Search

Melanoma patient remains a challenging for the radiologist, due to the difficulty related to the management of a patient more often in an advanced stage of the disease. It is necessary to determine a stratification of risk, optimizing the means, with diagnostic tools that should be optimized in relation to the type of patient, and improving knowledge. Staging and risk assessment procedures are determined by disease presentation at diagnosis. Melanoma staging is a critical tool to assist clinical decision-making and prognostic assessment. It is used for clinical trial design, eligibility, stratification, and analysis. The current standard for regional lymph nodes staging is represented by the sentinel lymph node excision biopsy procedure. For staging of distant metastases, PET-CT has the highest sensitivity and diagnostic odds ratio. Similar trend is observed during melanoma surveillance. The advent of immunotherapy, which has improved patient outcome, however, has determined new issues for radiologists, partly due to atypical response patterns, partly due to adverse reactions that must be identified as soon as possible for the correct management of the patient. The main objectives of the new ir-criteria are to standardize the assessment between different trials. However, these ir-criteria do not take into account all cases of atypical response patterns, as hyperprogression or dissociated responses. None of these criteria has actually been uniformly adopted in routine. The immune-related adverse events (irAEs) can involve various organs from head to toe. It is crucial for radiologists to know the imaging appearances of this condition, to exclude recurrent or progressive disease and for pneumonitis, since it could be potentially life-threatening toxicity, resulting in pneumonitis-related deaths in early phase trials, to allow a proper patient management.

INTRODUCTION The development of new targeted therapies has considerably changed the therapeutic paradigm of melanoma, significantly increasing overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). However, skin-related adverse sequelae might occur and impact on patients' quality of life. AREAS COVERED In this article we will cover the most important dermatological toxicities related to BRAF and MEK-inhibitors, along with updated management strategies. EXPERT OPINION BRAF inhibitors have represented a revolution in the treatment of melanoma. They have improved the outcome of the disease and therefore represent an important option in the management and care of patients with advanced melanoma. Skin toxicity (especially the onset of squamous skin carcinomas) has been considered a major cutaneous side effect and, although the addition of MEK inhibitors in combination has significantly reduced the incidence of skin sequelae, serious skin adverse events might develop anyway and impact significantly on patients'quality of life and on national health system budget. The introduction of BRAF and MEK inhibitors as a new effective adjuvant treatment option for stage III and ulcerated melanoma has proved a significant impact on the risk of recurrence, and may have interesting developments in the near future as a further therapeutic tool.

This dataset contains data of patient characteristics and IL6 in a cohort of patients with advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma treated with cemiplimab.

Melanoma displays a rising incidence, and the mortality associated with metastatic form remains high. Monoclonal antibodies that block programmed death (PD-1) and PD Ligand 1 (PD-L1) network have revolutionized the history of metastatic disease. PD-L1 is expressed on several immune cells and can be also expressed on human neutrophils (PMNs). The role of peripheral blood PMNs as predictive biomarkers in anti-PD-1 therapy of melanoma is largely unknown. In this study, we aimed to determine activation status and PD-L1 expression on human neutrophils as possible novel biomarkers in stage IV melanoma patients (MPs). We found that PMNs from MPs displayed an activated phenotype and increased PD-L1 levels compared to healthy controls (HCs). Patients with lower PD-L1

Background: A better understanding of prognostic factors and biomarkers that predict response to treatment is required in order to further improve survival rates in patients with melanoma. Predictive Biomarkers: The most important histopathological factors prognostic of worse outcomes in melanoma are sentinel lymph node involvement, increased tumor thickness, ulceration and higher mitotic rate. Poorer survival may also be related to several clinical factors, including male gender, older age, axial location of the melanoma, elevated serum levels of lactate dehydrogenase and S100B. Predictive Biomarkers: Several biomarkers have been investigated as being predictive of response to melanoma therapies. For anti-Programmed Death-1(PD-1)/Programmed Death-Ligand 1 (PD-L1) checkpoint inhibitors, PD-L1 tumor expression was initially proposed to have a predictive role in response to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment. However, patients without PD-L1 expression also have a survival benefit with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy, meaning it cannot be used alone to select patients for treatment, in order to affirm that it could be considered a correlative, but not a predictive marker. A range of other factors have shown an association with treatment outcomes and offer potential as predictive biomarkers for immunotherapy, including immune infiltration, chemokine signatures, and tumor mutational load. However, none of these have been clinically validated as a factor for patient selection. For combined targeted therapy (BRAF and MEK inhibition), lactate dehydrogenase level and tumor burden seem to have a role in patient outcomes. Conclusions: With increasing knowledge, the understanding of melanoma stage-specific prognostic features should further improve. Moreover, ongoing trials should provide increasing evidence on the best use of biomarkers to help select the most appropriate patients for tailored treatment with immunotherapies and targeted therapies.

