Search

Background: The tumour microenvironment significantly influences the clinical response of patients to therapeutic immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI), but a comprehensive understanding of the underlying immune-regulatory proteome is still lacking., Objectives: To decipher targetable biologic processes that determine tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TiLs) as a cellular equivalent of clinical response to ICI., Methods: We mapped the spatial distribution of proteins in TiL-enriched vs. TiL-low compartments in melanoma by combining microscopy, matrix-assisted laser desorption mass spectrometry imaging and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry, as well as computational data mining. Pharmacological modulation of sirtuin 1 (SIRT1) activity in syngeneic mouse models was used to evaluate the efficacy of pharmacological SIRT1 activation in two syngeneic melanoma mouse models, one known to be α-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) sensitive and the other α-PD-1 resistant., Results: Spatial proteomics and gene ontology-based enrichment analysis identified > 145 proteins enriched in CD8high tumour compartments, including negative regulators of mammalian target of rapamycin signalling such as SIRT1. Multiplexed immunohistochemistry confirmed that SIRT1 protein was expressed more in CD8high than in CD8low compartments. Further analysis of bulk and single-cell RNA sequencing data from melanoma tissue samples suggested the expression of SIRT1 by different lymphocyte subpopulations (CD8+ T cells, CD4+ T cells and B cells). Furthermore, we showed in vivo that pharmacological SIRT1 activation increased the immunological effect of α-PD-1 ICI against melanoma cells in mice, which was accompanied by an increase in T-cell infiltration and T-cell-related cytokines, including interferon (IFN)-γ, CCL4, CXCL9, CXCL10 and tumour necrosis factor-α. In silico analysis of large transcriptional data cohorts showed that SIRT1 was positively associated with the proinflammatory T-cell chemokines CXCL9, CXCL10 and IFN-γ, and prolonged overall survival of patients with melanoma., Conclusions: Our study deciphers the proteomics landscape in human melanoma, providing important information on the tumour microenvironment and identifying SIRT1 as having important prognostic and therapeutic implications., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest J.M.-P. has served as a consultant for and/or has received honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis and Sanofi; and has received travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Therakos. S.U. declares research support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Serono; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, and Novartis; and meeting and travel support from Almirall, Bristol Myers Squibb, IGEA Clinical Biophysics, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Sun Pharma, outside the submitted work. D. Schadendorf has received grants and other support from Bristol Myers Squibb; personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Amgen; personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim; personal fees from InFlarX; personal fees and other support from Roche; grants, personal fees and other support from Novartis; personal fees from Incyte; personal fees and other support from Regeneron; personal fees from 4SC; personal fees from Sanofi; personal fees from Neracare; personal fees from Pierre-Fabre; personal fees and other support from Merck-EMD; personal fees from Pfizer; personal fees and other support from Philiogen; personal fees from Array; and personal fees and other support from MSD Sharp & Dohme, outside the submitted work. A.R. reports grants from Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb and Adtec; personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme; and nonfinancial support from Amgen, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb and Teva., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Chronic wounds on the leg (below the knee) are called leg ulcers. They have many causes, and thus patients with leg ulcers are treated by many different kinds of medical specialist. Appproximately 80% of sufferers have chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) and/or peripheral arterial occlusive disease (PAOD). Knowledge of the relevant differential diagnoses is important for appropriate treatment, particularly for patients with atypical findings or an intractable course., Methods: This article is based on publications retrieved by a selective search in PubMed, including current guidelines and expert recommendations., Results: The diagnostic evaluation of a leg ulcer can be structured according to the ABCDE rule. This involves individualized, targeted history-taking (anamnesis); bacteriological testing; clinical examination; ancillary testing, particularly for perfusion (defective vascular system); and extras, such as biopsies. Specifically, we present in this article the main aspects of the complex diagnostic evaluation of venous leg ulcers, arterial leg ulcers, vasculitis, vasculopathy, calciphylaxis, pyoderma gangrenosum, necrobiosis lipoidica, ecthyma, and squamous cell carcinoma. There remain many unsolved problems, including interactions between the various areas of clinical treatment and the relative paucity of relevant high-quality research., Conclusion: A timely differential-diagnostic evaluation for the many diseases that can cause leg ulcers, which require treatment from representatives of many different medical specialties and health professions, is a prerequisite for their effective individualized treatment.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) currently is the most effective treatment to induce durable responses in metastatic melanoma. The aims of this study are the characterization of patients with early, late and non-response to ICI and analysis of survival outcomes in a real-world patient cohort., Methods: Patients who received PD-1-based immunotherapy for non-resectable stage-IV melanoma in any therapy line were selected from the prospective multicenter real-world DeCOG study ADOREG-TRIM (NCT05750511). Patients showing complete (CR) or partial (PR) response already during the first 3 months of treatment (Early Responders, EarlyR) were compared to patients showing CR/PR at a later time (Late Responders, LateR), a stable disease (SD) and to patients showing progressive disease (Non-Responders, NonR)., Results: Of 522 patients, 8.2 % were EarlyR (n = 43), 19.0 % were LateR (n = 99), 37.0 % had a SD (n = 193) and 35.8 % were NonR (n = 187). EarlyR, LateR and SD patients had comparable baseline characteristics. Multivariate logbinomial regression analyses adjusted for age and sex revealed positive tumor PD-L1 (RR=1.99, 95 %-CI=1.14-3.46, p = 0.015), and normal serum CRP (RR=1.59, 95 %-CI=0.93-2.70, p = 0.036) as independently associated with the achievement of an early response compared to NonR. The median progression-free and overall survival was 46.0 months (95 % CI 19.1; NR) and 47.8 months (95 %-CI 36.9; NR) for EarlyR, NR (95 %-CI NR; NR) for LateR, 8.1 months (7.0; 10.4) and 35.4 months (29.2; NR) for SD, and 2.0 months (95 %-CI 1.9; 2.1) and 6.1 months (95 %-CI 4.6; 8.8) for NonR patients., Conclusion: Less than 10 % of metastatic melanoma patients achieved an early response during the first 3 months of PD-1-based immunotherapy. Early responders were not superior to late responders in terms of response durability and survival., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest GCL received travel support from Sun Pharma, Pierre Fabre, research funding from Novartis. RH is employee of Helios Kliniken GmbH. PT has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, CureVac, Merck Serono, Sanofi, Roche, Kyowa Kirin and Biofrontera; and travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pierre Fabre. JU received honoraria (speaker honoraria or honoraria as a consultant) and travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Kyowa Kirin, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi/Regeneron, Sunpharma outside the submitted work. CP received honoraria (speaker honoraria or honoraria as a consultant) and travel support from Novartis, BMS, MSD, Merck Serono, MSD, Celgene, AbbVie, Sunpharma, Pierre Fabre, UCB, Nutricia Milupa, Janssen and LEO, outside the submitted work. JU is on the advisory board or has received honoraria and travel support from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Immunocore, LeoPharma, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi outside the submitted work. AK served as a speaker and/or consultant and/or advisory board for MSD, AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and Sanofi. PM declares research support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Novartis; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Beiersdorf, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Immunocore, Sanofi and Novartis, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and Pierre Fabre, outside the submitted work. RG received honoraria as speaker from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Amgen, Merck Serono, Almirall Hermal, SUN, Sanofi/Regeneron, Pierre-Fabre, as advisory board member from BMS, Novartis, Almirall Hermal, MSD, Amgen, SUN, Sanofi/Regeneron, Pierre-Fabre, 4SC, MerckSerono, Pfizer, Immunocore, Delcath, for meeting support from SUN, Pierre-Fabre, Boehringer Ingelheim and for research projects (to institution) from Amgen, Merck-Serono, SUN Pharma, Sanofi/Regeneron, Kyowa-Kirin, Almirall-Hermal. FM has received travel support or/and speaker’s fees or/and advisor’s honoraria by Novartis, Roche, BMS, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi and Immunocore and research funding from Novartis and Roche. MW received grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merck Sharp & Dohme, consulting fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Immunocore and Novartis, lecture honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merck Sharp & Dohme and Pierre-Fabre, and advisory board honoraria from Merck Sharp & Dohme. AP reports grants from Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) and Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD) outside the submitted work. JCB is receiving speaker’s bureau honoraria from Amgen, Pfizer, Recordati and Sanofi, and is a paid consultant/advisory board member/DSMB member for Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, InProTher, ICON, MerckSerono, Pfizer, 4SC, and Sanofi/Regeneron. His group received research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, HTG, IQVIA, and Alcedis. EL served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma, Takeda and travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre- Fabre, Sunpharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work. LZ served as consultant and has received honoraria from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, and Sunpharma and travel support from MSD, BMS, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work. DS reports partial financial support from Bristol Myers Squibb for the conduct of this study and drug supply (nivolumab and ipilimumab) support; grants (or contracts) from Amgen, Array/Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis and Roche; consulting fees from 4SC, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Haystick, Immunocore, InFlarX, Innocent, LabCorp, Merck Serono, MSD, Nektar, NeraCare, Novartis, OncoSec, Pfizer, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Replimune, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi/Regeneron, Sun Pharma; honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD/Merck, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi and Sun Pharma; support for attendings meetings or travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi; participation on drug safety monitoring or advisory boards for 4SC, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Immunocore, InFlarX, Merck Serono, MSD, Nektar, NeraCare, Novartis, OncoSec, Pfizer, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Replimune, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi/Regeneron and SunPharma; leadership roles for DeCOG, German Cancer Society, Hiege-Stiftung, Deutsche Hautkrebsstiftung, NVKH e.V. and EuMelaReg. SU declares research support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Serono; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, and Novartis; and meeting and travel support from Almirall, Bristol-Myers Squibb, IGEA Clinical Biophysics, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Sun