Search

Purpose: In the phase III CheckMate 238 study, adjuvant nivolumab significantly improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival versus ipilimumab in patients with resected stage IIIB–C or stage IV melanoma, with benefit sustained at 4 years. We report updated 5-year efficacy and biomarker findings. Patients and Methods: Patients with resected stage IIIB–C/IV melanoma were stratified by stage and baseline programmed death cell ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and received nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or ipilimumab 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses and then every 12 weeks, both intravenously for 1 year until disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was RFS. Results: At a minimum follow-up of 62 months, RFS with nivolumab remained superior to ipilimumab (HR = 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–0.86; 5-year rates of 50% vs. 39%). Five-year distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) rates were 58% with nivolumab versus 51% with ipilimumab. Five-year overall survival (OS) rates were 76% with nivolumab and 72% with ipilimumab (75% data maturity: 228 of 302 planned events). Higher levels of tumor mutational burden (TMB), tumor PD-L1, intratumoral CD8+ T cells and IFNγ-associated gene expression signature, and lower levels of peripheral serum C-reactive protein were associated with improved RFS and OS with both nivolumab and ipilimumab, albeit with limited clinically meaningful predictive value. Conclusions: Nivolumab is a proven adjuvant treatment for resected melanoma at high risk of recurrence, with sustained, long-term improvement in RFS and DMFS compared with ipilimumab and high OS rates. Identification of additional biomarkers is needed to better predict treatment outcome.

Purpose of Review The treatment strategy for BRAF-mutated melanoma remains unsatisfactory, although the advent of immune checkpoint inhibition has improved the prognosis of advanced melanoma. This article reports current evidence on the efficacy and safety of sequential immunotherapy with targeted therapy in patients with BRAF-mutated melanoma. It discusses criteria for the use of available options in clinical practice. Recent Findings Targeted therapy provides rapid disease control in a relatively high proportion of patients, although the development of secondary resistance limits the duration of responses; in contrast, immunotherapy may induce slow but more durable responses in a subset of patients. Summary Therefore, the identification of a combination strategy for the use of these therapies seems a promising perspective. Currently, inconsistent data have been obtained, but most studies indicate that the administration of BRAFi/MEKi prior to immune checkpoint inhibitors appears to reduce the efficacy of immunotherapy. On the contrary, several clinical and real-life studies suggest that frontline immunotherapy with subsequent targeted therapy may be associated with better tumor control than immunotherapy alone. Larger clinical studies are ongoing to confirm the efficacy and safety of this sequencing strategy for treating BRAF-mutated melanoma with immunotherapy followed by targeted therapy.

BACKGROUND: The Rome Trial is a randomized phase II trial (NCT04591431). The aim is to evaluate efficacy and safety of a tailored treatment (TT) compared to standard of care (SoC) in patients with solid tumors. Here we report the preliminary results of the molecular alterations, microsatellite status (MS) and tumor mutational burden (TMB) in metastatic breast cancer (mBC) cohort. METHODS: MBC patients who received at least 1 and no more than 2 systemic treatments were enrolled. Tissue samples were collected within 6 months from the screening. Centralized Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) was performed on both tissue and liquid biopsy. Molecular alterations were evaluated by the Molecular Tumor Board (MTB) using COSMIC, ClinVar, OncoKB and VarSome datasets. Genes with at least 10% frequency of mutation, MS and TMB are reported. RESULTS: From Oct 2020 to June 2022, 980 pts with solid tumors were enrolled. Complete screening mutational data are available for sixty-two pts from the mBC cohort (63% HR+/HER2-, 35% triple negative, 2% HR-/HER2+). NGS was available both on tissue and liquid biopsy in 48 (77%) pts, 14 had only liquid biopsy available due to tissue test failure. 328 genes resulted altered with a median of 7 alteration per pts (0-31). Some pathways were frequently altered: PIK3CA/AKT/MTOR (60%), TP53 (60%), Cell cycle/cycline (35%), FGF/FGFR (26%), BRCA1/2 (17%). The most frequent altered genes were: TP53 (61%), PIK3CA (50%), ESR1 (27%), CCND1 (27%), FGF19 (24%), FGF3 (24%), FGF4 (22%), MYC (22%), FGFR1 (21%), PTEN (21%), EMSY (16%), RB1 (14%), RAD21 (14%), TET2 (13%), BRCA2 (11%), GATA3 (11%), KRAS (10%). No pts with MSI status were reported. Eight (13%) had a high TMB (>10) and the overall median TMB was 5.5 (0-24). Median TMB was similar in tissue and liquid samples (5 and 5.3 mut/mb, p= 0.8). Actionable mutations were detected in 34 pts (54%). Twenty-eight (45%) pts were assigned to a specific TT after the MTB discussion: ipatasertib (16), pemigatinib (5), ipilimumab plus nivolumab (4), lapatinib plus trastuzumab, TDM1 and everolimus (1). MTB requested a germline test for 6 pts: 4 were confirmed (66%; 2 BRCA, 1 PALB2, 1 BRIP1). CONCLUSIONS: The extensive NGS analysis performed in the ROME trial shown that several pathways are commonly mutated in mBC, with target drug potentially available. About 15% of pts had a high TMB but MSI is confirmed as a rare event in breast cancer. Germline mutations have been identified in patients with no prior indication for germline testing. Citation Format: Andrea Botticelli, Simone Scagnoli, Pierfranco Conte, Chiara Cremolini, Paolo Antonio Ascierto, Federico Cappuzzo, Massimo Aglietta, Federica Mazzuca, Ettore Capoluongo, Giovanni Blandino, Umberto Malapelle, Marianna Nuti, Giulia D’Amati, Bruna Cerbelli, Giancarlo Pruneri, Mauro Biffoni, Giuseppe Giannini, Francesco Cognetti, Giuseppe Curigliano, Paolo Marchetti. Mutational landscape of breast cancer patients in ROME trial: preliminary results [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-10-09.

