Search

Simple Summary Nodular melanoma is associated with a higher locoregional recurrence rate and worse overall survival outcomes. Whether this histologic subtype affects the efficacy of immunotherapy or targeted therapy is unclear. The aim of our multi-center nationwide study is to identify the efficacy of immunotherapy and BRAF/MEKi therapy in metastatic nodular melanoma compared with the efficacy in metastatic superficial spreading melanoma. Our study results demonstrate no difference between the effectiveness of immunotherapy and BRAF/MEKi in metastatic nodular versus superficial melanoma patients. A shorter distant metastasis-free survival and reduced overall survival (measured as the time between primary melanoma up to death or last follow-up) was observed in the nodular melanoma patient group, suggesting worse overal survival of nodular melanoma is mainly driven by propensity of metastatic outgrowth of nodular melanoma after primary diagnosis. Nodular melanoma (NM) is associated with a higher locoregional and distant recurrence rate compared with superficial spreading melanoma (SSM); it is unknown whether the efficacy of systemic therapy is limited. Here, we compare the efficacy of immunotherapy and BRAF/MEK inhibitors (BRAF/MEKi) in advanced NM to SSM. Patients with advanced stage IIIc and stage IV NM and SSM treated with anti-CTLA-4 and/or anti-PD-1, or BRAF/MEKi in the first line, were included from the prospective Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. The primary objectives were distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS). In total, 1086 NM and 2246 SSM patients were included. DMFS was significantly shorter for advanced NM patients at 1.9 years (CI 95% 0.7-4.2) compared with SSM patients at 3.1 years (CI 95% 1.3-6.2) (p < 0.01). Multivariate survival analysis for immunotherapy and BRAF/MEKi demonstrated a hazard ratio for immunotherapy of 1.0 (CI 95% 0.85-1.17) and BRAF/MEKi of 0.95 (CI 95% 0.81-1.11). A shorter DMFS for NM patients developing advanced disease compared with SSM patients was observed, while no difference was observed in the efficacy of systemic immunotherapy or BRAF/MEKi between NM and SSM patients. Our results suggests that the worse overall survival of NM is mainly driven by propensity of metastatic outgrowth of NM after primary diagnosis.

Summary Background PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors are active in metastatic urothelial carcinoma, but positive randomised data supporting their use as a first-line treatment are lacking. In this study we assessed outcomes with first-line pembrolizumab alone or combined with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy for patients with previously untreated advanced urothelial carcinoma. Methods KEYNOTE-361 is a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial of patients aged at least 18 years, with untreated, locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of up to 2. Eligible patients were enrolled from 201 medical centres in 21 countries and randomly allocated (1:1:1) via an interactive voice-web response system to intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for a maximum of 35 cycles plus intravenous chemotherapy (gemcitabine [1000 mg/m2] on days 1 and 8 and investigator's choice of cisplatin [70 mg/m2] or carboplatin [area under the curve 5] on day 1 of every 3-week cycle) for a maximum of six cycles, pembrolizumab alone, or chemotherapy alone, stratified by choice of platinum therapy and PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS). Neither patients nor investigators were masked to the treatment assignment or CPS. At protocol-specified final analysis, sequential hypothesis testing began with superiority of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in the total population (all patients randomly allocated to a treatment) for the dual primary endpoints of progression-free survival (p value boundary 0·0019), assessed by masked, independent central review, and overall survival (p value boundary 0·0142), followed by non-inferiority and superiority of overall survival for pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in the patient population with CPS of at least 10 and in the total population (also a primary endpoint). Safety was assessed in the as-treated population (all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment). This study is completed and is no longer enrolling patients, and is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT02853305 . Findings Between Oct 19, 2016 and June 29, 2018, 1010 patients were enrolled and allocated to receive pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (n=351), pembrolizumab monotherapy (n=307), or chemotherapy alone (n=352). Median follow-up was 31·7 months (IQR 27·7–36·0). Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy did not significantly improve progression-free survival, with a median progression-free survival of 8·3 months (95% CI 7·5–8·5) in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group versus 7·1 months (6·4–7·9) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·78, 95% CI 0·65–0·93; p=0·0033), or overall survival, with a median overall survival of 17·0 months (14·5–19·5) in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group versus 14·3 months (12·3–16·7) in the chemotherapy group (0·86, 0·72–1·02; p=0·0407). No further formal statistical hypothesis testing was done. In analyses of overall survival with pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy (now exploratory based on hierarchical statistical testing), overall survival was similar between these treatment groups, both in the total population (15·6 months [95% CI 12·1–17·9] with pembrolizumab vs 14·3 months [12·3–16·7] with chemotherapy; HR 0·92, 95% CI 0·77–1·11) and the population with CPS of at least 10 (16·1 months [13·6–19·9] with pembrolizumab vs 15·2 months [11·6–23·3] with chemotherapy; 1·01, 0·77–1·32). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event attributed to study treatment was anaemia with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (104 [30%] of 349 patients) or chemotherapy alone (112 [33%] of 342 patients), and diarrhoea, fatigue, and hyponatraemia (each affecting four [1%] of 302 patients) with pembrolizumab alone. Six (1%) of 1010 patients died due to an adverse event attributed to study treatment; two patients in each treatment group. One each occurred due to cardiac arrest and device-related sepsis in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group, one each due to cardiac failure and malignant neoplasm progression in the pembrolizumab group, and one each due to myocardial infarction and ischaemic colitis in the chemotherapy group. Interpretation The addition of pembrolizumab to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy did not significantly improve efficacy and should not be widely adopted for treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma. Funding Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck, Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