Pharma. All other authors declared no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Melanomas lacking mutations in BRAF, NRAS and NF1 are frequently referred to as "triple wild-type" (tWT) melanomas. They constitute 5-10 % of all melanomas and remain poorly characterized regarding clinical characteristics and response to therapy. This study investigates the largest multicenter collection of tWT-melanomas to date., Methods: Targeted next-generation sequencing of the TERT promoter and 29 melanoma-associated genes were performed on 3109 melanoma tissue samples of the prospective multicenter study ADOREG/TRIM of the DeCOG revealing 292 patients suffering from tWT-melanomas. Clinical characteristics and mutational patterns were analyzed. As subgroup analysis, we analyzed 141 tWT-melanoma patients receiving either anti-CTLA4 plus anti-PD1 or anti PD1 monotherapy as first line therapy in AJCC stage IV., Results: 184 patients with cutaneous melanomas, 56 patients with mucosal melanomas, 34 patients with acral melanomas and 18 patients with melanomas of unknown origin (MUP) were included. A TERT promoter mutation could be identified in 33.2 % of all melanomas and 70.5 % of all tWT-melanomas harbored less than three mutations per sample. For the 141 patients with stage IV disease, mPFS independent of melanoma type was 6.2 months (95 % CI: 4-9) and mOS was 24.8 months (95 % CI: 14.2-53.4) after first line anti-CTLA4 plus anti-PD1 therapy. After first-line anti-PD1 monotherapy, mPFS was 4 months (95 %CI: 2.9-8.5) and mOS was 29.18 months (95 % CI: 17.5-46.2)., Conclusions: While known prognostic factors such as TERT promoter mutations and TMB were equally distributed among patients who received either anti-CTLA4 plus anti-PD1 combination therapy or anti-PD1 monotherapy as first line therapy, we did not find a prolonged mPFS or mOS in either of those. For both therapy concepts, mPFS and mOS were considerably shorter than reported for melanomas with known oncogene mutations., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest All other authors declare no conflicts of interest for the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Over the past decade, cancer immunotherapy has significantly advanced through the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors and the augmentation of adoptive cell transfer to enhance the innate cancer defense mechanisms. Despite these remarkable achievements, some cancers exhibit resistance to immunotherapy, with limited patient responsiveness and development of therapy resistance. Metabolic adaptations in both immune cells and cancer cells have emerged as central contributors to immunotherapy resistance. In the last few years, new insights emphasized the critical role of cancer and immune cell metabolism in animal models and patients. During therapy, immune cells undergo important metabolic shifts crucial for their acquired effector function against cancer cells. However, cancer cell metabolic rewiring and nutrient competition within tumor microenvironment (TME) alters many immune functions, affecting their fitness, polarization, recruitment, and survival. These interactions have initiated the development of novel therapies targeting tumor cell metabolism and favoring antitumor immunity within the TME. Furthermore, there has been increasing interest in comprehending how diet impacts the response to immunotherapy, given the demonstrated immunomodulatory and antitumor activity of various nutrients. In conclusion, recent advances in preclinical and clinical studies have highlighted the capacity of immune-based cancer therapies. Therefore, further exploration into the metabolic requirements of immune cells within the TME holds significant promise for the development of innovative therapeutic approaches that can effectively combat cancer in patients., (©2024 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Screening for gene mutations has become routine clinical practice across numerous tumor entities, including melanoma. BAP1 gene mutations have been identified in various tumor types and acknowledged as a critical event in metastatic uveal melanoma, but their role in non-uveal melanoma remains inadequately characterized., Methods: A retrospective analysis of all melanomas sequenced in our department from 2014-2022 (n=2650) was conducted to identify BAP1 mutated samples. Assessment of clinical and genetic characteristics was performed as well as correlations with treatment outcome., Results: BAP1 mutations were identified in 129 cases and distributed across the entire gene without any apparent hot spots. Inactivating BAP1 mutations were more prevalent in uveal (55%) compared to non-uveal (17%) melanomas. Non-uveal BAP1 mutated melanomas frequently exhibited UV-signature mutations and had a significantly higher mutation load than uveal melanomas. GNAQ and GNA11 mutations were common in uveal melanomas, while MAP-Kinase mutations were frequent in non-uveal melanomas with NF1 , BRAF V600 and NRAS Q61 mutations occurring in decreasing frequency, consistent with a strong UV association. Survival outcomes did not differ among non-uveal melanoma patients based on whether they received targeted or immune checkpoint therapy, or if their tumors harbored inactivating BAP1 mutations., Conclusion: In contrast to uveal melanomas, where BAP1 mutations serve as a significant prognostic indicator of an unfavorable outcome, BAP1 mutations in non-uveal melanomas are primarily considered passenger mutations and do not appear to be relevant from a prognostic or therapeutic perspective., Competing Interests: JM: Declares travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, outside the submitted work. J-MP: served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi and received travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Therakos, outside the submitted work. GL: Declares travel support from Sun Pharma, outside the submitted work. AZ: Declares travel support from Novartis, Sanofi Grenzyme, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. JU: Is on the advisory board or has received honoraria and travel support from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Immunocore, LeoPharma, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi outside the submitted work. PT: served as consultant and/or received honoraria form Almirall, Bristol Myers Squibb, Biofrontera, Curevac, Kyowa Kirin, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, 4SC, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb outside the submitted work. CP: Received honoraria speaker honoraria and advisory-board honoraria and travel support from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Sunpharma, AbbVie, LEO, and Kyona Kirin, outside the submitted work. RH: Is an employee of Helios Kliniken Erfurt GmbH. JW: Received honoraria and travel support from Almirall, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Merck Sharp & Dohme, outside the submitted work. EL: Served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma, Takeda and travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Sunpharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work. LZ: Served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Sunpharma and Sanofi; Research funding to institution: Novartis; travel support from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol- Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre-Fabre, Sunpharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work. SU: Research support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Serono; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, and Novartis; meeting and travel support from Almirall, Bristol-Myers Squibb, IGEA Clinical Biophysics, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Sun Pharma, outside the submitted work. DS: Reports personal fees and non-financial support from Roche/Genentech, grants, personal fees, non-financial support and other from BMS, personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, personal fees and non-financial support from Merck Serono, grant, personal fees and non-financial support from Amgen, personal fees from Immunocore, personal fees from Incyte, personal fees from 4SC, personal fees from Pierre Fabre, personal fees and non-financial support from Sanofi/Regeneron, personal fees from Array BioPharma, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Philogen, personal fees from Regeneron, personal fees from Nektar, personal fees from Sandoz, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, personal fees and non-financial support from SunPharma, Replimune, Helsinn, OncoSec and InFlaRx outside the submitted work. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Matull, Placke, Lodde, Zaremba, Utikal, Terheyden, Pföhler, Herbst, Kreuter, Welzel, Kretz, Möller, Sucker, Paschen, Livingstone, Zimmer, Hadaschik, Ugurel, Schadendorf, Thielmann and Griewank.)

Background: Effective treatment options are limited for patients with advanced melanoma who have progressed on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and targeted therapies (TT). Preclinical models support the combination of ICI with TT; however, clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of triplet combinations in first-line setting showed limited advantage compared to TT only., Methods: We conducted a retrospective, multicenter study, that included patients with advanced melanoma who were treated with BRAF/MEK inhibitors in combination with an anti-PD-(L)1 antibody (triplet therapy) after failure of at least one anti-PD-(L)1-based therapy and one TT in seven major melanoma centers between February 2016 and July 2022., Results: A total of 48 patients were included, of which 32 patients, 66.7% had brain metastases, 37 patients (77.1%) had three or more metastatic organs and 21 patients (43.8%) had three or more treatment lines. The median follow-up time was 31.4 months (IQR, 22.27-40.45 months). The treatment with triplet therapy resulted in an ORR of 35.4% (n = 17) and a DCR of 47.9% (n = 23). The median DOR was 5.9 months (range, 3.39-14.27 months). Patients treated with BRAF/MEK inhibitors as the last treatment line showed a slightly lower ORR (29.6%) compared to patients who received ICI or chemotherapy last (ORR: 42.9%). Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 25% of patients (n = 12), with seven patients (14.6%) requiring discontinuation of treatment with both or either drug., Conclusions: Triplet therapy has shown activity in heavily pretreated patients with advanced melanoma and may represent a potential treatment regimen after failure of ICI and TT., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests. LJA received honoraria from Novartis, Sunpharma, and Bristol-Myers Squibb and travel support from Sunpharma, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi, outside the submitted work., FD receives/received honoraria and travel support from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre and Sun Pharma., PG has received conference support from Pierre Fabre., JCH received honoraria from Amgen, BMS, GSK, Immunocore, MSD, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma and travel support from BMS, Iovance and Sunpharma., ME declares honoraria and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Immunocore, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi, outside the submitted work., AF reports honoraria for presentations for BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre; Travel support and congress participation support from BMS, Pierre-Fabre, Novartis; Advisory Boards from MSD, BMS, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Immunocore and institutional funding from BMS Stiftung Immunonkologie, outside the submitted work., DBJ has served on advisory boards or as a consultant for BMS, Catalyst Biopharma, Iovance, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Mosaic ImmunoEngineering, Novartis, Oncosec, Pfizer, Targovax, and Teiko, and has received research funding from BMS and Incyte., GL received travel support from Sun Pharma, Pierre Fabre, research funding from Novartis, JMP served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi and received travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Therakos., FK received travel support for participation in congresses and / or (speaker) honoraria from Novartis, Almirall and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work, AZ received travel support from Novartis, Sanofi Grenzyme, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work., SU declares research support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Serono; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, and Novartis; and meeting