PURPOSE Limited prospective data are available on sequential immunotherapy and BRAF/MEK inhibition for BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma. METHODS SECOMBIT is a randomized, three-arm, noncomparative phase II trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02631447 ). Patients with untreated, metastatic BRAFV600-mutant melanoma from 37 sites in nine countries were randomly assigned to arm A (encorafenib [450 mg orally once daily] plus binimetinib [45 mg orally twice daily] until progressive disease [PD] -> ipilimumab plus nivolumab [ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks and nivolumab 1 mg/kg once every 3 weeks × four cycles -> nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks]), arm B [ipilimumab plus nivolumab until PD -> encorafenib plus binimetinib], or arm C (encorafenib plus binimetinib for 8 weeks -> ipilimumab plus nivolumab until PD -> encorafenib plus binimetinib). The primary end point was overall survival (OS) at 2 years. Secondary end points included total progression-free survival, 3-year OS, best overall response rate, duration of response, and biomarkers in the intent-to-treat population. Safety was analyzed throughout sequential treatment in all participants who received at least one dose of study medication. RESULTS A total of 209 patients were randomly assigned (69 in arm A, 71 in arm B, and 69 in arm C). At a median follow-up of 32.2 (interquartile range, 27.9-41.6) months, median OS was not reached in any arm and more than 30 patients were alive in all arms. Assuming a null hypothesis of median OS of ≤ 15 months, the OS end point was met for all arms. The 2-year and 3-year OS rates were 65% (95% CI, 54 to 76) and 54% (95% CI, 41 to 67) in arm A, 73% (95% CI, 62 to 84) and 62% (95% CI, 48 to 76) in arm B, and 69% (95% CI, 59 to 80) and 60% (95% CI, 58 to 72) in arm C. No new safety signals emerged. CONCLUSION Sequential immunotherapy and targeted therapy provide clinically meaningful survival benefits for patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma.

