Search

Leptomeningeal melanoma metastases (LMM) are associated with poor survival. Diagnosis is based on clinical presentation, brain MRI and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis. Inconclusive findings at initial presentation can delay treatment. In this single‐center case series, detection of BRAFV600‐ and NRASQ61‐mutant cell‐free tumor DNA (cfDNA) in CSF was evaluated as a complementary diagnostic biomarker. In 12 patients with clinical suspicion of LMM, a retrospective analysis of MRI, CSF cytology and cfDNA analysis on 1 mL of CSF using the Idylla® platform was carried out. Nine patients displayed MRI abnormalities suggesting LMM. CSF analysis identified malignant cells in three patients (including one without MRI abnormalities). BRAFV600‐ or NRASQ61‐mutant cfDNA was detected in CSF of nine patients (eight with and one without MRI abnormalities; all patients with positive CSF cytology). Subsequent follow‐up confirmed LMM in all patients with positive and in one patient with a negative CSF cfDNA analysis (sensitivity 81.8%; specificity 100%). Our findings suggest that analyzing BRAFV600‐ and NRASQ61‐mutant cfDNA in CSF using the Idylla® platform holds promise as a sensitive and specific complementary diagnostic biomarker for LMM, particularly in case of inconsistency between imaging and CSF cytology. The 110‐min analysis can facilitate urgent treatment decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Radiotherapy (RT) synergizes with immune checkpoint blockade (ICB). CD1c(BDCA-1)+/CD141(BDCA-3)+ myeloid dendritic cells (myDC) in the tumor microenvironment are indispensable at initiating effector T-cell responses and response to ICB. Methods: In this phase II clinical trial, anti-PD-1 ICB pretreated oligometastatic patients (tumor agnostic) underwent a leukapheresis followed by isolation of CD1c(BDCA-1)+/CD141(BDCA-3)+ myDC. Following hypofractionated stereotactic body RT (3 × 8 Gy), patients were randomized (3:1). Respectively, in arm A (immediate treatment), intratumoral (IT) ipilimumab (10 mg) and avelumab (40 mg) combined with intravenous (IV) pembrolizumab (200 mg) were administered followed by IT injection of myDC; subsequently, IV pembrolizumab and IT ipilimumab/avelumab were continued (q3W). In arm B (contemporary control arm), patients received IV pembrolizumab, with possibility to cross-over at progression. Primary endpoint was 1-year progression-free survival rate (PFS). Secondary endpoints were safety, feasibility, objective response rate, PFS, and overall survival (OS). Results: Thirteen patients (10 in arm A, eight non-small cell lung cancer, and five melanoma) were enrolled. Two patients crossed over. One-year PFS rate was 10% in arm A and 0% in arm B. Two patients in arm A obtained a partial response, and one patient obtained a stable disease as best response. In arm B, one patient obtained a SD. Median PFS and OS were 21.8 weeks (arm A) versus 24.9 (arm B), and 62.7 versus 57.9 weeks, respectively. An iatrogenic pneumothorax was the only grade 3 treatment-related adverse event. Conclusion: SBRT and pembrolizumab with or without IT avelumab/ipilimumab and IT myDC in oligometastatic patients are safe and feasible with a clinically meaningful tumor response rate. However, the study failed to reach its primary endpoint. Trial registration number: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04571632 (09 AUG 2020). EUDRACT: 2019-003668-32. Date of registration: 17 DEC 2019, amendment 1: 6 MAR 2021, amendment 2: 4 FEB 2022. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Until recently, limited options existed for patients with advanced melanoma who experienced disease progression while receiving treatment with ipilimumab. Here, we report the coprimary overall survival (OS) end point of CheckMate 037, which has previously shown that nivolumab resulted in more patients achieving an objective response compared with chemotherapy regimens in ipilimumab-refractory patients with advanced melanoma. Patients and Methods Patients were stratified by programmed death-ligand 1 expression, BRAF status, and best prior cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 therapy response, then randomly assigned 2:1 to nivolumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks or investigator's choice chemotherapy (ICC; dacarbazine 1,000 mg/m2 every 3 weeks or carboplatin area under the curve 6 plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 every 3 weeks). Patients were treated until they experienced progression or unacceptable toxicity, with follow-up of approximately 2 years. Results Two hundred seventy-two patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab (99% treated) and 133 to ICC (77% treated). More nivolumab-treated patients had brain metastases (20% v 14%) and increased lactate dehydrogenase levels (52% v 38%) at baseline; 41% of patients treated with ICC versus 11% of patients treated with nivolumab received anti-programmed death 1 agents after randomly assigned therapy. Median OS was 16 months for nivolumab versus 14 months for ICC (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95.54% CI, 0.73 to 1.24); median progression-free survival was 3.1 months versus 3.7 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.0; 95.1% CI, 0.78 to 1.436). Overall response rate (27% v 10%) and median duration of response (32 months v 13 months) were notably higher for nivolumab versus ICC. Fewer grade 3 and 4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in patients on nivolumab (14% v 34%). Conclusion Nivolumab demonstrated higher, more durable responses but no difference in survival compared with ICC. OS should be interpreted with caution as it was likely impacted by an increased dropout rate before treatment, which led to crossover therapy in the ICC group, and by an increased proportion of patients in the nivolumab group with poor prognostic factors.