and travel support from Almirall, Bristol-Myers Squibb, IGEA Clinical Biophysics, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Sun Pharma, AR reports grants from Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Adtec; personal fees from Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; and nonfinancial support from Amgen, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb and Teva, outside the submitted work., CB has received honoraria for advisory and/or speaker functions from Almirall Hermal, BMS, Delcath, Immunocore, InlaRx, Leo Pharma, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, and Sanofi, outside the submitted work., CP receives/received honoraria from AstraZeneca und Roche Pharma, outside the submitted work., AMM has served as a consultant for BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pierre-Fabre and QBiotics., GVL is consultant advisor for Agenus, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Evaxion, Hexal AG (Sandoz Company), Highlight Therapeutics S.L., Innovent Biologics USA, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, PHMR Ltd, Pierre Fabre, Provectus, Qbiotics, Regeneron, RD has intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationships with Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dhome (MSD), Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Roche, Amgen, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Catalym, Second Genome, Regeneron, Alligator, T3 Pharma, MaxiVAX SA, Pfizer, Simcere and touchIME outside the submitted work., EL served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma, Takeda and travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre- Fabre, Sunpharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work, DS declares research support from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merk Sharp & Dome, Novartis and Roche (all to institution); speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, PamGene, Neracare, Replimune, InFlarx, Immocore, Erasca, Philogen, BioAlta, Astra Zeneca, Daiichi-Sanyco, Formycon, Innovent Biologics, Agenus, Array Pharma, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Regeneron, Immatics, Curevac, Haystack Oncology, NoviGenix, Seagen, BionTech, SunPharma, UltimoVacs, and Novartis; and meeting and travel support from Pierre Fabre, LZ served as consultant and has received honoraria from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, and Sunpharma and travel support from MSD, BMS, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work, All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Visual clinical diagnosis of dermatoses in people of color (PoC) is a considerable challenge in daily clinical practice and a potential cause of misdiagnosis in this patient cohort. The study aimed to determine the difference in visual diagnostic skills of dermatologists practicing in Germany in patients with light skin (Ls) and patients with skin of color (SoC) to identify a potential need for further education. From April to June 2023, German dermatologists were invited to complete an online survey with 24 patient photographs depicting 12 skin diseases on both Ls and SoC. The study's primary outcomes were the number of correctly rated photographs and the participants' self-assessed certainty about the suspected visual diagnosis in Ls compared to SoC. The final analysis included surveys from a total of 129 dermatologists (47.8% female, mean age: 39.5 years). Participants were significantly more likely to correctly identify skin diseases by visual diagnostics in patients with Ls than in patients with SoC (72.1% vs. 52.8%, p ≤ 0.001, OR 2.28). Additionally, they expressed higher confidence in their diagnoses for Ls than for SoC (73.9 vs. 61.7, p ≤ 0.001). Therefore, further specialized training seems necessary to improve clinical care of dermatologic patients with SoC., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: The interaction of gut microbiome and immune system is being studied with increasing interest. Disturbing factors, such as antibiotics may impact the immune system via gut and interfere with tumor response to immune checkpoint blockade (ICB)., Methods: In this multicenter retrospective cohort study exclusively treatment-naïve patients with cutaneous or mucosal melanoma treated with first-line anti-PD-1 based ICB for advanced, non-resectable disease between 06/2013 and 09/2018 were included. Progression-free (PFS), and overall survival (OS) according to antibiotic exposure (within 60 days prior to ICB and after the start of ICB vs. no antibiotic exposure) were analyzed. To account for immortal time bias, data from patients with antibiotics during ICB were analyzed separately in the time periods before and after start of antibiotics., Results: Among 578 patients with first-line anti-PD1 based ICB, 7% of patients received antibiotics within 60 days prior to ICB and 19% after starting ICB. Antibiotic exposure prior to ICB was associated with worse PFS (adjusted HR 1.75 [95% CI 1.22-2.52]) and OS (adjusted HR 1.64 [95% CI 1.04-2.58]) by multivariate analysis adjusting for potential confounders. The use of antibiotics after the start of ICB had no effect on either PFS (adjusted HR 1.19; 95% CI 0.89-1.60) or OS (adjusted HR 1.08; 95% CI 0.75-1.57)., Conclusions: Antibiotic exposure within 60 days prior to ICB seems to be associated with worse PFS and OS in melanoma patients receiving first-line anti-PD1 based therapy, whereas antibiotics after the start of ICB do not appear to affect PFS or OS., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest E.C. received travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, UCB and Almirall outside the submitted work. B.S. Honoraria from MSD, BMS, SUN Pharma, Allmiral, Novartis; Advisory Board for MSD, BMS, Pierre Fabre Pharma, Sanofi; travel support from BMS, Novartis, Pierre Fabre Pharma; Research Funding from Novartis; all outside the submitted work. M.S. received speaker honoraria from Novartis and advisory board honoraria from Sanofi Genzyme. R.G. declares research support from Novartis, Amgen, Sanofi, Merck-Serono, Admiral, SUN Pharma and Kyowa-Kirin; honoraria for lectures from Roche Pharma, Bristol-Myers Scuibb, Novartis, MSD. Almirall, Amgen, Merck-Serono, SUN Pharma, Pierre-Fabre, and Sanofi; advisory honoraria from Roche Pharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD, Admiral, Amgen, Pierre-Fabre, Merck-Serono, 4SC, Sun Pharma, Merck-Serono, Sanofi, Delcath and Immunocore. C.L. receives personal fees and travel reimbursement from MSD, BMS, Merck, Sanofi, Almirall Hermal, Kyowa Kirin, Biontech, Pierre Fabre, Novartis and Sun Pharma outside the submitted work. K.K. has served as consultant or/and has received honoraria from Amgen, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre and Novartis, and received travel support from Amgen, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Medac and Novartis. A.Z.M. received travel support from Novartis, Genzyme, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. J.M.P. served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi and received travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Therakos. E.G. received travel support from Pierre-Fabre, outside the submitted work. A.M. received travel support from Novartis, outside the submitted work. A.R. received grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from Novartis; grants and non-financial support from Bristol-Myers Squibb; personal fees and non-financial support from Roche; personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme; and non-financial support from Amgen, outside the submitted work. S.U. declares research support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Serono; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, and Novartis; and meeting and travel support from Almirall, Bristol-Myers Squibb, IGEA Clinical Biophysics, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Sun Pharma; outside the submitted work. D.S. received grants and other support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Amgen; personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim; personal fees from InFlarX; personal fees and other support from Roche; grants, personal fees and other support from Novartis; personal fees from Incyte; personal fees and other support from Regeneron; personal fees from 4SC; personal fees from Sanofi; personal fees from Neracare; personal fees from Pierre-Fabre; personal fees and other support from Merck-EMD; personal fees from Pfizer; personal fees and other support from Philiogen; personal fees from Array, personal fees and other support from MSD Sharp & Dohme, outside the submitted work. E.L. served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma, Takeda and travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre- Fabre, Sunpharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work.A.S. L.Z. served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, and Sanofi; and travel support from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre-Fabre, and Novartis, outside the submitted work. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: PD-1-based immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) is the major backbone of current melanoma therapy. Tumor PD-L1 expression represents one of few biomarkers predicting ICI therapy outcome. The objective of the present study was to systematically investigate whether the type of tumor tissue examined for PD-L1 expression has an impact on the correlation with ICI therapy outcome., Methods: Pre-treatment tumor tissue was collected within the prospective DeCOG cohort study ADOREG/TRIM (CA209-578; NCT05750511) between February 2014 and May 2020 from 448 consecutive patients who received PD-1-based ICI for non-resectable metastatic melanoma. The primary study endpoint was best overall response (BOR), secondary endpoints were progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). All endpoints were correlated with tumor PD-L1 expression (quantified with clone 28-8; cutoff ≥5%) and stratified by tissue type., Findings: Tumor PD-L1 was determined in 95 primary tumors (PT; 36.8% positivity), 153 skin/subcutaneous (34.0% positivity), 115 lymph node (LN; 50.4% positivity), and 85 organ (40.8% positivity) metastases. Tumor PD-L1 correlated with BOR if determined in LN (OR = 0.319; 95% CI = 0.138-0.762; P = 0.010), but not in skin/subcutaneous metastases (OR = 0.656; 95% CI = 0.311-1.341; P = 0.26). PD-L1 positivity determined on LN metastases was associated with favorable survival (PFS, HR = 0.490; 95% CI = 0.310-0.775; P = 0.002; OS, HR = 0.519; 95% CI = 0.307-0.880; P = 0.014). PD-L1 positivity determined in PT (PFS, HR = 0.757; 95% CI = 0.467-1.226; P = 0.27; OS; HR = 0.528; 95% CI = 0.305-0.913; P = 0.032) was correlated with survival to a lesser extent. No relevant survival differences were detected by PD-L1 determined in skin/subcutaneous metastases (PFS, HR = 0.825; 95% CI = 0.555-1.226; P = 0.35; OS, HR = 1.083; 95% CI = 0.698-1.681; P = 0.72)., Interpretation: For PD-1-based immunotherapy in melanoma, tumor PD-L1 determined in LN metastases was stronger correlated with therapy outcome than that assessed in PT or organ metastases. PD-L1 determined in skin/subcutaneous metastases showed no outcome correlation and therefore should be used with caution for clinical decision making., Funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb (ADOREG/TRIM, NCT05750511); German Research Foundation (DFG; Clinician Scientist Program UMEA); Else Kröner-Fresenius-Stiftung (EKFS; Medical Scientist Academy UMESciA)., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests Jürgen C. Becker is receiving speaker's bureau honoraria from Amgen, Pfizer, Recordati and Sanofi, and is a paid consultant/advisory board member/DSMB member for Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, InProTher, ICON, MerckSerono, Pfizer, 4SC, and Sanofi/Regeneron. His group received research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, HTG, IQVIA, and Alcedis. Ralf Gutzmer reported Personal Honoraria from Roche, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Amgen, Merck Serono, Almirall, SUN, Sanofi, Pierre-Fabre; Consultant or Advisory Role (personal) for BMS, Roche, Novartis, Almirall, MSD, Amgen, SUN, Sanofi, Pierre-Fabre, 4SC, Immunocore; Research Funding (to institution) from Novartis, Pfizer, Amgen, Merck-Serono, SUN, KyowaKirin, Almirall; and Travel, Accommodations, Expenses from SUN, Pierre-Fabre, Boehringer-Ingelheim; outside the submitted work. Rudolf Herbst is employee of Helios Klinikum Erfurt GmbH. Joachim Klode reported grants and or personal fees from Novartis, LaVision Bio Tec and Sastomed. Sophia Kreft