Immunosurveillance in clinical cancer management.

The progression of cancer involves a critical step in which malignant cells escape from control by the immune system. Antineoplastic agents are particularly efficient when they succeed in restoring such control (immunosurveillance) or at least establish an equilibrium state that slows down disease progression. This is true not only for immunotherapies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but also for conventional chemotherapy, targeted anticancer agents, and radiation therapy. Thus, therapeutics that stress and kill cancer cells while provoking a tumor-targeting immune response, referred to as immunogenic cell death, are particularly useful in combination with ICIs. Modern oncology regimens are increasingly using such combinations, which are referred to as chemoimmunotherapy, as well as combinations of multiple ICIs. However, the latter are generally associated with severe side effects compared with single-agent ICIs. Of note, the success of these combinatorial strategies against locally advanced or metastatic cancers is now spurring successful attempts to move them past the postoperative (adjuvant) setting to the preoperative (neoadjuvant) setting, even for patients with operable cancers. Here, the authors critically discuss the importance of immunosurveillance in modern clinical cancer management.

Enterococcus hirae and Barnesiella intestinihominis Facilitate Cyclophosphamide-Induced Therapeutic Immunomodulatory Effects.

The efficacy of the anti-cancer immunomodulatory agent cyclophosphamide (CTX) relies on intestinal bacteria. How and which relevant bacterial species are involved in tumor immunosurveillance, and their mechanism of action are unclear. Here, we identified two bacterial species, Enterococcus hirae and Barnesiella intestinihominis that are involved during CTX therapy. Whereas E. hirae translocated from the small intestine to secondary lymphoid organs and increased the intratumoral CD8/Treg ratio, B. intestinihominis accumulated in the colon and promoted the infiltration of IFN-γ-producing γδT cells in cancer lesions. The immune sensor, NOD2, limited CTX-induced cancer immunosurveillance and the bioactivity of these microbes. Finally, E. hirae and B. intestinihominis specific-memory Th1 cell immune responses selectively predicted longer progression-free survival in advanced lung and ovarian cancer patients treated with chemo-immunotherapy. Altogether, E. hirae and B. intestinihominis represent valuable "oncomicrobiotics" ameliorating the efficacy of the most common alkylating immunomodulatory compound.

Melanoma staging: Evidence-based changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual.

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE To update the melanoma staging system of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) a large database was assembled comprising >46,000 patients from 10 centers worldwide with stages I, II, and III melanoma diagnosed since 1998. Based on analyses of this new database, the existing seventh edition AJCC stage IV database, and contemporary clinical trial data, the AJCC Melanoma Expert Panel introduced several important changes to the Tumor, Nodes, Metastasis (TNM) classification and stage grouping criteria. Key changes in the eighth edition AJCC Cancer Staging Manual include: 1) tumor thickness measurements to be recorded to the nearest 0.1 mm, not 0.01 mm; 2) definitions of T1a and T1b are revised (T1a, <0.8 mm without ulceration; T1b, 0.8-1.0 mm with or without ulceration or <0.8 mm with ulceration), with mitotic rate no longer a T category criterion; 3) pathological (but not clinical) stage IA is revised to include T1b N0 M0 (formerly pathologic stage IB); 4) the N category descriptors "microscopic" and "macroscopic" for regional node metastasis are redefined as "clinically occult" and "clinically apparent"; 5) prognostic stage III groupings are based on N category criteria and T category criteria (ie, primary tumor thickness and ulceration) and increased from 3 to 4 subgroups (stages IIIA-IIID); 6) definitions of N subcategories are revised, with the presence of microsatellites, satellites, or in-transit metastases now categorized as N1c, N2c, or N3c based on the number of tumor-involved regional lymph nodes, if any; 7) descriptors are added to each M1 subcategory designation for lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level (LDH elevation no longer upstages to M1c); and 8) a new M1d designation is added for central nervous system metastases. This evidence-based revision of the AJCC melanoma staging system will guide patient treatment, provide better prognostic estimates, and refine stratification of patients entering clinical trials. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:472-492. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

European Groundshot-addressing Europe's cancer research challenges: a Lancet Oncology Commission.