9575 Background: Both anti-PD-1 antibodies and BRAK/MEK inhibitors (BRAF/MEKi) reduce the risk of recurrence for patients with resected stage III melanoma. For patients with V600 BRAF-mutated melanoma who recur with resectable disease on or after adjuvant, many may be suitable for ‘second adjuvant' treatment after surgery. We sought to examine the efficacy and safety of ‘second adjuvant’ BRAF/MEKi in patients who recurred despite adjuvant PD-1 based immunotherapy. Methods: Patients with V600 BRAF-mutated melanoma treated with adjuvant PD-1 based immunotherapy for resected stage III/IV disease who recurred, underwent resection of recurrence and were then treated with adjuvant BRAF/MEKi were identified retrospectively from 13 centres. Demographics, disease characteristics, treatment details, and outcome data were examined. Results: 55 patients were included; median age at commencement of PD-1 was 53y, most were V600E (91%) and had IIIB (42%) or IIIC (44%) melanoma. PD-1 based adjuvant therapy included nivolumab (71%), nivolumab plus ipilimumab (14%), pembrolizumab (13%) and pembrolizumab plus mRNA-4157 vaccine (2%). Patients had initial recurrence after mean 8.4 months (95% CI 7.4-10.6), mainly while on treatment (65%), in regional nodes (42%), in-transit metastases (ITMs; 38%), both regional nodes and ITMs (7%) and distant metastases (13%). Surgical management included CLND (36%), selected nodal resection (11%), ITM resection (33%) and resection of distant metastasis (13%). A minority had adjuvant radiotherapy (17%). Stage at start of second adjuvant BRAF/MEKi included IIIB (29%), IIIC (53%) IIID (4%) and IV (15%). Patients received dabrafenib and trametinib (95%, N = 52) and encorafenib and binimetinib (5%, N = 3). After a median follow up of 21.4 months (19.7-25.4), 17 (31%) patients have recurred again. Mean duration of treatment was 9 months (95% CI 7.4-10.6); 20% ceased for toxicity, 7% for recurrence and 35% were on treatment at last follow up. The most common toxicity was pyrexia (43%) and 21% patients experienced a severe (G3-4) adverse event. Median RFS was 33.4 months (14.3.7-NR) and median DMFS was not reached. At 12 months, 72% (59-88) of patients were recurrence free and 90% (81-100) were free of distant recurrence. For those whose disease recurred again, most recurred after cessation of second adjuvant BRAF/MEKi (13/17, 76%). 7 (41%) recurred locally and 8 (47%) recurred with new metastatic disease but none had brain metastases. Conclusions: This is the first study examining outcomes of patients receiving second adjuvant targeted therapy for melanoma, after failure of adjuvant PD-1 based immunotherapy. While RFS appears shorter compared to first line trials, second adjuvant treatment with BRAF/MEKi appears safe and active in preventing further recurrence. Further data on sequencing adjuvant therapies are needed.

BackgroundNivolumab is an anti-PD-1 antibody approved for treating metastatic melanoma (MM), for which still limited evidence is available on the correlation between drug exposure and patient outcomes.MethodsIn this observational retrospective study, we assessed whether nivolumab concentration is associated with treatment response in 88 patients with MM and if the patient’s genetic profile plays a role in this association.ResultsWe observed a statistically significant correlation between nivolumab serum concentration and clinical outcomes, measured as overall and progression-free survival. Moreover, patients who achieved a clinical or partial response tended to have higher levels of nivolumab than those who reached stable disease or had disease progression. However, the difference was not statistically significant. In particular, patients who reached a clinical response had a significantly higher concentration of nivolumab and presented a distinct genetic signature, with more marked activation of ICOS and other genes involved in effector T-cells mediated proinflammatory pathways.ConclusionsIn conclusion, these preliminary results show that in patients with MM, nivolumab concentration correlates with clinical outcomes and is associated with an increased expression of ICOS and other genes involved in the activation of T effectors cells.

Simple Summary Immune checkpoint inhibitors have improved the prognosis for patients with advanced melanoma. Despite the recent success of immunotherapy, many patients still do not benefit from these treatments, and their real-life application may yield different outcomes compared to the advantage presented in clinical trials. There is therefore a need to select patients who can really benefit from these treatments. We have focused our study on a real-life retrospective analysis of metastatic melanoma patients treated with immunotherapy at a single institution—the Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione “G. Pascale” of Napoli, Italy. With the help of AI and machine learning we validated an algorithm based on clinical variables of patients—namely, the Clinical Categorization Algorithm (CLICAL)—that defines five predictable cohorts of benefit to immunotherapy with 95% accuracy. It can be a useful tool for the stratification of metastatic melanoma patients who may or may not improve from immunotherapy treatment. Abstract The real-life application of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) may yield different outcomes compared to the benefit presented in clinical trials. For this reason, there is a need to define the group of patients that may benefit from treatment. We retrospectively investigated 578 metastatic melanoma patients treated with ICIs at the Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione “G. Pascale” of Napoli, Italy (INT-NA). To compare patients’ clinical variables (i.e., age, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio (NLR), eosinophil, BRAF status, previous treatment) and their predictive and prognostic power in a comprehensive, non-hierarchical manner, a clinical categorization algorithm (CLICAL) was defined and validated by the application of a machine learning algorithm—survival random forest (SRF-CLICAL). The comprehensive analysis of the clinical parameters by log risk-based algorithms resulted in predictive signatures that could identify groups of patients with great benefit or not, regardless of the ICI received. From a real-life retrospective analysis of metastatic melanoma patients, we generated and validated an algorithm based on machine learning that could assist with the clinical decision of whether or not to apply ICI therapy by defining five signatures of predictability with 95% accuracy.