has received honoraria from Sun Pharma and reports travel support from Sanofi Genzyme. Frederik Krefting received travel support for participation in congresses and/or (speaker) honoraria from Novartis, Almirall and Boehringer Ingelheim outside the submitted work. Elisabeth Livingstone received honoraria from Novartis, Medac, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and Pierre Fabre, reports consulting/advisory roles with Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre and Novartis; and received travel/accommodations/expenses from Pierre Fabre, Bristol Myers Squibb, Medac, and Sun Pharma. Georg Lodde received travel support from Sun Pharma. Friedegund Meier has received travel support or/and speaker's fees or/and advisor's honoraria by Novartis, Roche, BMS, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi and Immunocore and research funding from Novartis and Roche. Peter Mohr declares research support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Novartis; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Beiersdorf, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Immunocore, Sanofi and Novartis, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and Pierre Fabre, outside the submitted work. Claudia Pföhler received honoraria (speaker honoraria or honoraria as a consultant) and travel support from Novartis, BMS, MSD, Merck Serono, MSD, Celgene, AbbVie, Sunpharma, Pierre Fabre, UCB, Nutricia Milupa, Janssen and LEO, outside the submitted work. Jan-Malte Placke served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi and received travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Therakos. Alexander Roesch reported grants from Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Adtec; personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme; and nonfinancial support from Amgen, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Teva. Dirk Schadendorf reports partial financial support from Bristol Myers Squibb for the conduct of this study and drug supply (nivolumab and ipilimumab) support; grants (or contracts) from Amgen, Array/Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis and Roche; consulting fees from 4SC, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Haystick, Immunocore, InFlarX, Innocent, LabCorp, Merck Serono, MSD, Nektar, NeraCare, Novartis, OncoSec, Pfizer, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Replimune, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi/Regeneron, Sun Pharma; honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD/Merck, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi and Sun Pharma; support for attendings meetings or travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi; participation on drug safety monitoring or advisory boards for 4SC, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Immunocore, InFlarX, Merck Serono, MSD, Nektar, NeraCare, Novartis, OncoSec, Pfizer, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Replimune, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi/Regeneron and SunPharma; leadership roles for DeCOG, German Cancer Society, Hiege-Stiftung, Deutsche Hautkrebsstiftung, NVKH e.V. and EuMelaReg. Patrick Terheyden has received honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, CureVac, Merck Serono, Sanofi, Roche, Kyowa Kirin and Biofrontera and travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pierre Fabre. Selma Ugurel declares research support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Serono; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, and Novartis, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Pierre Fabre. Jens Ulrich received honoraria (speaker honoraria or honoraria as a consultant) and travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Kyowa Kirin, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi/Regeneron, Sunpharma outside the submitted work. Jochen Utikal is on the advisory board or has received honoraria and travel support from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Immunocore, LeoPharma, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi outside the submitted work. Michael Weichenthal received grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merck Sharp & Dohme, consulting fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Immunocore and Novartis, lecture honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merck Sharp & Dohme and Pierre-Fabre, and advisory board honoraria from Merck Sharp & Dohme. Julia Welzel received travel grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Almriall as well as lecture honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis and Almirall. Lisa Zimmer declares speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma, research support from Novartis and travel support from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma and Novartis; outside the submitted work. The other authors did not report conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Recent studies suggest that BRAF V600 -mutated melanomas in particular respond to dual anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI). Here we identified an over-representation of interleukin (IL)-17-type 17 helper T (T H 17) gene expression signatures (GES) in BRAF V600 -mutated tumors. Moreover, high baseline IL-17 GES consistently predicted clinical responses in dual-ICI-treated patient cohorts but not in mono anti-CTLA-4 or anti-PD-1 ICI cohorts. High IL-17 GES corresponded to tumor infiltration with T cells and neutrophils. Accordingly, high neutrophil infiltration correlated with clinical response specifically to dual ICI, and tumor-associated neutrophils also showed strong IL-17-T H 17 pathway activity and T cell activation capacity. Both the blockade of IL-17A and the depletion of neutrophils impaired dual-ICI response and decreased T cell activation. Finally, high IL-17A levels in the blood of patients with melanoma indicated a higher global T H 17 cytokine profile preceding clinical response to dual ICI but not to anti-PD-1 monotherapy, suggesting a future role as a biomarker for patient stratification., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Worldwide mass vaccination for COVID-19 started in late 2020. COVID-19 vaccines cause benign hypermetabolic lymphadenopathies. Clinical stratification between vaccine-associated benign lymphadenopathies and malignant lymphadenopathies through ultrasound, MRI or FDG PET-CT is not feasible. This leads to unnecessary lymph node biopsies, excisions and even radical lymph node dissections. Therefore, to avoid unnecessary surgeries, we assessed whether noninvasive multispectral optoacoustic tomography (MSOT) enables a better differentiation between benign and malignant lymphadenopathies., Patients and Methods: All patients were vaccinated for COVID-19. We used MSOT to image deoxy- and oxyhaemoglobin levels in lymph nodes of tumour patients to assess metastatic status. MSOT imaging results were compared with standard ultrasound and pathological lymph node analysis. We also evaluated the influences of gender, age and time between vaccination and MSOT measurement of lymph nodes on the measured deoxy- and oxyhaemoglobin levels in patients with reactive lymph node changes., Results: Multispectral optoacoustic tomography was able to identify cancer-free lymph nodes in vivo without a single false negative (33 total lymph nodes), with 100% sensitivity and 50% specificity. A statistically significant higher deoxyhaemoglobin content was detected in patients with tumour manifestations in the lymph node (p = 0.02). There was no statistically significant difference concerning oxyhaemoglobin (p = 0.65). Age, sex and time between vaccination and MSOT measurement had statistically non-significant impact on deoxy- and oxyhaemoglobin levels in patients with reactive lymph nodes., Conclusion: Here, we show that MSOT measurement is an advantageous clinical approach to differentiate between vaccine-associated benign lymphadenopathy and malignant lymph node metastases based on the deoxygenation level in lymph nodes., (© 2023 The Authors. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)

Background: Activating hot spot R29S mutations in RAC1, a small GTPase influencing several cellular processes including cell proliferation and cytoskeleton rearrangement, have been reported in up to 9% of sun-exposed melanomas. Clinical characteristics and treatment implications of RAC1 mutations in melanoma remain unclear., Methods: We investigated the largest set (n = 64) of RAC1 mutated melanoma patients reported to date, including a retrospective single institution cohort (n = 34) from the University Hospital Essen and a prospective multicentre cohort (n = 30) from the translational study Tissue Registry in Melanoma (TRIM; CA209-578), for patient and tumour characteristics as well as therapy outcomes., Results: From 3037 sequenced melanoma samples screened RAC1 mutations occurred in ∼ 2% of samples (64/3037). The most common RAC1 mutation was P29S (95%, 61/64). The majority of tumours had co-occuring MAP kinase mutations (88%, 56/64); mostly activating NRAS (47%, 30/64) mutations, followed by activating BRAF (28%, 18/64) and NF1 (25%, 16/64) mutations. RAC1 mutated melanomas were almost exclusively of cutaneous origin (84%, 54/64) or of unknown primary (MUP, 14%, 9/64). C > T alterations were the most frequent mutation type identified demonstrating a UV-signature for RAC1 mutated melanoma. Most patients with unresectable disease (39) received immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) (77%, 30/39). Objective response rate of first-line treatment in patients with stage III/IV disease was 21%; median overall survival was 47.8 months., Conclusions: RAC1 mutated melanomas are rare, mostly of cutaneous origin and frequently harbour concomitant MAP kinase mutations, particularly in NRAS. Patients with advanced disease benefit from systemic treatment with ICI., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite the availability of effective systemic therapies, a significant number of advanced melanoma patients develops brain metastases. This study investigated differences in incidence and time to diagnosis of brain metastasis and survival outcomes dependent on the type of first-line therapy., Methods: Patients with metastatic, non-resectable melanoma (AJCCv8 stage IIIC-V) without brain metastasis at start of first-line therapy (1L-therapy) were identified from the prospective multicenter real-world skin cancer registry ADOREG. Study endpoints were incidence of brain metastasis, brain metastasis-free survival (BMFS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS)., Results: Of 1704 patients, 916 were BRAF wild-type (BRAF wt ) and 788 were BRAF V600 mutant (BRAF mut ). Median follow-up time after start of 1L-therapy was 40.4 months. BRAF wt patients received 1L-therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) against CTLA-4+PD-1 (n=281) or PD-1 (n=544). In BRAF mut patients, 1L-therapy was ICI in 415 patients (CTLA-4+PD-1, n=108; PD-1, n=264), and BRAF+MEK targeted therapy (TT) in 373 patients. After 24 months, 1L-therapy with BRAF+MEK resulted in a higher incidence of brain metastasis compared with PD-1±CTLA-4 (BRAF+MEK, 30.3%; CTLA-4+PD-1, 22.2%; PD-1, 14.0%). In multivariate analysis, BRAF mut patients developed brain metastases earlier on 1L-therapy with BRAF+MEK than with PD-1±CTLA-4 (CTLA-4+PD-1: HR 0.560, 95% CI 0.332 to 0.945, p=0.030; PD-1: HR 0.575, 95% CI 0.372 to 0.888, p=0.013). Type of 1L-therapy, tumor stage, and age were independent prognostic factors for BMFS in BRAF mut patients. In BRAF wt patients, tumor stage was independently associated with longer BMFS; ECOG Performance status (ECOG-PS), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and tumor stage with OS. CTLA-4+PD-1 did not result in better BMFS, PFS, or OS than PD-1 in BRAF wt patients. For BRAF mut patients, multivariate Cox regression revealed ECOG-PS, type of 1L-therapy, tumor stage, and LDH as independent prognostic factors for PFS and OS. 1L-therapy with CTLA-4+PD-1 led to longer OS than PD-1 (HR 1.97, 95% CI 1.122 to 3.455, p=0.018) or BRAF+MEK (HR 2.41, 95% CI 1.432 to 4.054, p=0.001), without PD-1 being superior to BRAF+MEK., Conclusions: In BRAF mut patients 1L-therapy with PD-1±CTLA-4 ICI resulted in a delayed and less frequent development of brain metastasis compared with BRAF+MEK TT. 1L-therapy with CTLA-4+PD-1 showed superior OS compared with PD-1 and BRAF+MEK. In BRAF wt patients, no differences in brain metastasis and survival outcomes were detected for CTLA-4+PD-1 compared with PD-1., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors declare no conflicts of interest affecting this