Cancer research is a crucial pillar for countries to deliver more affordable, higher quality, and more equitable cancer care. Patients treated in research-active hospitals have better outcomes than patients who are not treated in these settings. However, cancer in Europe is at a crossroads. Cancer was already a leading cause of premature death before the COVID-19 pandemic, and the disastrous effects of the pandemic on early diagnosis and treatment will probably set back cancer outcomes in Europe by almost a decade. Recognising the pivotal importance of research not just to mitigate the pandemic today, but to build better European cancer services and systems for patients tomorrow, the Lancet Oncology European Groundshot Commission on cancer research brings together a wide range of experts, together with detailed new data on cancer research activity across Europe during the past 12 years. We have deployed this knowledge to help inform Europe's Beating Cancer Plan and the EU Cancer Mission, and to set out an evidence-driven, patient-centred cancer research roadmap for Europe. The high-resolution cancer research data we have generated show current activities, captured through different metrics, including by region, disease burden, research domain, and effect on outcomes. We have also included granular data on research collaboration, gender of researchers, and research funding. The inclusion of granular data has facilitated the identification of areas that are perhaps overemphasised in current cancer research in Europe, while also highlighting domains that are underserved. Our detailed data emphasise the need for more information-driven and data-driven cancer research strategies and planning going forward. A particular focus must be on central and eastern Europe, because our findings emphasise the widening gap in cancer research activity, and capacity and outcomes, compared with the rest of Europe. Citizens and patients, no matter where they are, must benefit from advances in cancer research. This Commission also highlights that the narrow focus on discovery science and biopharmaceutical research in Europe needs to be widened to include such areas as prevention and early diagnosis; treatment modalities such as radiotherapy and surgery; and a larger concentration on developing a research and innovation strategy for the 20 million Europeans living beyond a cancer diagnosis. Our data highlight the important role of comprehensive cancer centres in driving the European cancer research agenda. Crucial to a functioning cancer research strategy and its translation into patient benefit is the need for a greater emphasis on health policy and systems research, including implementation science, so that the innovative technological outputs from cancer research have a clear pathway to delivery. This European cancer research Commission has identified 12 key recommendations within a call to action to reimagine cancer research and its implementation in Europe. We hope this call to action will help to achieve our ambitious 70:35 target: 70% average 10-year survival for all European cancer patients by 2035.

Pembrolizumab versus placebo as adjuvant therapy in completely resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma (KEYNOTE-716): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab prolongs progression-free and overall survival among patients with advanced melanoma and recurrence-free survival in resected stage III disease. KEYNOTE-716 assessed pembrolizumab as adjuvant therapy in patients with completely resected, high-risk, stage II melanoma. We report results from the planned first and second interim analyses for recurrence-free survival. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, involving 160 academic medical centres and hospitals in 16 countries (Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Poland, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, the UK, and the USA), patients aged 12 years or older with newly diagnosed, completely resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma (TNM stage T3b or T4 with a negative sentinel lymph node biopsy) were recruited. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1), in blocks of four and stratified by T-category (3b, 4a, and 4b) and paediatric status (age 12-17 years vs ≥18 years), using an interactive response technology system to intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg (2 mg/kg in paediatric patients) or placebo every 3 weeks for 17 cycles or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity. All patients, clinical investigators, and analysts were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed recurrence-free survival (defined as time from randomisation to recurrence or death) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (ie, all patients randomly assigned to treatment). The primary endpoint was met if recurrence-free survival was significantly improved for pembrolizumab versus placebo at either the first interim analysis (after approximately 128 patients had events) or second interim analysis (after 179 patients had events) under multiplicity control. Safety was assessed in all patients randomly assigned to treatment who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03553836, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Sept 23, 2018, and Nov 4, 2020, 1182 patients were screened, of whom 976 were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab (n=487) or placebo (n=489; ITT population). The median age was 61 years (IQR 52-69) and 387 (40%) patients were female and 589 (60%) were male. 874 (90%) of 976 patients were White and 799 (82%) were not Hispanic or Latino. 483 (99%) of 487 patients in the pembrolizumab group and 486 (99%) of 489 in the placebo group received assigned treatment. At the first interim analysis (data cutoff on Dec 4, 2020; median follow-up of 14·4 months [IQR 10·2-18·7] in the pembrolizumab group and 14·3 months [10·1-18·7] in the placebo group), 54 (11%) of 487 patients in the pembrolizumab group and 82 (17%) of 489 in the placebo group had a first recurrence of disease or died (hazard ratio [HR] 0·65 [95% CI 0·46-0·92]; p=0·0066). At the second interim analysis (data cutoff on June 21, 2021; median follow-up of 20·9 months [16·7-25·3] in the pembrolizumab group and 20·9 months [16·6-25·3] in the placebo group), 72 (15%) patients in the pembrolizumab group and 115 (24%) in the placebo group had a first recurrence or died (HR 0·61 [95% CI 0·45-0·82]). Median recurrence-free survival was not reached in either group at either assessment timepoint. At the first interim analysis, grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 78 (16%) of 483 patients in the pembrolizumab groups versus 21 (4%) of 486 in the placebo group. At the first interim analysis, four patients died from an adverse event, all in the placebo group (one each due to pneumonia, COVID-19-related pneumonia, suicide, and recurrent cancer), and at the second interim analysis, one additional patient, who was in the pembrolizumab group, died from an adverse event (COVID-19-related pneumonia). No deaths due to study treatment occurred. INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab as adjuvant therapy for up to approximately 1 year for stage IIB or IIC melanoma resulted in a significant reduction in the risk of disease recurrence or death versus placebo, with a manageable safety profile. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