PURPOSE Combination treatment with BRAF and MEK inhibitors has demonstrated benefits on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) and is a standard of care for the treatment of advanced BRAF V600–mutant melanoma. Here, we report the 5-year update from the COLUMBUS trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01909453 ). METHODS Patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600–mutant melanoma, untreated or progressed after first-line immunotherapy, were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily, vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily, or encorafenib 300 mg once daily. An updated analysis was conducted 65 months after the last patient was randomly assigned. RESULTS Five hundred seventy-seven patients were randomly assigned: 192 to encorafenib plus binimetinib, 191 to vemurafenib, and 194 to encorafenib. The 5-year PFS and OS rates with encorafenib plus binimetinib were 23% and 35% overall and 31% and 45% in those with normal lactate dehydrogenase levels, respectively. In comparison, the 5-year PFS and OS rates with vemurafenib were 10% and 21% overall and 12% and 28% in those with normal lactate dehydrogenase levels, respectively. The median duration of response with encorafenib plus binimetinib was 18.6 months, with disease control achieved in 92.2% of patients. In comparison, the median duration of response with vemurafenib was 12.3 months, with disease control achieved in 81.2% of patients. Long-term follow-up showed no new safety concerns, and results were consistent with the known tolerability profile of encorafenib plus binimetinib. Interactive visualization of the data presented in this article is available at COLUMBUS dashboard. CONCLUSION In this 5-year update of part 1 of the COLUMBUS trial, encorafenib plus binimetinib treatment demonstrated continued long-term benefits and a consistent safety profile in patients with BRAF V600–mutant melanoma.

Adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) versus placebo in resected stage IIB and IIC melanoma in the phase 3 KEYNOTE-716 study. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) results are reported.Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg (2 mg/kg, patients ≥12 to18 years) Q3W or placebo for ≤17 cycles or until disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal. Change from baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS)/quality of life (QoL) was a prespecified exploratory end point. Change in EORTC QLQ-C30 functioning, symptom, and single-item scales, and EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale (VAS) were also summarized. Primary analyses were performed at week 48 to ensure adequate completion/compliance. The HRQoL population comprised patients who received ≥1 dose of treatment and completed ≥1 assessment.The HRQoL population included 969 patients (pembrolizumab, n = 483; placebo, n = 486). Compliance at week 48 was ≥80% for both instruments. EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL, physical functioning, role functioning, and EQ-5D-5L VAS scores were stable from baseline to week 48 in both arms, with no clinically meaningful decline observed. Scores did not differ significantly between pembrolizumab and placebo. EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL, physical functioning, role functioning, and EQ-5D-5L VAS scores remained stable through week 96 in both arms.HRQoL was stable with adjuvant pembrolizumab, with no clinically meaningful decline observed. Change from baseline in HRQoL was similar between arms. These results, in conjunction with the improved RFS and manageable safety previously reported, support the use of adjuvant pembrolizumab for high-risk stage II melanoma.

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.

In the KEYNOTE-158 study (NCT02628067), pembrolizumab showed a high objective response rate and durable clinical benefit for patients with previously treated, unresectable/metastatic microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H)/mismatch repair‒deficient (dMMR) non-colorectal solid tumours. We present health-related quality of life (HRQoL) results from the MSI-H/dMMR population (cohort K).Eligible patients had previously treated MSI-H/dMMR advanced non-colorectal solid tumours, measurable disease per RECIST v1.1, and ECOG performance status ≤1. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W for 35 cycles (2 years). The EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and EQ-5D-3L were administered at baseline, at regular intervals throughout treatment, and 30 days after treatment discontinuation. Prespecified analyses (exploratory endpoints) included the magnitude of change from baseline to post-baseline timepoints in all patients and by the best overall response for QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS)/QoL, QLQ-C30 functional/symptom scales/items, and EQ-5D-3L visual analogue scale (VAS) score.At data cutoff (October 5, 2020), 351 patients were enrolled, of whom 311 and 315 completed baseline QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-3L questionnaires, respectively. QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL scores improved from baseline to week 9 (mean [95% CI] change, 3.07 [0.19-5.94]), then remained stable or improved by week 111, with greater improvements observed in patients with a best response of complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) (10.85 [6.36-15.35]). Patients with CR/PR showed improvements in physical (5.58 [1.91-9.25]), role (9.88 [3.80-15.97]), emotional (5.62 [1.56-9.68]), and social (8.33 [2.70-13.97]) functioning, and stable cognitive functioning (1.74 [-1.45 to 4.94]).Pembrolizumab generally improved or preserved HRQoL in patients with previously treated MSI-H/dMMR advanced non-colorectal solid tumours.