Introduction: Treatment of extensive-stage SCLC is still a challenge but immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors is showing promising results. Nivolumab alone or in combination with ipilimumab has demonstrated a benefit in terms of response and survival in patients with pre-treated extensive-stage disease and has been approved as third-line therapy after failure of chemotherapy. However, data from two phase III trials with nivolumab are negative. In the first trial, nivolumab was administered as a single agent compared to second-line chemotherapy, while in the second it was given alone or in combination with ipilimumab as maintenance treatment after platinum-based chemotherapy.Areas covered: Our review focuses on the role of immunotherapy, and in particular nivolumab, in the treatment of SCLC, describing the results of the main trials and its future perspectives, with reference to clinical trials with other checkpoint inhibitors.Expert opinion: The future of nivolumab in the treatment of SCLC needs to be clarified with further clinical trials, in which improved patient selection and a more specific setting and/or timepoint of the disease may be identified.

2595 Background: Healthcare costs and need of frequent patients' (pts) access to oncology departments led to an increasing interest in alternative immune check-point inhibitors (ICIs) administration schedules able to offer longer dose intervals. The extended interval dosing (ED) of nivolumab and pembrolizumab was approved based on pharmacokinetic data, the relationship of exposure to efficacy, and the relationship of exposure to safety. We aimed to investigate real-life immune-related adverse events (irAEs) incidence in pts treated with ED-ICIs. Methods: Clinicopathological and treatment characteristics of all consecutive solid cancer pts treated with ICIs (pembrolizumab, nivolumab) monotherapy who received at least one cycle of the ED (pembrolizumab 400 every 6 weeks or nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks) were identified from patient electronic records of 37 oncology departments across Europe and entered into a prospectively maintained database. Results: Among 756 pts enrolled in the EDICI study, 733 pts (229 treated with pembrolizumab, and 504 with nivolumab) were included in the final safety analysis (median follow up time: 24.7 months). 476 pts were males, with melanoma (441, 60%) and non-small cell lung cancer (151, 20%) being the prevalent tumor types. Median age was 67 years old, and 589 (80%) pts received ICIs in the advanced setting. 501 (68%) of the enrolled pts started ICIs with canonical interval dosing (CD, median number of cycles administered: 13) and subsequently switched to ED after a median time interval of 210 days. During CD-ICI, 197 pts (39%) developed irAEs of any grade and 14 patients (3%) G3/G4 events; after switching to ED-ICI treatment, which was administered for a median of 7 cycles and 336 days, irAEs of any grade and G3/G4 events were experienced by 155 (36%) and 20 (5%) pts, respectively; 73 (47%) cases of any grade-toxicity and 12 (60%) of G3/G4-toxicity were de novo. 33 (7%) pts switched back to CD, in 45% of the cases due to toxicity. Pts who started upfront with ED (n = 232, 32%) were exposed to the drug for a median of 7 cycles; 56 of them (25%) developed irAEs of any grade and 9 (6%) G3/G4 irAEs. Skin (12% of patients), endocrine (11%), rheumatic (10%) and gastrointestinal (9%) were the most common irAEs during ED; 42% were “multiple-site” irAEs, showing no difference with CD (p = 0.21). Lower creatinine values before switch to ED (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.24; 95%CI, 1.03-1.48; P = 0.02) and previous toxicity during CD (aOR, 1.20; 95%CI, 1.08-1.33; P < 0.01) were independent risk factors for development of irAEs during ED. Conclusions: Despite similar exposure time, the safety profile of ED treatment did not differ from CD, confirming that ED-ICI administration is a safe and feasible option also in cancer pts outside of clinical trials. Future investigations are needed to explore efficacy data and economic impact of this strategy.

Increased understanding of the interactive mechanisms between tumors and the immune system led to the development of immune checkpoint inhibitors, which have revolutioned the treatment of metastatic melanoma and subsequently many other tumors. In 2014, nivolumab and pembrolizumab, two checkpoint inhibitors binding to PD-1, were approved for the treatment of metastatic melanoma. Since then, a plethora of new molecules have enriched the armamentarium against melanoma.This review summarizes the last updates about treatment with nivolumab and pembrolizumab, data on other PD-1/PDL-1 agents such as spartalizumab and atezolizumab and emerging compounds, new combinations with NKTR-214, anti LAG-3, anti IDO-1 and TVEC, new checkpoint inhibitors (e.g. TIM-3 or TIGIT) and other new molecules for the treatment of metastatic melanoma.Currently, several ongoing clinical trials are investigating novel molecules, or immunotherapy combinations, in order to achieve even better survival outcomes for patients, overcoming resistance mechanisms and improving toxicity profiles. The challenge in the near future will be to select the most appropriate treatments according to the specific characteristics of the patients.