The "Great Debate" at Melanoma Bridge 2022, Naples, December 1st-3rd, 2022.

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

COLUMBUS-AD: phase III study of adjuvant encorafenib + binimetinib in resected stage IIB/IIC BRAF V600-mutated melanoma.

Stage IIB/IIC melanoma has a high risk of recurrence after surgical resection. While, for decades, surgery was the only option for high-risk stage II disease in most countries, adjuvant therapies now exist. Anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) antibodies significantly improve recurrence-free survival versus placebo in patients with fully resected stage IIB/IIC melanoma. Combined BRAF MEK inhibitor therapy showed benefits in high-risk stage III and advanced disease; however, its role in patients with fully resected stage BRAF-mutated IIB/IIC melanoma is still unknown. Here we describe the rationale and design of the ongoing randomized, placebo-controlled COLUMBUS-AD trial, the first study of a BRAF-MEK inhibitor combination therapy (encorafenib + binimetinib) in patients with BRAF V600-mutated stage IIB/IIC melanoma.

Melanoma is a type of skin cancer. Although most stage II melanomas (cancer affecting the first two layers of skin) can be cured with surgery, the risk of the cancer returning and spreading to other areas of the body is high in some patients with stage IIB/IIC melanoma. Furthermore, once the melanoma has spread, it is much more difficult to treat successfully and remove all the cancer cells from the body. Some melanomas have a DNA alteration (or mutation) in what is known as the BRAF gene. This mutation can be identified by testing a sample of the tumor tissue removed during a biopsy or surgery. Testing for BRAF mutations at diagnosis can help ensure that patients receive the most appropriate treatment for their cancer. In some countries, surgery is the only option for patients with stage II melanoma, while in other countries, patients may be offered additional (adjuvant) anticancer treatment with immunotherapy (agents that work with the immune system to kill cancer cells). While immunotherapy can reduce the risk of melanoma recurrence, persistent, long-term toxicities are common and the use of this treatment in all stage IIB/IIC melanoma patients is not always possible. Here, we describe the rationale and design of an ongoing clinical trial (COLUMBUS-AD), which will be the first study (to our knowledge) to investigate the efficacy and safety of a treatment that specifically targets cancers with BRAF mutations (i.e., the BRAF-MEK inhibitor combination of the drugs encorafenib and binimetinib) in patients with BRAF-mutated stage IIB/IIC melanoma. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05270044 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Pembrolizumab versus placebo as adjuvant therapy in resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma (KEYNOTE-716): distant metastasis-free survival results of a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with stage IIB or IIC melanoma who undergo surgery alone are at a substantial risk for disease recurrence. Adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved recurrence-free survival versus placebo in stage IIB or IIC melanoma in the first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-716 trial. Here, we report results from the secondary endpoint of distant metastasis-free survival (prespecified third interim analysis), and recurrence-free survival with longer follow-up. METHODS: KEYNOTE-716 is a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover or rechallenge, randomised, phase 3 trial done at 160 academic medical centres and hospitals across 16 countries. Eligible patients were aged 12 years and older with newly-diagnosed, completely resected, and histologically confirmed stage IIB (T3b or T4a) or IIC (T4b) cutaneous melanoma; negative sentinel lymph node biopsy; and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either 200 mg of pembrolizumab (2 mg/kg up to a maximum of 200 mg in paediatric patients) or placebo, both intravenously, every 3 weeks for 17 cycles (part 1) or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity. Eligible patients with disease recurrence could receive further treatment with pembrolizumab in the part 2 crossover or rechallenge phase. Randomisation was done using an interactive response technology system and stratified by T category and paediatric status. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed recurrence-free survival (assessed here with longer follow-up), and we report the prespecified third interim analysis of distant metastasis-free survival (secondary endpoint). Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population (all patients who were randomly assigned, according to assigned group) and safety was assessed in all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of trial treatment, according to the treatment received. KEYNOTE-716 is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03553836, and has completed recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Sept 23, 2018, and Nov 4, 2020, 976 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab (n=487) or placebo (n=489). At a median follow-up of 27·4 months (IQR 23·1-31·7), median distant metastasis-free survival was not reached (95% CI not reached [NR]-NR) in either group. Pembrolizumab significantly improved distant metastasis-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·64, 95% CI 0·47-0·88, p=0·0029) versus placebo. Median recurrence-free survival was 37·2 months (95% CI NR-NR) in the pembrolizumab group and not reached in the placebo group (95% CI NR-NR). The risk of recurrence remained lower with pembrolizumab versus placebo (HR 0·64, 95% CI 0·50-0·84). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were hypertension (16 [3%] of 483 patients in the pembrolizumab group vs 17 [4%] of 486 patients in the placebo group), diarrhoea (eight [2%] vs one [<1%]), rash (seven [1%] vs two [<1%]), autoimmune hepatitis (seven [1%] vs two [<1%]), and increased lipase (six [1%] vs eight [2%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 49 (10%) patients in the pembrolizumab group and 11 (2%) patients in the placebo group. No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant pembrolizumab is an efficacious treatment option for resected stage IIB and IIC melanoma, with significant improvement in distant-metastasis free survival versus placebo and continued reduction in the risk of recurrence with an adverse event profile consistent with previous studies of pembrolizumab. The overall benefit-risk of pembrolizumab continues to be positive in the adjuvant setting. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co.