PURPOSE Nivolumab and relatlimab activity in advanced melanoma with prior progression on anti–programmed death-1/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-(L)1)-containing regimens is under investigation. RELATIVITY-047 demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) for nivolumab and relatlimab over nivolumab in previously untreated advanced melanoma. METHODS The phase I/IIa, open-label RELATIVITY-020 trial part D assessed efficacy and safety of nivolumab and relatlimab in advanced melanoma with progression during, or within 3 months of, 1 (D1) or ≥ 1 (D2) anti–PD-(L)1-containing regimens. Safety was a primary end point. Objective response rate (coprimary end point) and PFS by blinded independent central review (BICR) were assessed. RESULTS Five hundred eighteen patients (D1 = 354; D2 = 164) received nivolumab and relatlimab. Among evaluable patients, the objective response rate by BICR was 12.0% (95% CI, 8.8 to 15.8) in D1 (n = 351) and 9.2% (95% CI, 5.2 to 14.7) in D2 (n = 163). Responses appeared to be enriched among patients with tumors expressing programmed death ligand 1 or lymphocyte activation gene 3; however, responses were observed regardless of programmed death ligand 1 and lymphocyte activation gene 3 expression (1%). The median duration of response was not reached (95% CI, 12.9 to not reached) in D1 and 12.8 months (95% CI, 6.9 to 12.9) in D2. The median PFS by BICR was 2.1 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 3.5) in D1 and 3.2 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 3.6) in D2; the 6-month PFS rate was 29.1% (95% CI, 24.2 to 34.1) and 27.7% (95% CI, 20.5 to 35.4), respectively. The grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse event incidence was 15.0% in D1 and 12.8% in D2. One case of grade 3 myocarditis and no treatment-related deaths occurred across part D. CONCLUSION Nivolumab and relatlimab had a manageable safety profile and demonstrated durable clinical activity in a proportion of patients with heavily pretreated advanced melanoma with prior progression on anti–PD-(L)1-containing regimens. [Media: see text]

DATA SUPPLEMENT Adjuvant Nivolumab Versus Ipilimumab in Resected Stage III/IV Melanoma: 5-Year Efficacy and Biomarker Results From CheckMate 238

Purpose:In the phase III CheckMate 238 study, adjuvant nivolumab significantly improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival versus ipilimumab in patients with resected stage IIIB–C or stage IV melanoma, with benefit sustained at 4 years. We report updated 5-year efficacy and biomarker findings.Patients and Methods:Patients with resected stage IIIB–C/IV melanoma were stratified by stage and baseline programmed death cell ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and received nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or ipilimumab 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses and then every 12 weeks, both intravenously for 1 year until disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was RFS.Results:At a minimum follow-up of 62 months, RFS with nivolumab remained superior to ipilimumab (HR = 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–0.86; 5-year rates of 50% vs. 39%). Five-year distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) rates were 58% with nivolumab versus 51% with ipilimumab. Five-year overall survival (OS) rates were 76% with nivolumab and 72% with ipilimumab (75% data maturity: 228 of 302 planned events). Higher levels of tumor mutational burden (TMB), tumor PD-L1, intratumoral CD8+ T cells and IFNγ-associated gene expression signature, and lower levels of peripheral serum C-reactive protein were associated with improved RFS and OS with both nivolumab and ipilimumab, albeit with limited clinically meaningful predictive value.Conclusions:Nivolumab is a proven adjuvant treatment for resected melanoma at high risk of recurrence, with sustained, long-term improvement in RFS and DMFS compared with ipilimumab and high OS rates. Identification of additional biomarkers is needed to better predict treatment outcome.

Purpose: No evidence exists as to whether type 2 diabetes (T2DM) impairs clinical outcome from Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICI) in patients with solid tumors. Experimental Design: In a large cohort of ICI recipients treated at 21 institutions from June 2014 to June 2020, we studied whether patients on glucose lowering medications (GLM) for T2DM had shorter OS and PFS. We used targeted transcriptomics in a subset of patients to explore differences in the tumor microenvironment of patients with/without diabetes. Results: A total of 1395 patients were included. Primary tumors included NSCLC (54.7%), melanoma (24.7%), renal cell (15.0%) and other carcinomas (5.6%). Following multivariable analysis, patients on GLM (n=226, 16.2%) displayed an increased risk of death (HR 1.29, 95%CI:1.07-1.56) and disease progression/death (HR 1.21, 95%CI:1.03-1.43) independent of number of GLM received. We matched 92 metformin exposed with 363 controls and 78 patients on other oral GLM or insulin with 299 control patients. Exposure to metformin, but not other GLM was associated with an increased risk of death (HR 1.53, 95%CI:1.16-2.03) and disease progression/death (HR 1.34, 95%CI:1.04-1.72). T2DM patients with higher pre-treatment glycaemia had higher neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (p=0.04), while exploratory tumoral transcriptomic profiling in a subset of patients (n=22) revealed differential regulation of innate and adaptive immune pathways in T2DM patients. Conclusions: In this study patients on GLM experienced worse outcomes from immunotherapy, independent of baseline features. Prospective studies are warranted to clarify the relative impact of metformin over a pre-existing diagnosis of T2DM in influencing poorer outcomes in this population.