study. Conflicts of interest outside the submitted work are as following: CF has been on the advisory board or has received honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Immunocore and Novartis and received travel grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis and Pierre Fabre. PM declares research support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis and Merck Sharp & Dome; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Almirall Hermal, Beiersdorf, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dome, Immunocore, Merck Serono, Medac, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi Genzyme, Sun Pharma and Roche, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis and Pierre Fabre. LB received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sun Pharma. FriM has received travel support or/and speaker’s fees or/and advisor’s honoraria by Novartis, Roche, BMS, MSD and Pierre Fabre and research funding from Novartis and Roche. KK has served as consultant or/and has received honoraria from Amgen, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre, and Novartis, and received travel support from Amgen, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Medac and Novartis. IG declares speakers and advisory board honoraria from Almirall Hermal, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dome, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi Genzyme, Sun Pharma and Roche. RG: Invited speaker: Roche, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Amgen, Merck Serono, Almirall Hermal, SUN, Sanofi, Pierre-Fabre. Advisory board: BMS, Roche, Novartis, Almirall Hermal, MSD, Amgen, SUN, Sanofi, Pierre-Fabre, 4SC, Bayer, MerckSerono, Pfizer, Immunocore. Research grants: Novartis, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Amgen, Merck-Serono, SUN Pharma, Sanofi. Travel/meeting support: Roche, BMS, SUN, Merck-Serono, Pierre-Fabre. JU is on the advisory board or has received travel support from: Amgen, BMS, GSK, Immunocore, Leo Pharma, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Roche. JU has received research support from Novartis; speakers and advisory board honoraria. PT has been on the advisory board or has received honoraria from Almirall, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Merck Serono, Sanofi, Roche, Kyowa Kirin, Biofrontera, and 4SC and received travel grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, and Pierre Fabre. RH reports speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Immunocore, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Roche and SUN pharma outside the submitted work. CP received honoraria (speaker honoraria or honoraria as a consultant) and travel support from: Novartis, BMS, Roche, Merck Serono, MSD, Celgene, AbbVie, SUNPHARMA, UCB, Allergy Therapeutics, Pierre Fabre, Kyowa Kirin and LEO. AF served as consultant to Roche, Novartis, MSD, BMS, Pierre-Fabre; received travel support from Roche, Novartis, BMS, Pierre-Fabre, received speaker fees from Roche, Novartis, BMS, MSD and CeGaT, outside the submitted work. She reports institutional research grants from BMS Stiftung Immunonkologie. FZ declares speakers and advisory board honoraria and/or travel support from BMS, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi Aventis. FraM (Frank Meiss) served as a consultant and/or has received honoraria from Novartis, BMS, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi Genzyme, Sun Pharma and travel support from Novartis, Sun Pharma, Roche, Pierre Fabre and MSD. BS is on the advisory board or has received honoraria from Immunocore, Almirall, Pfizer, Sanofi, Novartis, Roche, BMS and MSD, research funding from Novartis and Pierre Fabre and travel support from Novartis, Roche, BMS and Pierre Fabre. AK reports receiving lecture fees and fees for serving on advisory boards from MSD Sharp & Dohme, Almirall, Infectopharm, and Boehringer Ingelheim. JW has been on the advisory board, received honoraria and/or travel grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD, and Pierre Fabre. TG has received speakers and/or advisory board honoraria and travel support from BMS, Sanofi-Genzyme, MSD, Novartis Pharma, Roche, Abbvie, Almirall, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Merck-Serono. CL has received speaker’s fees, advisory board honoraria and travel reimbursements from Merck, MSD, Roche, Almirall Hermal, Biontech, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, Kyowa Kirin, Immonocore, BMS, Pierre Fabre, Novartis. LH has received consultancy and speaker fees from Amgen, Biome Dx, BMS, Curevac, Merck, MSD, Myoncare, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Roche, Sanofi and SUN. SG has been on the advisory board and/or has received travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Sun Pharma and Novartis and received research support from Novartis and Pierre Fabre. DD has been on the advisory board or has received honoraria from BMS, Kyowa Kirin, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi and received travel grants from Boehringer, Mylan, Pfizer. GS has received honoraria from BMS. GL has received travel support from Sun Pharma. LZ served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, and Sunpharma and travel support from MSD, BMS, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Sunpharma, Sanofi and Novartis. EL served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Medac, Sanofi, Sunpharma and travel support from Medac, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Sunpharma and Novartis. JCB received speaker’s bureau honoraria from Amgen, Pfizer, Recordati and Sanofi, and is a paid consultant/advisory board/DSMB member for Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, InProTher, ICON, MerckSerono, Pfizer, 4SC, and Sanofi/Regeneron. His group received research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, HTG, IQVIA, and Alcedis. DS declares relevant financial activities (Roche, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sanofi, Regeneron, Array, Pierre Fabre, 4SC, Helsinn, Philogen, InFlarX, Merck-Serono, SunPharma, Ultimovacs, Sandoz). SU declares research support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Serono; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis and Roche, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Pierre Fabre., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The rate of seroconversion after COVID-19 vaccination in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis requiring systemic treatment is poorly understood., Objectives: The aim of this prospective single-center cohort study performed between May 2020 and October 2021 was to determine the rate of seroconversion after COVID-19 vaccination in patients under active systemic treatment for moderate to severe psoriasis., Methods: Inclusion criteria were systemic treatment for moderate to severe psoriasis, known COVID-19 vaccination status, and repetitive anti-SARS-CoV-2-S IgG serum quantification. The primary outcome was the rate of anti-SARS-CoV-2-S IgG seroconversion after complete COVID-19 vaccination., Results: 77 patients with a median age of 55.9 years undergoing systemic treatment for moderate to severe psoriasis were included. The majority of patients received interleukin- (n=50, 64.9%) or tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitors (n=16, 20.8%) as systemic treatment for psoriasis; nine patients (11.7%) were treated with methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy, and one patient each received dimethyl fumarate (1.3%), respectively apremilast (1.3%). All included patients completed COVID-19 vaccination with two doses over the course of the study. Serum testing revealed that 74 patients (96.1%) showed an anti-SARS-CoV-2-S IgG seroconversion. While all patients on IL-17A, -12 or -12/23 inhibitors (n=50) achieved seroconversion, three of 16 patients (18.8%) receiving MTX and/or a TNF-α inhibitor as main anti-psoriatic treatment did not. At follow-up, none of the patients had developed symptomatic COVID-19 or died from COVID-19., Conclusions: Anti-SARS-CoV-2-S IgG seroconversion rates following COVID-19 vaccination in psoriasis patients under systemic treatment were high. An impaired serological response, however, was observed in patients receiving MTX and/or TNF-α inhibitors, in particular infliximab., Competing Interests: GL has received travel support from Sun Pharma. FK has received travel support and/or personal fees from Novartis and Almirall. MF has given a paid lecture for Dia Sorin. UD reports consulting fees from Biontech and Moderna, and advisory board honoraria from Moderna outside the submitted work. J-MP served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Novartis, and received travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Therakos. JB declares speaker honoraria from Amgen and Sanofi; advisory board honoraria from 4SC, Almirall, Amgen, MerckSerono, Novartis, InProTher, and Sanofi; research funding from Alcedis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, HTG, IQVIA, and MerckSerono; travel support from 4SC and Incyte. DS reports grants or contracts from Amgen, Array/Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis and Roche; consulting fees from 4SC, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Haystick, Immunocore, InFlarX, Innocent, LabCorp, Merck Serono, MSD, Nektar, NeraCare, Novartis, OncoSec, Pfizer, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Replimune, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi/Regeneron, Sun Pharma; honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD/Merck, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi and Sun Pharma; support for attendings meetings or travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi; participation on drug safety monitoring or advisory boards for 4SC, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Immunocore, InFlarX, Merck Serono, MSD, Nektar, NeraCare, Novartis, OncoSec, Pfizer, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Replimune, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi/Regeneron and SunPharma; leadership roles for DeCOG, German Cancer Society, Hiege-Stiftung, Deutsche Hautkrebsstiftung, NVKH e.V. and EuMelaReg. WS reports grants and/or personal fees and/or speaker honoraria from medi GmbH Bayreuth, Abbvie, Almirall, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme und UCB outside the submitted work. SU declares research support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Serono; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis and Roche, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Pierre Fabre; outside the submitted work. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be constructed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Lodde, Krefting, Placke, Schneider, Fiedler, Dittmer, Becker, Hölsken, Schadendorf, Ugurel and Sondermann.)

Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) is a common malignancy of the skin and has an overall favorable outcome, except for patients with an advanced stage of the disease. The efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) for advanced cSCC has been demonstrated in recent clinical studies, but data from real-world cohorts and trial-ineligible cSCC patients are limited. We retrospectively investigated patients with advanced cSCC who have been treated with CPI in a first-line setting at eight German skin cancer centers registered within the multicenter registry ADOReg. Clinical outcome parameters including response, progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS), time-to-next-treatment (TTNT), and toxicity were analyzed and have been stratified by the individual immune status. Among 39 evaluable patients, the tumor response rate (rwTRR) was 48.6%, the median PFS was 29.0 months, and the median OS was not reached. In addition, 9 patients showed an impaired immune status due to immunosuppressive medication or hematological diseases. Our data demonstrated that CPI also evoked tumor responses among immunocompromised patients (rwTRR: 48.1 vs. 50.0%), although these responses less often resulted in durable remissions. In line with this, the median PFS (11 vs. 40 months, p = 0.059), TTNT (12 months vs. NR, p = 0.016), and OS (29 months vs. NR, p < 0.001) were significantly shorter for this patient cohort. CPI therapy was well tolerated in both subcohorts with 15% discontinuing therapy due to toxicity. Our real-world data show that first-line CPI therapy produced strong and durable responses among patients with advanced cSCC. Immunocompromised patients were less likely to achieve long-term benefit from anti-PD1 treatment, despite similar tumor response rates.

