BAP1, POT1, ACD, MITF, and TERF2IP), including two novel variants in BAP1 and 4 in POT1. We also found four deleterious and five likely deleterious variants in ATM (3.3%). Thus, including potentially deleterious variants in ATM increased the diagnostic yield to about 9%. Inclusion of rare variants of uncertain significance would increase the overall detection yield to 14%. At least 10% of melanoma missing heritability may be explained through panel testing in our population. To our knowledge, this is the highest frequency of putative ATM deleterious variants reported in melanoma families, suggesting a possible role in melanoma susceptibility, which needs further investigation.

// Riccardo Marconcini 1 , Francesco Spagnolo 2 , Luigia Stefania Stucci 3 , Simone Ribero 4 , Elena Marra 4 , Francesco De Rosa 5 , Virginia Picasso 2 , Lorenza Di Guardo 6 , Carolina Cimminiello 6 , Stefano Cavalieri 6 , Laura Orgiano 7 , Enrica Tanda 2 , Laura Spano 2 , Alfredo Falcone 1 and Paola Queirolo 2 for the Italian Melanoma Intergroup (IMI) 1 Unit of Medical Oncology 2, Azienda Ospedaliera-Universitaria Pisana, Department of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Italy 2 Department of Medical Oncology, IRCCS AOU San Martino-Istituto Nazionale per la Ricerca sul Cancro, Genova, Italy 3 Medical Oncology Unit, Department of Biomedical Sciences and Clinical Oncology, University of Bari, Bari, Italy 4 Dermatologic Clinic, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy 5 Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori, IRST IRCCS, Meldola, Italy 6 Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy 7 AOU Cagliari, Department of Medical Oncology, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy Correspondence to: Riccardo Marconcini, email: marconcini.riccardo@gmail.com Keywords: melanoma; immunotherapy; ipilimumab; pembrolizumab; nivolumab Received: April 23, 2017 Accepted: November 03, 2017 Published: January 03, 2018 ABSTRACT Metastatic melanoma was the first malignancy in which immune checkpoint inhibitors demonstrated their successful efficacy. Currently, the knowledge on the interaction between the immune system and malignant disease is steadily increasing and new drugs and therapeutic strategies are overlooking in the clinical scenario. To provide a comprehensive overview of immune modulating drugs currently available in the treatment of melanoma as well as to discuss of possible future strategies in the metastatic melanoma setting, the present review aims at analyzing controversial aspects about the optimal immunomodulating treatment sequences, the search for biomarkers of efficacy of immunocheckpoint inhibitors, and innovative combinations of drugs currently under investigation.

The expression of the immune checkpoint molecule CTLA-4 has been almost exclusively studied in the T cell lineage, but increasing evidence has shown its expression on tumors with implications for immunotherapy. To date, the degree of expression of CTLA-4 on tumor cells as a predictive biomarker of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors has not been studied. In this report, we analyzed this issue in melanoma patients treated with CTLA-4 inhibitor Ipilimumab (IPI). We show that the level of CTLA-4 expression on melanoma cells is higher than that on tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) and it is associated with clinical response to IPI therapy supporting the idea of its possible role as a predictive biomarker.

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in cancer patients is rapidly growing. However, the potential impact of some widely used concomitant medications is still largely unclear. Emerging data suggest that gut microbiota may affect the efficacy of ICIs, leading to the hypothesis that concurrent antibiotics and proton pump inhibitors use could have a detrimental effect. In addition, steroid use might potentially impair the activity of immunotherapy, due its known immunosuppressive effects, and some safety concerns have been raised in patients receiving commonly used vaccination during ICIs. However, all randomized trials evaluating ICIs consistently excluded patients receiving high corticosteroid doses and data regarding other concomitant medications are lacking. Recently, several retrospective studies have tried to address this unmet medical need. Herein we discuss the latest evidence on the influence of these medications, critically analyzing the data reported so far and the possible implications in our clinical practice.