Simple Summary Several studies have explored the role of the inflammatory cells and cytokines involved in the protection or pathogenesis of coronavirus disease 2019. Unfortunately, the results have been controversial, and further studies are needed to better understand not only the roles but also the balance of these parameters, which are crucial data to improve prevention and treatment. As COVID-19 has a well-determined phasic progression and rapidly deteriorates approximately seven days after the onset of symptoms, it is extremely necessary to detect the clinical signs that are predictive of the outcome as early as possible. To this end, in this preliminary study, we evaluated the data relating to the monocyte intracellular TNF-α expression and lymphocyte subpopulations in peripheral blood collected from patients at admission and every day of hospitalization until day 7. Our findings point to a modulation of the different cellular mediators of the immune system, which probably play a key role in the outcome of the coronavirus disease 2019. Abstract In December 2019, a novel coronavirus, “SARS-CoV-2”, was recognized as the cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Several studies have explored the changes and the role of inflammatory cells and cytokines in the immunopathogenesis of the disease, but until today, the results have been controversial. Based on these premises, we conducted a retrospective assessment of monocyte intracellular TNF-α expression (iTNF-α) and on the frequencies of lymphocyte sub-populations in twenty-five patients with moderate/severe COVID-19. We found lymphopenia in all COVID-19 infected subjects compared to healthy subjects. On initial observation, in patients with favorable outcomes, we detected a high absolute eosinophil count and a high CD4+/CD8+ T lymphocytes ratio, while in the Exitus Group, we observed high neutrophil and CD8+ T lymphocyte counts. During infection, in patients with favorable outcomes, we observed a rise in the lymphocyte count, in the monocyte and in Treg lymphocyte counts, and in the CD4+ and in CD8+ T lymphocytes count but a reduction in the CD4+/CD8+ T lymphocyte ratio. Instead, in the Exitus Group, we observed a reduction in the Treg lymphocyte counts and a decrease in iTNF-α expression. Our preliminary findings point to a modulation of the different cellular mediators of the immune system, which probably play a key role in the outcomes of COVID-19.

Background Anti-PD1–based immunotherapy is currently used in most patients with advanced melanoma. Despite the remarkable data regarding overall survival, the optimal treatment duration is still unknown. Methods We evaluated the outcome of 125 patients with advanced melanoma with and without brain metastases (MBM), treated either with anti-PD1 monotherapy (N = 97) or combined with anti-CTLA4 (N = 28) after elective treatment discontinuation due to complete response (CR) (group A, N = 86), or treatment-limiting toxicity (N = 33) and investigator's decision (ID, N = 6) (group B) with subsequent CR. Results For group A, median duration of treatment (mDoT) was 22 months (range 5–49) and median time to CR 9 months (range 2–47). Accordingly, mDoT for group B was 3 months (range 0–36) and median time to CR 7 months (range 1–32). Seven patients from group A and three from group B experienced disease recurrence. Off-treatment survival was not reached. Median off-treatment response time (mOTRt) was 19 months (range 0–42) and 25 months (range 0–66), respectively. For MBM, mOTRt was 17 months (range 7–41) and 28 months (range 9–39), respectively. After a median follow-up of 38 months (range 9–70), seven (5.6%) patients had deceased, one (0.8%) due to melanoma. Conclusions Treatment discontinuation is feasible also in patients with MBM. Efficacy outcomes seemed to be similar in both groups of patients who achieved CR, regardless of reason for discontinuation. In patients who experienced disease relapse, treatment re-challenge with anti-PD1 resulted in subsequent renewed response.