In a recent phase 3 randomized trial of 700 patients with advanced urothelial cancer (JAVELIN Bladder 100; NCT02603432), avelumab/best supportive care (BSC) significantly prolonged overall survival relative to BSC alone as maintenance therapy after first-line chemotherapy. Exploratory biomarker analyses were performed to identify biological pathways that might affect survival benefit. Tumor molecular profiling by immunohistochemistry, whole-exome sequencing and whole-transcriptome sequencing revealed that avelumab survival benefit was positively associated with PD-L1 expression by tumor cells, tumor mutational burden, APOBEC mutation signatures, expression of genes underlying innate and adaptive immune activity and the number of alleles encoding high-affinity variants of activating Fc gamma receptors. Pathways connected to tissue growth and angiogenesis might have been associated with reduced survival benefit. Individual biomarkers did not comprehensively identify patients who could benefit from therapy; however, multi-parameter models incorporating genomic alteration, immune responses and tumor growth showed promising predictive utility. These results characterize the complex biologic pathways underlying survival benefit from immune checkpoint inhibition in advanced urothelial cancer and suggest that multiple biomarkers might be needed to identify patients who would benefit from treatment.

Background: Survival outcomes are poor for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma who receive standard, first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy. We assessed the overall survival of patients who received durvalumab (a PD-L1 inhibitor), with or without tremelimumab (a CTLA-4 inhibitor), as a first-line treatment for metastatic urothelial carcinoma.Methods: DANUBE is an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial in patients with untreated, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, conducted at 224 academic research centres, hospitals, and oncology clinics in 23 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. We randomly assigned patients (1:1:1) to receive durvalumab monotherapy (1500 mg) administered intravenously every 4 weeks; durvalumab (1500 mg) plus tremelimumab (75 mg) administered intravenously every 4 weeks for up to four doses, followed by durvalumab maintenance (1500 mg) every 4 weeks; or standard-of-care chemotherapy (gemcitabine plus cisplatin or gemcitabine plus carboplatin, depending on cisplatin eligibility) administered intravenously for up to six cycles. Randomisation was done through an interactive voice–web response system, with stratification by cisplatin eligibility, PD-L1 status, and presence or absence of liver metastases, lung metastases, or both. The coprimary endpoints were overall survival compared between the durvalumab monotherapy versus chemotherapy groups in the population of patients with high PD-L1 expression (the high PD-L1 population) and between the durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy groups in the intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned patients). The study has completed enrolment and the final analysis of overall survival is reported. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02516241, and the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT number 2015-001633-24.Findings: Between Nov 24, 2015, and March 21, 2017, we randomly assigned 1032 patients to receive durvalumab (n=346), durvalumab plus tremelimumab (n=342), or chemotherapy (n=344). At data cutoff (Jan 27, 2020), median follow-up for survival was 41·2 months (IQR 37·9–43·2) for all patients. In the high PD-L1 population, median overall survival was 14·4 months (95% CI 10·4–17·3) in the durvalumab monotherapy group (n=209) versus 12·1 months (10·4–15·0) in the chemotherapy group (n=207; hazard ratio 0·89, 95% CI 0·71–1·11; p=0·30). In the intention-to-treat population, median overall survival was 15·1 months (13·1–18·0) in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group versus 12·1 months (10·9–14·0) in the chemotherapy group (0·85, 95% CI 0·72–1·02; p=0·075). In the safety population, grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 47 (14%) of 345 patients in the durvalumab group, 93 (27%) of 340 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group, and in 188 (60%) of 313 patients in the chemotherapy group. The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event was increased lipase in the durvalumab group (seven [2%] of 345 patients) and in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group (16 [5%] of 340 patients), and neutropenia in the chemotherapy group (66 [21%] of 313 patients). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 30 (9%) of 345 patients in the durvalumab group, 78 (23%) of 340 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group, and 50 (16%) of 313 patients in the chemotherapy group. Deaths due to study drug toxicity were reported in two (1%) patients in the durvalumab group (acute hepatic failure and hepatitis), two (1%) patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group (septic shock and pneumonitis), and one (Interpretation: This study did not meet either of its coprimary endpoints. Further research to identify the patients with previously untreated metastatic urothelial carcinoma who benefit from treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors, either alone or in combination regimens, is warranted.Funding: AstraZeneca.

Background Cognitive problems are common in non-central nervous system cancer survivors. These problems are perceived as an important contributor to decline in work performance and work ability. Various interventions for cognitive problems have been proposed, but effectiveness regarding work-related outcomes has not yet been established. Effective treatment options to alleviate the adverse influence of cognitive problems on work performance are needed for working cancer survivors. In this paper, we will describe the design of a randomized, controlled, multicenter trial that evaluates the (cost-)effectiveness of an internet-based cognitive rehabilitation program for occupationally active cancer survivors confronted with cognitive problems. Methods/ Design A three-armed randomized controlled trial will be conducted, including two intervention groups (i.e., basic and extensive cognitive rehabilitation program) and one waitlist control group. In total, 261 cancer survivors (18 – 65 years) who have returned to work, and who experience cognitive problems will be recruited. Patients with and without cognitive impairment as established in a neuropsychological assessment, will be eligible; stratification will take place based on the presence of this cognitive impairment. The extensive intervention arm will contain a comprehensive training program (including psycho-education, fatigue management, and cognitive strategy training) with individual guidance (blended intervention). The basic intervention arm will contain a brief cognitive training program (including psycho-education and fatigue management) without individual guidance. The primary outcome will be accomplishment of an individually defined work-related treatment goal. Secondary outcomes include, among others, subjective cognitive functioning, work functioning, and quality of life. Primary and secondary outcomes will be measured at baseline (T0), and at 12 weeks (T1) and 26 weeks (T2) post-randomization. Discussion About 40-50% of the cancer patients worldwide are of working age at time of diagnosis. Many of the occupationally active cancer survivors experience cognitive problems. Both from an individual and a societal perspective, it is important to sustain cancer survivors’ employability. An effective treatment to alleviate the impact of cognitive decline and to improve work ability might help cancer survivors to sustain employability. Trial registration The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03900806) at 03 April 2019 (current status: ongoing),https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03900806?term=NCT03900806&draw=2&rank=1. KEYWORDS Cancer-related cognitive impairment, Cognitive rehabilitation, Employment, Internet-based, Randomized controlled trial, Cost-effectiveness