Background: COVID-19 vaccination reduces risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 severity and death. However, the rate of seroconversion after COVID-19 vaccination in cancer patients requiring systemic anticancer treatment is poorly investigated. The aim of the present study was to determine the rate of seroconversion after COVID-19 vaccination in advanced skin cancer patients under active systemic anticancer treatment., Methods: This prospective single-center study of a consecutive sample of advanced skin cancer patients was performed from May 2020 until October 2021. Inclusion criteria were systemic treatment for advanced skin cancer, known COVID-19 vaccination status, repetitive anti-SARS-CoV-2-S IgG serum quantification and first and second COVID-19 vaccination. Primary outcome was the rate of anti-SARS-CoV-2-S IgG seroconversion after complete COVID-19 vaccination., Results: Of 60 patients with advanced skin cancers, 52 patients (86.7%) received immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI), seven (11.7%) targeted agents (TT), one (1.7%) chemotherapy. Median follow-up time was 12.7 months. During study progress ten patients had died from skin cancer prior to vaccination completion, six patients were lost to follow-up and three patients had refused vaccination. 41 patients completed COVID-19 vaccination with two doses and known serological status. Of those, serum testing revealed n=3 patients (7.3%) as anti-SARS-CoV-2-S IgG positive prior to vaccination, n=32 patients (78.0%) showed a seroconversion, n=6 patients (14.6%) did not achieve a seroconversion. Patients failing serological response were immunocompromised due to concomitant hematological malignancy, previous chemotherapy or autoimmune disease requiring immunosuppressive comedications. Immunosuppressive comedication due to severe adverse events of ICI therapy did not impair seroconversion following COVID-19 vaccination. Of 41 completely vaccinated patients, 35 (85.4%) were under treatment with ICI, five (12.2%) with TT, and one (2.4%) with chemotherapy. 27 patients (65.9%) were treated non adjuvantly. Of these patients, 13 patients had achieved objective response (complete/partial response) as best tumor response (48.2%)., Conclusion and Relevance: Rate of anti-SARS-CoV-2-S IgG seroconversion in advanced skin cancer patients under systemic anticancer treatment after complete COVID-19 vaccination is comparable to other cancer entities. An impaired serological response was observed in patients who were immunocompromised due to concomitant diseases or previous chemotherapies. Immunosuppressive comedication due to severe adverse events of ICI did not impair the serological response to COVID-19 vaccination., Competing Interests: GL has received travel support from Sun Pharma. MF has given a paid lecture for Dia Sorin. J-MP served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Novartis, and received travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis and Therakos. JB declares speaker honoraria from Amgen, MerckSerono, Pfizer, Sanofi; advisory board honoraria from 4SC, Amgen, CureVac, eTheRNA, MerckSerono, Novartis and InProTher; research funding from Alcedis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, IQVIA, and MerckSerono; travel support from 4SC and Incyte. LZ served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Sunpharma and Sanofi; Research funding to institution: Novartis; travel support from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre-Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work. EL served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Medac, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma and travel support from Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Sunpharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work. DS declares relevant financial activities with Roche, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sanofi, Regeneron, Pfizer, Array, Pierre Fabre, 4SC, Helsinn, Philogen, InFlarX, Merck-Serono, SunPharma, Ultimovacs, and Sandoz. WS reports grants from medi GmbH Bayreuth, grants and personal fees from Novartis and Almirall, personal fees from Abbvie, Amgen, GSK, Lilly, UCB, LEO Pharma, Sanofi, Genzyme, and Janssen outside the submitted work. SU declares research support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Serono; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis and Roche, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Pierre Fabre; outside the submitted work. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Lodde, Fiedler, Dittmer, Placke, Jansen, Becker, Zimmer, Livingstone, Schadendorf, Sondermann and Ugurel.)

(1) Background: Melanoma has the highest mortality of all cutaneous tumors, despite recent treatment advances. Many relevant genetic events have been identified in the last decade, including recurrent ARID1A mutations, which in various tumors have been associated with improved outcomes to immunotherapy. (2) Methods: Retrospective analysis of 116 melanoma samples harboring ARID1A mutations. Assessment of clinical and genetic characteristics was performed as well as correlations with treatment outcome applying Kaplan-Meier (log-rank test), Fisher's exact and Chi-squared tests. (3) Results: The majority of ARID1A mutations were in cutaneous and occult melanoma. ARID1A mutated samples had a higher number of mutations than ARID1A wild-type samples and harbored UV-mutations. A male predominance was observed. Many samples also harbored NF1 mutations. No apparent differences were noted between samples harboring genetically inactivating (frame-shift or nonsense) mutations and samples with other mutations. No differences in survival or response to immunotherapy of patients with ARID1A mutant melanoma were observed. (4) Conclusions: ARID1A mutations primarily occur in cutaneous melanomas with a higher mutation burden. In contrast to findings in other tumors, our data does not support ARID1A mutations being a biomarker of favorable response to immunotherapies in melanoma. Larger prospective studies would still be warranted.

Background: PD-1-based immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) is a highly effective therapy in metastatic melanoma. However, 40-60% of patients are primarily resistant, with valid predictive biomarkers currently missing. This study investigated the digitally quantified tumor PD-L1 expression for ICB therapy outcome prediction., Patients and Methods: Tumor tissues taken prior to PD-1-based ICB for unresectable metastatic disease were collected within the prospective multicenter Tissue Registry in Melanoma (TRIM). PD-L1 expression (clone 28-8; cut-off=5%) was determined by digital and physician quantification, and correlated with therapy outcome (best overall response, BOR; progression-free survival, PFS; overall survival, OS)., Results: Tissue samples from 156 patients were analyzed (anti-PD-1, n=115; anti-CTLA-4+anti-PD-1, n=41). Patients with PD-L1-positive tumors showed an improved response compared to patients with PD-L1-negative tumors, by digital (BOR 50.5% versus 32.2%; p=0.026) and physician (BOR 54.2% versus 36.6%; p=0.032) quantification. Tumor PD-L1 positivity was associated with a prolonged PFS and OS by either digital (PFS, 9.9 versus 4.6 months, p=0.021; OS, not reached versus 13.0 months, p=0.001) or physician (PFS, 10.6 versus 5.6 months, p=0.051; OS, not reached versus 15.6 months, p=0.011) quantification. Multivariable Cox regression revealed digital (PFS, HR=0.57, p=0.007; OS, HR=0.44, p=0.001) and physician (OS, HR=0.54, p=0.016) PD-L1 quantification as independent predictors of survival upon PD-1-based ICB. The combination of both methods identified a patient subgroup with particularly favorable therapy outcome (PFS, HR=0.53, p=0.011; OS, HR=0.47, p=0.008)., Conclusion: Pre-treatment tumor PD-L1 positivity predicted a favorable outcome of PD-1-based ICB in melanoma. Herein, digital quantification was not inferior to physician quantification, and should be further validated for clinical use., Competing Interests: J-MP served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis and received travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis and Therakos. PT declares Invited Speaker´s honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD, Pierre-Fabre, CureVac, Roche, Kyowa Kirin, Biofrontera, Advisory Board honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Merck Serono, Sanofi, Roche, Kyowa Kirin, and Travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Pierre-Fabre. JoU is on the advisory board or has received honoraria and travel support from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, LeoPharma, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi outside the submitted work. ClP received honoraria (speaker honoraria or honoraria as a consultant) and travel support from: Novartis, BMS, Roche, Merck Serono, MSD, Celgene, AbbVie, AMGEN, SUNPHARMA, Allergy Therapeutics and LEO. LZ served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, and Sanofi; Research funding to institution: Novartis; travel support from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre-Fabre, and Novartis, outside the submitted work. EL served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Amgen, Actelion, Roche, Bris-tol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Janssen, Medac, Sanofi, Sunpharma and travel support from Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Sunpharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work. JB is receiving speaker’s bureau honoraria from Amgen, Pfizer, MerckSerono, Recordati and Sanofi, is a paid consultant/advisory board member/DSMB member for 4SC, Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, ICON, InProTher, MerckSerono, Pfizer, and Sanofi/Regeneron. His group receives research grants from Merck Serono, HTG, IQVIA, and Alcedis. GL has received travel support from Sun Pharma. AR reported grants from Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Adtec; personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme; and nonfinancial support from Amgen, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Teva. DS received grants and other support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Amgen; personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim; personal fees from InFlarX; personal fees and other support from Roche; grants, personal fees and other support from Novartis; personal fees from Incyte; personal fees and other support from Regeneron; personal fees from 4SC; personal fees from Sanofi; personal fees from Neracare; personal fees from Pierre-Fabre; personal fees and other support from Merck-EMD; personal fees from Pfizer; personal fees and other support from Philiogen; personal fees from Array, personal fees and other support from MSD Sharp & Dohme, outside the submitted work. SU declares research support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Serono; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis and Roche, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The authors declare that this study received funding from Bristol Myers Squibb. The funder had the following involvement with the study: Financing of test material., (Copyright © 2021 Placke, Soun, Bottek, Herbst, Terheyden, Utikal, Pföhler, Ulrich, Kreuter, Pfeiffer, Mohr, Gutzmer, Meier, Dippel, Weichenthal, Zimmer, Livingstone, Becker, Lodde, Sucker, Griewank, Horn, Hadaschik, Roesch, Schadendorf, Engel and Ugurel.)