The 2022 Immunotherapy Bridge congress (November 30–December 1, Naples, Italy) featured a Great Debate session which addressed three contemporary topics in the field of immunotherapy. The debates included counterpoint views from leading experts and considered whether adoptive cell therapy (ACT) has a role in the treatment of solid tumors, the use of peripheral/blood biomarkers versus tumor microenvironment biomarkers for cancer immunotherapy and the role of chimeric antigen receptor T cell versus natural killer cell therapy. As is the tradition in the Immunotherapy Bridge Great Debates, speakers are invited by the meeting Chairs to express one side of the assigned debate and the opinions given may not fully reflect their own personal views. Audiences voted in favour of either side of the topic both before and after each debate.

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

Outcomes for patients with melanoma have improved over the past decade as a result of the development and FDA approval of immunotherapies targeting cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4), programmed death-1 (PD-1), and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1). However, these therapies do not benefit all patients, and an area of intensive research investigation is identifying biomarkers that can predict which patients are most likely to benefit from them. Here, we report exploratory analyses of the associations of tumor mutational burden (TMB), a 4-gene inflammatory gene expression signature, and BRAF mutation status with tumor response, progression-free survival, and overall survival in patients with advanced melanoma treated as part of the CheckMate 066 and 067 phase III clinical trials evaluating immuno-oncology therapies. In patients enrolled in CheckMate 067 receiving the anti–PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab (NIVO) alone or in combination with the anti–CTLA-4 inhibitor ipilimumab (IPI) or IPI alone, longer survival appeared to associate with high (>median) versus low (≤median) TMB and with high versus low inflammatory signature scores. For NIVO-treated patients, the results regarding TMB association were confirmed in CheckMate 066. In addition, improved survival was observed with high TMB and absence of BRAF mutation. Weak correlations were observed between PD-L1, TMB, and the inflammatory signature. Combined assessment of TMB, inflammatory gene expression signature, and BRAF mutation status may be predictive for response to immune checkpoint blockade in advanced melanoma.

Univariate analysis of biomarkers identified by OPLS-DA.

Immune, biological and clinical variables used to built OPLS-DA model

Primary melanoma cell lines

Supplementary Figure from TMB and Inflammatory Gene Expression Associated with Clinical Outcomes following Immunotherapy in Advanced Melanoma

Antibodies used for flow cytometry analysis

Immune checkpoint blockade therapy has changed prognoses for many melanoma patients. However, immune responses that correlate with clinical progression of the disease are still poorly understood. To identify immune responses correlating with melanoma clinical evolution, we analyzed serum cytokines as well as circulating NK and T-cell subpopulations from melanoma patients. The patients' immune profiles suggested that melanoma progression leads to changes in peripheral blood NK and T-cell subsets. Stage IV melanoma was characterized by an increased frequency of CCR7+CD56bright NK cells as well as high serum concentrations of the CCR7 ligand CCL19. CCR7 expression and CCL19 secretion were also observed in melanoma cell lines. The CCR7+ melanoma cell subpopulation coexpressed PD-L1 and Galectin-9 and had stemness properties. Analysis of melanoma-derived cancer stem cells (CSC) showed high CCR7 expression; these CSCs were efficiently recognized and killed by NK cells. An accumulation of CCR7+, PD-L1+, and Galectin-9+ melanoma cells in melanoma metastases was demonstrated ex vivo. Altogether, our data identify biomarkers that may mark a CCR7-driven metastatic melanoma pathway.

Frequency and expression of the indicated molecules on CCR7- and CCR7+ melanoma cells.

Kaplan-Meier survival curves in 9 patients with low and 13 with high CCL19 serum concentration.