PURPOSE: Patients with BRAF V600 / NRAS Q61 wild-type melanoma who progress after immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have a poor prognosis. MEK inhibition has shown activity in this patient population but is associated with treatment-limiting skin toxicity. Combining a BRAF inhibitor with a MEK inhibitor is associated with less skin toxicity. METHODS: This phase II trial investigated trametinib (2 mg once daily) in patients with advanced BRAF V600 / NRAS Q61 wild-type, ICI-refractory melanoma. In case of treatment-limiting skin toxicity, low-dose dabrafenib (50 mg twice daily) was added to trametinib. After a trial amendment, both drugs were combined up-front. The confirmed objective response rate (cORR) served as the primary end point. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients were included (50% male; median age 57 years; 92% Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status 0-2; 75% stage IV-M1c/stage IV-M1d; median number of prior therapies: two [range, 1-5]). Three patients were enrolled before and 21 patients after the amendment, respectively. Seven confirmed and one unconfirmed partial responses (PRs) were observed (cORR, 29.2%). The median duration of response was 16.6 weeks (95% CI, 5.5 to 27.7). Stable disease (SD) was the best response in an additional five patients. Among the responding patients, genetic alterations causing mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway activation were documented in six patients. The disease control rate in patients with MAPK pathway–activating alterations was 64.3% (five confirmed PR, one unconfirmed PR, and three SD). The median progression-free survival was 13.3 weeks (95% CI, 3.5 to 23.1), and the median overall survival was 54.3 weeks (95% CI, 37.9 to 70.6). Adding low-dose dabrafenib to trametinib effectively mitigated or prevented treatment-limiting trametinib-related skin toxicity. CONCLUSION: The combination of trametinib plus low-dose dabrafenib demonstrated encouraging efficacy and effective mitigation of skin toxicity in patients with advanced, ICI-pretreated BRAF V600 / NRAS Q61 wild-type melanoma patients. MAPK pathway–activating alterations hold promise as a predictive biomarker. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Currently, there is very little data on survivorship-related issues after successful treatment by immune checkpoint blockade for an advanced cancer. The purpose of this study was to identify survivorship-related issues, with a focus on emotional distress, cognitive complaints, physical issues, impact on family dynamics, and care needs in survivors treated with immune checkpoint blockade therapy for an advanced cancer. We conducted semi-structured interviews and completed validated questionnaires with 70 survivors. We found that more than half of the cancer survivors had a clinical fear of cancer recurrence and that 18% had elevated cognitive complaints. We identified triggers related to severe emotional distress. Moreover, we found ongoing physical issues and unmet nutritional and emotional care needs. These results show that although patients are successfully treated, there are still ongoing psychosocial, physical, and cognitive issues and care needs that can be mitigated by routine screening and referrals to psychological services. Background: There is a need for a better understanding of survivorship-related issues in advanced cancer survivors treated with immune checkpoint blockade (ICB). The purpose of this study was to identify survivorship-related issues, with a focus on psychological distress, cognitive complaints, physical sequelae, impact on family dynamics, and care needs in unresectable, advanced cancer survivors treated with ICB. Methods: Semi-structured interviews and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were conducted in survivors followed up at the University Hospital Brussels. We performed content analysis on the semi-structured interviews and analyzed the PROMs descriptively. Results: 70 cancer survivors (71.4%) consented to participate between July 2022 and November 2023. Clinical fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) was present in 54.3% of the cancer survivors, and 18.6% had elevated cognitive complaints. We identified triggers related to clinically important psychological distress, such as immune-related adverse events, the progression/recurrence of disease, difficulties in adjusting to life after treatment, and co-existing life stressors, alongside persistent physical issues and unmet psychological and nutritional care needs. Conclusion: Our results indicate the existence of persistent psychological, physical, and cognitive issues, and support the need for routine screening for FCR. The identified triggers related to severe psychological distress can aid clinicians in timely referring the patient, thereby enhancing survivorship care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

* Context.--The benefit of programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) immunohistochemistry (IHC) as a method to select patients who may benefit from programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1)/PD-L1 immunotherapies remains uncertain in many tumor indications. Objectives.--To compare the commercially available, approved PD-L1 IHC assays (22C3, 28-8, SP142, SP263), specifically identifying the changes in staining output created by altering the detection method. Design.--This pilot study investigates the respective PD-L1 kit assay staining patterns and related scoring of tumor cells and immune cells on lung carcinoma and melanoma. Furthermore, the influence of the detection method (platform and related reagents) on PD-L1 antibody performance is studied. Results.--The SP142 kit reveals more immune cell staining but less tumor cell staining than the other PD-L1 kits. Alternatively, the 22C3 and 28-8 kits show good tumor cell sensitivity, but less pronounced immune cell staining, even in tonsil. Tumor cell staining by the SP263 kit is comparable to that of 22C3 and 28-8 kits, while immune cell staining is better. Strikingly, the selection of the detection method has a major impact on the sensitivity of the assay for PD-L1 detection per cell type. Switching the detection method of the kits could largely circumvent the observed staining differences. Conclusions.--The diverse sensitivities caused by the choice of the detection method should be taken into consideration when selecting PD-L1 kits or developing PD-L1 IHC laboratory-developed tests. When using alternative kits or laboratory-developed tests, it is strongly recommended to reestablish their clinical utility per therapeutic agent or compare them with the original kit. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2017-0159-OA, Many promising results were obtained by using anti-programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) or anti-programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) therapy in different tumor types, and several PD-1/PD-L1 blocking agents are already approved by [...]