Background Immunotherapy dramatically changed the landscape of melanoma treatment. Even if nearly 40% of patients has a long-term benefit from anti-PD-1 agents, nearly 30% relapse in the first year of treatment, showing in some cases very rapid disease progression. Actually, there are no effective biomarkers that could predict patient‘s clinical benefit. Aim of this study is to identify gene profiling biomarkers that could help to select melanoma patients who most likely respond to anti-PD-1 therapy. Methods We defined as fast responder (FR) or fast progressor (FP) patients who got clinical response or clinical progression within eight weeks from first cycle of therapy. We retrospectively collected data from 51 metastatic melanoma patients (25 FR and 26 FP) treated from October 2016 to June 2020 in first-line with anti-PD1 monotherapy (nivolumab or pembrolizumab) at National Cancer Institute of Naples, Italy. Gene expression profiling analysis was performed using NanoString® IO 360 panels on PBMCs collected at baseline from 18 patients (10 FR and 8 FP). Patients with ECOG≥2 were excluded. They were all IV stage (5 M1a, 1 M1b, 12 M1c) of which 15 were B-RAF wild-type (83%) and 3 were B-RAF mutated (17%). Statistical associations between treatment response and gene score variables were estimated through Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons and Benjamini-Hochberg. Results Patterns of gene expression were assessed for correlation to response. We compared PBMCs Nanostring analysis between FR and FP patients. We found a higher expression of KRas, CD39, IFI16, IL18, FCGR2A, IL1RN, MAP3K8, TLR5, TLR8, MyD88 and NF-kB in FP patients (all with p-value ≤0.005), most of them related to cell proliferation and immunosuppressive mechanism. Instead we found a higher expression of PRF1, PIK3R1, HLA-DPA1, HLA-DRB1, HLA-DOA, CD45RA, LDHB, KIR3DL2, CD2, CD28, CD7, CD27 in FR patients (all with p-value ≤0.01), most of them related to priming and cytolysis. Conclusions Our study suggests that a specific gene signature may discriminate FR or FP patients. These preliminary data provide a rationale for further investigating gene profiling signature as a potential biomarker of response to immunotherapy. Acknowledgements The study was supported by the Institutional Project ‘Ricerca Corrente’ of Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione ‘G. Pascale’ of Napoli, Italy. Ethics Approval The study was approved by the internal ethics board of the Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione ‘G. Pascale’ of Napoli Italy, approval number of registry 17/17 OSS.

BackgroundInhibitors of immune checkpoint programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) receptor on T cells have shown remarkable clinical outcomes in metastatic melanoma. However, most patients are resistant to therapy. Production of extracellular adenosine, via CD73-mediated catabolism of AMP, contributes to suppress T-cell-mediated responses against cancer. In this study, we analyzed the expression and activity of soluble CD73 in sera of patients with melanoma undergoing anti-PD-1± cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 therapy.MethodsSoluble CD73 expression and activity were retrospectively analyzed in serum of a total of 546 patients with melanoma from different centers before starting treatment (baseline) with anti-PD-1 agents, nivolumab or pembrolizumab, and compared with those of 96 healthy subjects. The CD73 activity was correlated with therapy response and survival of patients.ResultsPatients with melanoma show significantly higher CD73 activity and expression than those observed in healthy donors (pConclusionOur data indicate the relevance of serum CD73 in patients with advanced melanoma receiving anti-PD-1 therapy and support further investigation on targeting CD73 in combination with anti-PD-1 antibodies.

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has overwhelmed the health systems worldwide. Data regarding the impact of COVID-19 on cancer patients (CPs) undergoing or candidate for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are lacking. We depicted the practice and adaptations in the management of patients with solid tumors eligible or receiving ICIs during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a special focus on Campania region.MethodsThis survey (25 questions), promoted by the young section of SCITO (Società Campana di ImmunoTerapia Oncologica) Group, was circulated among Italian young oncologists practicing in regions variously affected by the pandemic: high (group 1), medium (group 2) and low (group 3) prevalence of SARS-CoV-2–positive patients. For Campania region, the physician responders were split into those working in cancer centers (CC), university hospitals (UH) and general hospitals (GH). Percentages of agreement, among High (H) versus Medium (M) and versus Low (L) group for Italy and among CC, UH and GH for Campania region, were compared by using Fisher’s exact tests for dichotomous answers and χ2 test for trends relative to the questions with 3 or more options.ResultsThis is the first Italian study to investigate the COVID-19 impact on cancer immunotherapy, unique in its type and very clear in the results. The COVID-19 pandemic seemed not to affect the standard practice in the prescription and delivery of ICIs in Italy. Telemedicine was widely used. There was high consensus to interrupt immunotherapy in SARS-CoV-2–positive patients and to adopt ICIs with longer schedule interval. The majority of the responders tended not to delay the start of ICIs; there were no changes in supportive treatments, but some of the physicians opted for delaying surgeries (if part of patients’ planned treatment approach). The results from responders in Campania did not differ significantly from the national ones.ConclusionOur study highlights the efforts of Italian oncologists to maintain high standards of care for CPs treated with ICIs, regardless the regional prevalence of COVID-19, suggesting the adoption of similar solutions. Research on patients treated with ICIs and experiencing COVID-19 will clarify the safety profile to continue the treatments, thus informing on the most appropriate clinical conducts.

BackgroundMerkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare and aggressive skin cancer with neuroendocrine features, and it is associated with elevated mortality. The pathogenesis is associated with presence of clonally integrated Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCPyV) or ultraviolet light (UV) exposure.1 The MCPyV causes up to 80% of MCC tumors in North America and Europe.2–4 Recently immunotherapy is having good results,5 the phase 2 trial JAVELIN Merkel 200 indicated that treatment with Avelumab (PDL1 inhibitor) in patients with metastatic MCC pre-treated have a meaningful long-term survival outcomes respect chemotherapy. Moreover, ORRs were highest in patients with high TMB that were also MCPyV−, PD-L1+ or had a greater CD8+ T cell density at the invasive margin.6 In this study, we investigated the biological signatures in patients with MCPyV or not.MethodsFrom April 2011 to June 2018, we collected retrospectively 50 FFPE (Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embed) from 37 patients with metastatic MCC and 13 tissues from a secondary metastatic site. All patients have appropriately signed informed consent. We performed an immunohistochemistry assays (IHC) for MCPyV and PDL1. In addition, through the NanoString GeoMx DSP (Digital Spatial Profiling), we analysed 11 patients (6 MCPyV+; 5 MCPyV-) with cutaneous metastasis using a 44-plex antibody cocktail. For each slide we selected three different areas: Intratumoral, extratumoral and tumour border, in each area we selected CD4+ and CD8+ cells in 4 different ROIs (Region of Interest). Statistical analysis was performed via Bonferroni correction, P< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for median stratification.ResultsThe DSP analysis showed that the tumour border cells have an overexpression of IDO respect intratumoral area (adj. pConclusionsIn this retrospective study, our preliminary data shown that tumour edge have an important role in the modulations of immune infiltrate and patients with Merkel cell polyomavirus could have a different pathway of immunosuppression compared to patients with non-virus related etiology. Further investigations are needed to get additional information.AcknowledgementsThe study was supported by the Institutional Project ”Ricerca Corrente” of Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione ”G. Pascale” of Napoli, Italy.ReferencesKaae J, Hansen AV, Biggar RJ, et al. Merkel cell carcinoma: incidence, mortality, and risk of other cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010 June 2;102(11):793–801.Feng H, Shuda M, Chang Y, et al. Clonal integration of a polyomavirus in human Merkel cell carcinoma. Science 2008 February 22;319(5866):1096–100.Garneski KM, Warcola AH, Feng Q, et al. Merkel cell polyomavirus is more frequently present in North American than Australian Merkel cell carcinoma tumors. J Invest Dermatol 2009 January;129(1):246–8.Goh G, Walradt T, Markarov V, et al. Mutational landscape of MCPyV-positive and MCPyV-negative Merkel cell carcinomas with implications for immunotherapy. Oncotarget 2016 January 19;7(3):3403–15.Bichakjian CK, Olencki T, Aasi SZ, et al. Merkel cell carcinoma, version 1.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2018 June;16(6):742–774.D’Angelo SP, Bhatia S, Brohl AS, et al. Avelumab in patients with previously treated metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma: long-term data and biomarker analyses from the single-arm phase 2 JAVELIN Merkel 200 trial. J Immunother Cancer 2020 May;8(1):e000674.Ethics ApprovalThe study was approved by internal ethics board of the Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione ”G. Pascale” of Napoli Italy, approval number of registry 33/17 OSS.ConsentWritten informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this abstract and any accompanying images. A copy of the written consent is available for review by the Editor of this journal.

The mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) cascade is an intracellular signaling pathway involved in the regulation of cellular proliferation and the survival of tumor cells. Several different mutations, involving BRAF or NRAS, exert an oncogenic effect by activating the MAPK pathway, resulting in an increase in cellular proliferation. These mutations have become targets for new therapeutic strategies in melanoma and other cancers. Selective MEK inhibitors have the ability to inhibit growth and induce cell death in BRAF- and NRAS-mutant melanoma cell lines. MEK inhibitor therapy in combination with a BRAF inhibitor is more effective and less toxic than treatment with a BRAF inhibitor alone, and has become the standard of care for patients with BRAF-mutated melanoma. Trametinib was the first MEK inhibitor approved for the treatment of BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma not previously treated with BRAF inhibitors, and is also approved in combination with the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib. Furthermore, cobimetinib is another MEK inhibitor approved for the treatment of BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma in combination with a BRAF inhibitor, vemurafenib. The MEK inhibitor binimetinib in combination with the BRAF inhibitor encorafenib is in clinical development. The addition of an anti-PD-1/PD-L1 agent, such as pembrolizumab, durvalumab or atezolizumab, to combined BRAF and MEK inhibition has shown considerable promise, with several trials ongoing in metastatic melanoma. Binimetinib has also shown efficacy in NRAS-mutated melanoma patients. Future possibilities for MEK inhibitors in advanced melanoma, as well as other solid tumors, include their use in combination with other targeted therapies (e.g. anti-CDK4/6 inhibitors) and/or various immune-modulating antibodies.

The treatment of advanced melanoma has changed dramatically in recent years with several new drugs having been approved for the treatment of melanoma since 2011. This review aims to evaluate the role of BRAF-targeted therapy for advanced melanoma in the immunotherapy era. Currently, in patients with BRAF wild-type advanced melanoma, anti-PD-1 (nivolumab or pembrolizumab) is the main treatment. The combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4) is also an important option for these patients, resulting in a better outcome, but with less favorable toxicity profile. In patients with BRAF mutations, three regimens of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors are now approved (vemurafenib plus cobimetinib, dabrafenib plus trametinib, and encorafenib plus binimetinib), which achieve rapid antitumor responses and a significant survival benefit. In these patients, as well as in BRAF wild-type patients, immunotherapy can be also effective and is regularly used. Immunotherapy and targeted therapy have become the new standards of care, substantially improving survival rates. However, many questions still remain unanswered, such as what is the best first- and second-line treatment and the best treatment sequence. New combinations of drugs, targeted therapy combined with immunotherapy, and sequencing approaches are now underway in many ongoing clinical trials.