Supplementary Data from TMB and Inflammatory Gene Expression Associated with Clinical Outcomes following Immunotherapy in Advanced Melanoma

Negative controls for CD44, CD271, ABCB5, and CD166 antibodies on melanoma CSCs.

Supplementary Figure 1: Schema of the hierarchical classifier development platform Supplementary Figure 2: Process for the simultaneous refinement of training class labels and classifier Supplementary Table 1: Association of Patient Characteristics with Test Classification Supplementary Table 2: Association of Test Classification with Immune Adverse Events Supplementary Table 3: Points in m/Z used to align the raster spectra Supplementary Table 4: m/Z regions used for coarse normalization Supplementary Table 5: m/Z regions used for finer normalization Supplementary Table 6: Points in m/Z used to align the spectra Supplementary Table 7: m/Z regions used for final normalization Supplementary Table 8: Lists of proteins/peptides included in each of the significantly associated biological function protein sets

A mass spectrometry analysis was performed using serum from patients receiving checkpoint inhibitors to define baseline protein signatures associated with outcome in metastatic melanoma. Pretreatment serum was obtained from a development set of 119 melanoma patients on a trial of nivolumab with or without a multipeptide vaccine and from patients receiving pembrolizumab, nivolumab, ipilimumab, or both nivolumab and ipilimumab. Spectra were obtained using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time of flight mass spectrometry. These data combined with clinical data identified patients with better or worse outcomes. The test was applied to five independent patient cohorts treated with checkpoint inhibitors and its biology investigated using enrichment analyses. A signature consisting of 209 proteins or peptides was associated with progression-free and overall survival in a multivariate analysis. The test performance across validation cohorts was consistent with the development set results. A pooled analysis, stratified by set, demonstrated a significantly better overall survival for “sensitive” relative to “resistant” patients, HR = 0.15 (95% confidence interval: 0.06–0.40, P < 0.001). The test was also associated with survival in a cohort of ipilimumab-treated patients. Test classification was found to be associated with acute phase reactant, complement, and wound healing pathways. We conclude that a pretreatment signature of proteins, defined by mass spectrometry analysis and machine learning, predicted survival in patients receiving PD-1 blocking antibodies. This signature of proteins was associated with acute phase reactants and elements of wound healing and the complement cascade. This signature merits further study to determine if it identifies patients who would benefit from PD-1 blockade. Cancer Immunol Res; 6(1); 79–86. ©2017 AACR.

Exciting advances in melanoma systemic therapies have presented the opportunity for surgical oncologists and their multidisciplinary colleagues to test the neoadjuvant systemic treatment approach in high-risk, resectable metastatic melanomas. Here we describe the state of the science of neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) for melanoma, focusing on the surgical aspects and the key role of the surgical oncologist in this treatment paradigm. This paper summarizes the past decade of developments in melanoma treatment and the current evidence for NAST in stage III melanoma specifically. Issues of surgical relevance are discussed, including the risk of progression on NAST prior to surgery. Technical aspects, such as the definition of resectability for melanoma and the extent and scope of routine surgery are presented. Other important issues, such as the utility of radiographic response evaluation and method of pathologic response evaluation, are addressed. Surgical complications and perioperative management of NAST related adverse events are considered. The International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium has the goal of harmonizing NAST trials in melanoma to facilitate rapid advances with new approaches, and facilitating the comparison of results across trials evaluating different treatment regimens. Our ultimate goals are to provide definitive proof of the safety and efficacy of NAST in melanoma, sufficient for NAST to become an acceptable standard of care, and to leverage this platform to allow more personalized, biomarker-driven, tailored approaches to subsequent treatment and surveillance.

Calibration of combination models. Calibration was calculated after 12 and 24 months using the calibrate function in the rms package of R for combination model 1 (A) and combination model 2 (B). Bootstrapping (1000 repeats) was performed to obtain bias-corrected estimates of predicted vs. observed values. Non-convergence reduced the number of included bootstrapping steps for combination model 2 to 981 or 990 after 12 or 24 months, respectively. "Predicted" survival probabilities at 12 or 24 months are those predicted by the Cox model, and "observed" refers to the corresponding Kaplan-Meier survival estimate at the given time-point. Mean absolute error in predictions, the mean squared error, and the 0.9 quantile of the absolute error is reported. "Error" refers to the difference between the predicted values and the corresponding bias-corrected calibrated values. Mean error was