Introduction: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has changed the lives of people around the world. Fortunately, sufficient vaccines are now available. Local reactions with ipsilateral lymphadenopathy are among the most common side effects. We investigated the impact of lymphadenopathy after COVID-19 vaccination on the value of ultrasound in tumour patients., Patients and Methods: Patients with melanoma or Merkel cell carcinoma were included who underwent lymph node excision and received COVID-19 vaccination within 6 weeks before surgery. The consistency of the preoperative ultrasound findings with the histopathologic findings was investigated., Results: Eight patients were included (two Merkel cell carcinoma and six melanoma patients) who underwent lymph node excision between 16th April 2021 and 19th May 2021 and had previously received COVID-19 vaccination. In three of the eight patients (one Merkel cell carcinoma and two melanoma patients), lymph node metastases were erroneously diagnosed preoperatively during tumour follow-up with physical examination, ultrasound, and or fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT). In these three patients, the suspected lymph node metastases were located in the left axilla after COVID-19 vaccination in the left upper arm, which resulted in selective lymph node removal in two patients and complete lymphadenectomy in one patient., Conclusion: COVID-19 vaccine-associated lymphadenopathy is expected to be observed much more frequently in the near future because of increasing vaccination rates. This cause of lymphadenopathy, which may in ultrasound as well as in FDG PET/CT resemble lymph node metastases, must be considered, especially in oncologic patients undergoing tumour follow-up. In addition, COVID-19 vaccination should be given as far away as possible from an underlying primary on the contralateral side to avoid oncologic misdiagnosis followed by malpractice., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement J.M.P. served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Novartis and has received travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Therakos. J.K. reported grants and or personal fees from Novartis, LaVision Bio Tec, and SastoMed. A.R. reported grants from Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and ADTEC; personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme; and nonfinancial support from Amgen, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Teva. D.S. received grants and other support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Amgen; personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim; personal fees from InFlarX; personal fees and other support from Roche; grants, personal fees, and other support from Novartis; personal fees from Incyte; personal fees and other support from Regeneron; personal fees from 4SC; personal fees from Sanofi; personal fees from NeraCare; personal fees from Pierre-Fabre; personal fees and other support from Merck-EMD; personal fees from Pfizer; personal fees and other support from Philogen; personal fees from Array; and personal fees and other support from MSD Sharp & Dohme, outside the submitted work. H.R. is on the advisory board of Bristol-Myers Squibb, received honoraria from Roche and Bristol-Myers Squibb, received travel support from Philips, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, received grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, and holds shares of Bayer. I.S. and E.H. declared that they have no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship or the publication of this article., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Gastritis induced by checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) is a rare but severe drug-related side effect. The reference standard for confirming CPI-associated gastritis (CPI-assGastritis) is histopathological assessment; however, the histopathological features of CPI-assGastritis are not yet adequately defined., Materials and Methods: Gastric biopsies of melanoma patients with histopathologically suspected CPI-assGastritis were compared with gastric biopsies of patients with inflammation free gastric mucosa (IFGM), type A, B, and C gastritis with respect to apoptosis count and predominant histopathological features. Immunohistochemical anti-caspase-3 staining was performed to identify apoptosis. Quantification was performed by manually counting the number of apoptotic events per 10 high-power fields (HPF). Clinical symptoms, treatment, and follow-up data of patients with CPI-assGastritis were examined. The nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test was used for statistical testing., Results: Five melanoma patients (three women, two men; median age: 45 years) were treated with PD-1-based CPI. The patients reported epigastric pain, weight loss, nausea, and vomiting. Histologically, the patients with CPI-assGastritis showed a partly lymphocytic, partly granulocytic inflammatory infiltrate. Manual counting of apoptotic cells in biopsy tissue slides stained against caspase 3 revealed a median of 6 apoptotic events/10 HPF (95% CI, 2.75-17.30) in the patients with CPI-assGastritis. Results for the comparison cohort (patients n = 21) were a median of 1 apoptotic event/10 HPF (95% CI, 0.5-4.5) for type-A gastritis (six patients), a median of 2 apoptotic events/10 HPF (95% CI, 0-4.5) for type-B gastritis (five patients), and no apoptosis for IFGM and type-C gastritis (five patients). Patients with CPI-assGastritis had a significantly higher apoptosis count than patients with IFGM (p<0.01), type A (p<0.05), B (p<0.05), and C gastritis (p<0.01). None of the CPI-assGastritis biopsies showed evidence of Helicobacter pylori . All CPI-assGastritis patients responded to systemic treatment with corticosteroids., Conclusion: CPI-assGastritis manifests with nonspecific symptoms but histologically shows a high number of apoptotic events, which can best be visualized by anti-caspase-3 immunohistochemistry. This histopathological feature may help to histologically differentiate CPI-assGastritis from other forms of gastritis and inform decision-making regarding its optimal management., Competing Interests: J-MP served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Novartis, and has received travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis and Therakos. HR is on the advisory board of Bristol-Myers Squibb, received honoraria from Roche and Bristol-Myers Squibb, received travel support from Philips, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, received grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb and holds shares of Bayer. EL served as consultant or/and has received honoraria from Amgen, Actelion, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Janssen, Medac, Sanofi, and Sunpharma, and travel support from Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre-Fabre, Sunpharma, and Novartis, outside the submitted work. SU received grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from Novartis, grants and non-financial support from Bristol-Myers Squibb; personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, and non-financial support from Amgen, outside the submitted work. DS received grants and other support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb during the conduct of the study, personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from InFlarX, personal fees and other support from Roche, grants, personal fees and other support from Novartis, personal fees from Incyte, personal fees and other support from Regeneron, personal fees from 4SC, personal fees from Sanofi, personal fees from Neracare, personal fees from Pierre-Fabre, personal fees and other support from Merck-EMD, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees and other support from Philogen, personal fees from Array, personal fees and other support from MSD Sharp & Dohme, outside the submitted work. AR reported grants from Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Adtec, personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, and nonfinancial support from Amgen, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Teva. LZ served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, and Sanofi, research funding to institution from Novartis, travel support from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre-Fabre, and Novartis, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Placke, Rawitzer, Reis, Rashidi-Alavijeh, Livingstone, Ugurel, Hadaschik, Griewank, Schmid, Schadendorf, Roesch and Zimmer.)

Background: Radiological imaging such as computed tomography (CT) is used frequently for disease staging and therapy monitoring in advanced skin cancer patients. Detected lesions of unclear dignity are a common challenge for treating physicians. The aim of this study was to assess the frequency and outcome of CT-guided biopsy (CTGB) of radiologically unclear, suspicious lesions and to depict its usefulness in different clinical settings., Methods: This retrospective monocentric study included advanced skin cancer patients (melanoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, angiosarcoma, cutaneous lymphoma) with radiologically unclear lesions who underwent CTGB between 2010 and 2018., Results: Of 59 skin cancer patients who received CTGB, 47 received CTGB to clarify radiologically suspicious lesions of unclear dignity. 32 patients had no systemic therapy (cohort A), while 15 patients received systemic treatment at CTGB (cohort B). In both cohorts, CTGB revealed skin cancer metastasis in a large proportion of patients (37.5%, 40.0%, respectively), but benign tissue showing inflammation, fibrosis or infection in an equally large percentage (37.5%, 46.7%, respectively). Additionally, a significant number of other cancer entities was found (25.0%, 13.3%, respectively). In patients receiving BRAF/MEK inhibitors, CTGB confirmed suspicious lesions as skin cancer metastasis in 83.3%, leading to treatment change. In immune checkpoint inhibitor-treated patients, skin cancer metastasis was confirmed in 11.1% of patients only, whereas benign tissue changes (inflammation/fibrosis) were found in 77.8%., Conclusions: Our results highlight the relevance of clarifying radiologically unclear lesions by CTGB before start or change of an anti-tumour therapy to exclude benign alterations and secondary malignancies., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement All conflict of interest listed in the manuscript have been outside the submitted work and do not influence the submitted work. Therefore, the authors declare no competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. CF has been on the advisory board of or received honoraria from BMS and Novartis and received travel grants from BMS, Novartis and Pierre Fabre outside the submitted work. EL served as consultant or/and has received honoraria from Amgen, Actelion, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Janssen, Medac, Sanofi, Sun Pharma and travel support from Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma and Novartis outside the submitted work. JT served as a consultant or/and has received honoraria from Roche and Boston Scientific outside the submitted work. EH received honoraria for consulting and travel expenses from Biotest outside the submitted work. LZ: Honoraria from Roche, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre; Consultant or Advisory Role: BMS, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, MSD; Research funding to institution: Novartis; Travel support: BMS, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Amgen, Novartis, Sun Pharma. All fundings were outside the submitted work. DS declares advisory board and speakers honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, MSD, Merck-Serono, Sanofi, Nektar, Amgen, Hexal, InFlaRx, Array, Pierre Fabre, Immunocore, Philogen Sun Pharma, Regeneron and Ultimovacs, as well as grant and travel support from Roche, Novartis, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, MSD, Merck-Serono, and Sanofi outside the submitted work. SU declares research support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Serono; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis and Roche, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme outside the submitted work. AW, HAB, JH, IC, IS, JK, J-MP, GL declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors has become standard of care in the treatment of metastatic BRAF V600-mutated melanoma. Clinical factors for an early prediction of tumor response are rare. The present study investigated the association between the development of an early exanthema induced by vemurafenib or vemurafenib plus cobimetinib and therapy outcome., Methods: This multicenter retrospective study included patients with BRAF V600-mutated irresectable AJCC-v8 stage IIIC/D to IV metastatic melanoma who received treatment with vemurafenib (VEM) or vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (COBIVEM). The development of an early exanthema within six weeks after therapy start and its grading according to CTCAEv4.0 criteria was correlated to therapy outcome in terms of best overall response, progression-free (PFS), and overall survival (OS)., Results: A total of 422 patients from 16 centers were included (VEM, n=299; COBIVEM, n=123). 20.4% of VEM and 43.1% of COBIVEM patients developed an early exanthema. In the VEM cohort, objective responders (CR/PR) more frequently presented with an early exanthema than non-responders (SD/PD); 59.0% versus 38.7%; p=0.0027. However, median PFS and OS did not differ between VEM patients with or without an early exanthema (PFS, 6.9 versus 6.0 months, p=0.65; OS, 11.0 versus 12.4 months, p=0.69). In the COBIVEM cohort, 66.0% of objective responders had an early exanthema compared to 54.3% of non-responders (p=0.031). Median survival times were significantly longer for patients who developed an early exanthema compared to patients who did not (PFS, 9.7 versus 5.6 months, p=0.013; OS, not reached versus 11.6 months, p=0.0061). COBIVEM patients with a mild early exanthema (CTCAEv4.0 grade 1-2) had a superior survival outcome as compared to COBIVEM patients with a severe (CTCAEv4.0 grade 3-4) or non early exanthema, respectively (p=0.047). This might be caused by the fact that 23.6% of patients with severe exanthema underwent a dose reduction or discontinuation of COBIVEM compared to only 8.9% of patients with mild exanthema., Conclusions: The development of an early exanthema within 6 weeks after treatment start indicates a favorable therapy outcome upon vemurafenib plus cobimetinib. Patients presenting with an early exanthema should therefore be treated with adequate supportive measures to provide that patients can stay on treatment., Competing Interests: KK has served as consultant or/and has received honoraria from Amgen, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre, and Novartis, and received travel support from Amgen, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Medac, and Novartis. RG received honoraria for lectures and advisory boards, research support and meeting support from Almirall Hermal, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Leo, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Regeneron, Sun Pharma, Takeda, Pfizer, Novartis, Johnson&Johnson, 4SC, and Incyte. FM has received travel support or/and speaker’s fees or/and advisor’s honoraria by Novartis, Roche, BMS, MSD and Pierre Fabre, and research funding from Novartis and Roche. LZ has served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi, and received travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, and Novartis. MH has received consultant and/or speaker honoraria form Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Sanofi, Roche and travel support from Novartis, and Bristol Myers Squibb. AG reports speakers honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and Roche, advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi Genzyme, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, and Roche. K-MT received honoraria for lectures and advisory boards from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Novartis, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre, LEO, Galderma, AbbVie, La Roche-Posay and Candela, and travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Novartis, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre, LEO, and Candela. JU is on the advisory board or has received honoraria and travel support from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, LeoPharma, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi outside the submitted work. JH reports speakers honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and Roche, advisory board honoraria from Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Sunpharma and Sanofi Genzyme, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, and Pierre Fabre. CL declares speakers and advisory board honoraria and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, and Sun Pharma. CP received speaker or consultant honoraria and travel support from Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Celgene, AbbVie, and LEO. LH received grants from Novartis, and has received speaker or consultant fees personal fees from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Roche, Curevac, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Novartis, and Sanofi. MK has received grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Leo, Novartis, and Roche. DG declares speakers and advisory honoraria as well as travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi Genzyme, Amgen, Galderma, Janssen, and Roche. DS declares advisory board and speakers honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, MSD, Merck-Serono, Sanofi, Nektar, Amgen, Hexal, InFlaRx, Array, Pierre Fabre, Immunocore, Philogen Sun Pharma, Regeneron, and Ultimovacs, as well as grant and travel support from Roche, Novartis, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, MSD, Merck-Serono, and Sanofi. SU declares research support from Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck Serono, speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis and Roche, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp, and Dohme. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Kähler, Gutzmer, Meier, Zimmer, Heppt, Gesierich, Thoms, Utikal, Hassel, Loquai, Pföhler, Heinzerling, Kaatz, Göppner, Pflugfelder, Bohne, Satzger, Reinhardt, Placke, Schadendorf and Ugurel.)