Combination treatment with a BRAF inhibitor and MEK inhibitor is the standard of care for patients with advanced BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma. With the currently available combinations of d...

The median overall survival (OS) and local control (LC) of patients with melanoma brain metastases (MBMs) are poor even with immune checkpoint inhibitors and/or radiotherapy (RT). The aims of the study were to evaluate the association and timing of stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT)/radiosurgery (SRS) performed with the CyberKnife® System and ipilimumab (IPI). A total of 63 MBMs patients were analyzed: 53 received RT+IPI and 10 RT alone. Therefore, the patients were divided into four groups: RT PRE-PI (&gt, 4 weeks before IPI) (18), RT CONC-IPI (4 weeks before/between first and last cycle/within 3 months of last cycle of IPI) (20), RT POST-IPI (&gt, 3 months after IPI) (15), and NO-IPI (10). A total of 127 lesions were treated: 75 with SRS (one fraction) and 24 with SRT (three to five fractions). The median follow-up was 10.6 months. The median OS was 10.6 months for all patients, 10.7 months for RT+IPI, and 3.3 months for NO-IPI (p = 0.96). One-year LC was 50% for all patients, 56% for RT+IPI, and 18% for NO-IPI (p = 0.08). The 1-year intracranial control was 45% for all patients, 44% for RT+IPI, and 51% for NO-IPI (p = 0.73). IPI with SRS/SRT in MBMs treatment could improve LC. However, the impact and timing of the two modalities on patients’ outcomes are still unclear.

Background: It is unknown whether melanoma patients achieving complete response (CR) with targeted therapy can safely discontinue treatment. Methods: All patients treated with BRAF/MEK inhibitors achieving CR and ceasing treatment before progression were identified. Clinical data at treatment initiation, cessation and progression were examined. Results: A total of 12 eligible patients were identified, with median follow-up of 16 months, of whom 6 (50%) recurred at a median of 6.6 months after treatment cessation. One patient lost to follow-up until presentation with symptomatic recurrence was the only relapser to die. At relapse, the remaining five patients had an LDH

Strategies to help improve the efficacy of the immune system against cancer represent an important innovation, with recent attention having focused on anti-programmed death (PD)-1/PD-ligand 1 (L1) monoclonal antibodies. Clinical trials have shown objective clinical activity of these agents (e.g., nivolumab, pembrolizumab) in several malignancies, including melanoma, non-small-cell lung cancer, bladder cancer, squamous head and neck cancer, renal cell cancer, ovarian cancer, microsatellite-unstable colorectal cancer, and Hodgkin's lymphoma. Expression of PD-L1 in the tumor microenvironment appears to be crucial for therapeutic activity, and initial trials suggested positive PD-L1 tumor expression was associated with higher response rates. However, subsequent observations have questioned the prospect of using PD-L1 expression as a biomarker for selecting patients for therapy, especially since many patients considered PD-L1-negative experience a benefit from treatment. Importantly, there is not yet a definitive test for determination of PD-L1 and a cut-off reference for PD-L1-positive status has not been established. Immunohistochemistry with different antibodies and different thresholds has been used to define PD-L1 positivity (1-50 %), with no clear superiority of one threshold over another for identifying which patients respond. Moreover, the type of cells on which PD-L1 expression is most relevant is not yet clear, with immune infiltrate cells and tumor cells both being used. In conclusion, while PD-L1 expression is often a predictive factor for treatment response, it must be complemented by other biomarkers or histopathologic features, such as the composition and amount of inflammatory cells in the tumor microenvironment and their functional status. Multi-parameter quantitative or semi-quantitative algorithms may become useful and reliable tools to guide patient selection.

e22068 Background: Anti-PD-1 agents represent a standard treatment for melanoma patients. However, most patients fail to respond, showing in some cases very rapid disease progression. At moment, there are no effective biomarkers that can predict patient's clinical benefit. The aim of this study is to retrospectively identify gene profiling biomarkers that could help to select melanoma patients who most likely respond to anti-PD-1 therapy. Methods: We defined as fast responder (FR) or fast progressor (FP) patients who got clinical response or clinical progression after two cycles of therapy. We collected data from 44 metastatic melanoma patients (21 FR and 23 FP) treated in first-line with anti-PD1 monotherapy (nivolumab or pembrolizumab) at National Cancer Institute of Naples, Italy. Gene expression profiling analysis was performed using NanoString IO 360 panels on PBMCs collected at baseline from 18 patients (10 FR and 8 FP). Patients with ECOG≥2 were excluded. They were all IV stage (5 M1a, 1 M1b, 12 M1c) of which 15 were B-RAF wild-type (83%) and 3 were B-RAF mutated (17%). Statistical associations between treatment response and gene score variables were estimated by Student’s T tests and correction for multiple comparisons by the Benjamini-Hochberg method. Results: Patterns of gene expression were assessed for correlation to response. We compared PBMCs nanostring analysis between FR and FP patients. We found a higher expression of KRas, CD39, IFI16, IL18, FCGR2A, IL1RN, MAP3K8, TLR5, TLR8, MyD88 and NF-kB in FP patients (all with p-value ≤0.005), most of them related to cell proliferation and immunosuppressive mechanism. Instead we found a higher expression of PRF1, PIK3R1, HLA-DPA1, HLA-DRB1, HLA-DOA, CD45RA, LDHB, KIR3DL2, CD2, CD28, CD7, CD27 in FR patients (all with p-value ≤0.01), most of them related to priming and cytolysis. Conclusions: These preliminary data obtained through gene profiling analysis on baseline PBMCs of melanoma patients suggest that a specific gene signature may discriminate FR or FP patients. Our study provides rationale for further investigating gene profiling signature as a potential association for response to immunotherapy.

e22008 Background: Nivolumab (nivo) 480 mg (Q4W) flat dose has already been assessed for safety compared to other drug dose regimens in clinical trials [1]. However, few data about melanoma patients treated in real life are available. The aim of our study was to evaluate safety and efficacy in metastatic melanoma pts treated with different schedules of nivo in clinical practice. Methods: We analyzed data from n.124 metastatic melanoma patients who were treated from Jun 2016 to Oct 2019 at NCI of Naples. 83/ 124 (67%) were treated with nivo 480 mg Q4W, and 41/124 (33%) with other schedules (n.26 [63%] with 3 mg/kg, and 15 [37%] with 240 mg Q2W). All patients were stage IV, and n.44/124 (35%) were B-RAF mutated. Nivo was administered as first line in n.95 patients (77%), n. 24 [19%] as second line, and 5 (4%) as third line. Among B-RAF mutated patients, n.23/44 [52%] received a first line with a target-based regimen. According to our previous work [2] we calculated Body Mass Index (BMI). In 93/124 pts the BMI was < 25 (75%), while in 31/124 (25%) BMI was ≥ 25. In the table are summarized other clinical characteristics. Hazard Ratios and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated with the Cox model. Association between factors was evaluated with the chi-square test. Results: Our data suggests that nivo 480 mg (Q4W) correlates with a better OS compared with other regimens (HR = 0.48; [95% CI: 0.24-0.96; p = 0.04]). Moreover, better OS trend was also observed in pts with BMI > 25 (HR = 0.48; [95% CI: 0.33-1.74]; p = 0.51) and with B-RAF mutation (HR = 0.53; [95% CI: 0.25-1.14); P = 0.10]). The incidence of any grade toxicities did not differ according the dosage. Conclusions: This retrospective analysis showed a trend of better outcome with nivo 480. This observation warrants further investigation in a larger cohort of pts. [Table: see text]

Checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of many advanced stage cancers. Preexisting immunity is necessary for a response to these agents, which are most effective in inflamed tumors since they principally act by reinforcing preexisting antitumor T-cell responses. An important goal of therapy is to convert the tumor environment from non-inflamed to inflamed in order to facilitate subsequent response to checkpoint inhibitors. Clinical trials are underway to identify checkpoint inhibitor-based combination approaches, which may help to achieve this goal. Areas covered: Anti-PD-1 agents are being assessed in combination with different treatments (e.g. TLR9 agonists, oncolytic peptides, oncolytic vaccines, LAG-3, HDAC inhibitors, GITR, recombinant human interleukin-2) with promising results. PD-1 agents are also being assessed in combination with other locoregional or systemic treatment modalities, including ECT, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy, with promising results being achieved. Expert commentary: Emerging approaches based on combinations with anti-PD-1 agents seem to offer increased efficacy compared to anti-PD-1 monotherapy. Such combinations also appear to be well tolerated, with safety profiles often comparable to those seen with anti-PD-1 monotherapy. These combination approaches are likely to become an increasing focus of research. There is also the potential for triplet anti-PD-1 combinations.

Checkpoint inhibitors can cause an imbalance in immune tolerance that may clinically manifest as immune-related adverse events (irAEs). These events may involve many organs and tissues, including the skin, gastrointestinal (GI) tract, liver, endocrine system, kidneys, central nervous system (CNS), eyes and lungs. The incidence of irAEs appears to be lower with anti-programmed death antigen-1/programmed death antigen-ligand-1 agents than with the anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein-4 antibody ipilimumab. Combined immunotherapy does not appear to be associated with novel safety signals compared with monotherapy, but more organs may be involved. Increased experience and the use of algorithms for the most common irAEs have resulted in severe toxicity and related deaths being reduced. However, continuous vigilance, especially regarding less common events, is needed to better characterize the wide spectrum of clinical manifestations.