5-ALA fluorescence-guided surgery (FGS) is a major advance in neuro-oncological surgery. So far, Protoporphyrin IX (PpIX)-fluorescence has been observed in about half of cerebral metastases resected with routinely equipped microscopes during 5-ALA FGS. The aim of the present pilot study was to quantify PpIX-induced fluorescence of cerebral metastases with a spectrometer. We hypothesize that non-fluorescing metastases under the operating microscope may have spectrometrically measurable levels of fluorescence. A second aim was to analyze correlations between quantified 5-ALA fluorescence and histology or primary tumor type, respectively. Standard FGS was performed in all patients. The fluorescence intensity of the metastasis was semi-quantitatively determined in vivo by a senior surgeon using a special surgical microscope equipped for FGS. A systematic spectrometric ex vivo evaluation of tumor specimens and PpIX-induced fluorescence was performed using a spectrometer connected by optic fibers to a handheld probe. Quantification of 5-ALA-derived fluorescence was measured in a standardized manner with direct contact between mini-spectrometer and metastasis. The difference between the maximum PpIX-fluorescence at 635 nm and the baseline fluorescence was defined as the PpIX fluorescence intensity of the metastasis and given in arbitrary units (AU). Diagnosis of a cerebral metastasis was confirmed by histopathological analysis. A total of 29 patients with cerebral metastases were included. According to neuropathological analysis, 11 patients suffered from non-small cell lung cancer, 10 patients from breast cancer, 6 patients from cancer originating in the gastro-intestinal tract, 1 patient suffered from a malignant melanoma and one patient from renal cancer. The mean age was 63 years (37-81 years). 15 patients were female, 14 patients male. 13 cerebral metastases were considered as ALA-positive by the surgeon. In nine metastases, 5-ALA fluorescence was not visible to the naked eye and could only be detected using the spectrometer. The threshold for an ALA signal rated as "positive" by the surgeon was PpIX fluorescence above 1.1 × 10 6 AU. The mean PpIX fluorescence of all analyzed cerebral metastases was 1.29 × 10 6  ± 0.23 × 10 6 AU. After quantification, we observed a significant difference between the mean 5-ALA-derived fluorescence in NSCLC and breast cancer metastases (Mean Diff: - 1.2 × 10 6 ; 95% CI of difference: - 2.2 × 10 6 to - 0.15 × 10 6 ; Šidák-adjusted p = 0.026). In our present pilot series, about half of cerebral metastases showed a 5-ALA fluorescence invisible to the naked eye. Over 50% of these non-fluorescent metastases show a residual 5-ALA fluorescence which can be detected and quantified using a spectrometer. Moreover, the quantified 5-ALA signal significantly differed with respect to the primary tumor of the corresponding cerebral metastasis. Further studies should evaluate the predictive value of the 5-ALA signal and if a quantified 5-ALA signal enables a reliable intraoperative differentiation between residual tumor tissue and edematous brain-in particular in metastases with a residual fluorescence signal invisible to the naked eye.

Purpose: Circulating cell-free tumor DNA (ctDNA) reflects the heterogeneous spectrum of tumor-specific mutations, especially in systemic disease. We validated plasma-based assays that allow the dynamic quantitative detection of ctDNA as a prognostic biomarker for tumor load and prediction of therapy response in melanoma., Materials and Methods: We analyzed plasma-derived ctDNA from a large training cohort (n = 96) of patients with advanced-stage melanoma, with assays for the BRAF V600E and NRAS Q61 driver mutations as well as TERT C250T and TERT C228T promoter mutations. An independent patient cohort (n = 35) was used to validate the utility of ctDNA monitoring under mitogen-activated protein kinase-targeted or immune checkpoint therapies., Results: Elevated plasma ctDNA level at baseline was an independent prognostic factor of disease progression when compared with serum S100 and lactate dehydrogenase levels in multivariable analyses (hazard ratio [HR], 7.43; 95% CI, 1.01 to 55.19; P = .05). The change in ctDNA levels during therapy correlated with treatment response, where increasing ctDNA was predictive for shorter progression-free survival (eg, for BRAF V600E ctDNA, HR, 3.70; 95% CI, 1.86 to 7.34; P < .001). Increasing ctDNA levels predicted disease progression significantly earlier than did routine radiologic scans ( P < .05), with a mean lead time of 3.5 months. NRAS -mutant ctDNA was detected in a significant proportion of patients with BRAF -mutant tumors under therapy, but unexpectedly also at baseline. In vitro sensitivity studies suggested that this represents higher-than-expected intratumoral heterogeneity. The detection of NRAS Q61 ctDNA in baseline samples of patients with BRAF V600E mutation who were treated with mitogen-activated protein kinase inhibitors significantly correlated with shorter progression-free survival (HR, 3.18; 95% CI, 1.31 to 7.68; P = .03) and shorter overall survival (HR, 4.08; 95% CI, 1.57 to 10.58; P = .01)., Conclusion: Our results show the potential role of ctDNA measurement as a sensitive monitoring and prediction tool for the early assessment of disease progression and therapeutic response in patients with metastatic melanoma., Competing Interests: The following represents disclosure information provided by authors of this manuscript. All relationships are considered compensated. Relationships are self-held unless noted. I = Immediate Family Member, Inst = My Institution. Relationships may not relate to the subject matter of this manuscript. For more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to www.asco.org/rwc or ascopubs.org/po/author-center. Teofila SeremetEmployment: Janssen (I), GlaxoSmithKline (I) Honoraria: Novartis, Janssen Consulting or Advisory Role: Novartis Speakers' Bureau: Novartis Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Novartis, MSD Oncology, Janssen, LEO PharmaKlaus GriewankPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Exon 4 mutations in GNAQ and GNA11, a rare gene mutation in melanoma. I receive annual payments. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: RocheJan-Malte PlackeTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol-Myers SquibbPeter A. HornStock and Other Ownership Interests: share certificates (Aktien) of different companies Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Patent applicationsJürgen BeckerConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck Serono, Amgen, eTheRNA, Sanofi/Regeneron Speakers' Bureau: Amgen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Sanofi/Regeneron, Merck Serono (Inst), Alcedis (Inst), IQvia (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst) Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: 4SC, Merck SeronoJulia Newton-BishopTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Unknown mixedBart NeynsHonoraria: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Amgen Speakers' Bureau: Novartis Research Funding: Pfizer (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Merck KGaA (Inst) Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, AmgenBenjamin WeideHonoraria: Roche, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb Consulting or Advisory Role: CureVac, Philogen Research Funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst), MSD (Inst), Philogen (Inst)Dirk SchadendorfHonoraria: Roche, Novartis, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sysmex, Immunocore, Grünenthal Group, Merck Serono, Agenus, Array BioPharma, AstraZeneca, LEO Pharma, Incyte, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Philogen, Regeneron, 4SC, Mologen Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Amgen, Immunocore, Incyte, 4SC, Pierre Fabre, Mologen, Sanofi/Regeneron Speakers' Bureau: Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Amgen, Incyte, Pierre Fabre Research Funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst), Novartis (Inst) Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Merck, Merck Serono, NovartisAlexander RoeschHonoraria: Novartis Consulting or Advisory Role: Novartis Research Funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis (Inst), Adtec (Inst) No other potential conflicts of interest were reported., (© 2019 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Introduction: Recently a mini-spectrometer with a handheld probe quantifying 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA) based fluorescence intensity of brain tumors was developped by Kim et al. to improve fluorescence-guided neurosurgery., Objective: To evaluate if this new tool is capable to discriminate nuances of fluorescence intensity of strongly fluorescing tumors (glioblastomas (GBM) and meningiomas (MM)). To study different modes of measurement (touch/no-touch). To determine protoporphyrin IX (PPIX) concentration in tumor tissue as compared to a laboratory spectrometer., Material and Methods: The tumor tissue was resected from patients operated in the neurosurgical department of University Hospital Duesseldorf, Germany between 01/2014 and 06/2014. Two spectrometers, one custom-built with a handheld probe ("mini-spectrometer") and one commercial laboratory spectrometer were employed. After calibration they were used to detect and compare fluorescence intensity of human brain tumor samples ex vivo under standardized conditions. The mini-spectrometer was tested at different distances to the tumor. PPIX concentrations of tumor lysates were determined by both spectrometers., Results: In total n=11 tumors (5 MM and 6 GBM) resulting in 17 tumor biopsies were studied. All GBM showed significant higher fluorescence intensity as compared to MM (Z=-3.123, p=0.001). The fluorescence signal was inversely proportional to the square of the distance (GBM: R 2 =0.226; F=4.683; p<0.5; MM: R 2 =0255; F=8.042; p<0.01). The mini-spectrometer recorded fluorescence signals up to 2mm ("no-touch"). Determination of PPIX concentration in tumor by the mini-spectrometer did not differ from a laboratory spectrometer., Conclusion: The mini-spectrometer was a very sensitive tool for detection of 5-ALA based fluorescence of human brain tumors. Fluorescence intensity of glioblastoma and meningioma were significantly different. A no-touch mode of measurement was possible. PPIX concentration in tumor tissue could be determined as precisely as with a laboratory spectrometer. In future clinical trials the practicability of using such a tool in vivo has to be further evaluated., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)