Development of a core outcome set for basal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: There is variation in the outcomes reported in clinical studies of basal cell carcinoma. This can prevent effective meta-analyses from answering important clinical questions. OBJECTIVE: To identify a recommended minimum set of core outcomes for basal cell carcinoma clinical trials. METHODS: Patient and professional Delphi process to cull a long list, culminating in a consensus meeting. To be provisionally accepted, outcomes needed to be deemed important (score, 7-9, with 9 being the maximum) by 70% of each stakeholder group. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-five candidate outcomes identified via a systematic literature review and survey of key stakeholders were reduced to 74 that were rated by 100 health care professionals and patients in 2 Delphi rounds. Twenty-seven outcomes were provisionally accepted. The final core set of 5 agreed-upon outcomes after the consensus meeting included complete response; persistent or serious adverse events; recurrence-free survival; quality of life; and patient satisfaction, including cosmetic outcome. LIMITATIONS: English-speaking patients and professionals rated outcomes extracted from English language studies. CONCLUSION: A core outcome set for basal cell carcinoma has been developed. The use of relevant measures may improve the utility of clinical research and the quality of therapeutic guidance available to clinicians.

PIVOT-12: a phase III study of adjuvant bempegaldesleukin plus nivolumab in resected stage III/IV melanoma at high risk for recurrence.

Bempegaldesleukin (BEMPEG: NKTR-214) is an immunostimulatory IL-2 cytokine prodrug engineered to deliver a controlled, sustained and preferential IL-2 pathway signal. Nivolumab (NIVO), a PD-1 inhibitor, has been shown to prolong survival in patients with advanced melanoma and recurrence-free survival in the adjuvant setting. PIVOT-02 showed that BEMPEG plus NIVO was well-tolerated and demonstrated clinical activity as first-line therapy in metastatic melanoma. PIVOT-12 is a randomized, phase III, global, multicenter, open-label study comparing adjuvant therapy with BEMPEG plus NIVO versus NIVO alone in adult and adolescent patients with completely resected cutaneous stage III/IV melanoma at high risk of recurrence. The primary objective is to compare the efficacy, as measured by recurrence-free survival, of BEMPEG plus NIVO versus NIVO.

Following surgery, patients with advanced melanoma may require further treatment to reduce the likelihood of disease recurrence. Nivolumab (NIVO), a checkpoint inhibitor, reduces the risk of melanoma recurrence by enhancing the ability of the immune system to fight disease. Despite the availability of NIVO and other therapies, many patients with melanoma still experience disease recurrence after surgery. This article presents information on a clinical trial named PIVOT-12, which aims to assess the effectiveness of a new investigational drug called bempegaldesleukin that modifies the immune system and is given with NIVO to patients with stage III/IV melanoma following surgery. The main end point being measured is recurrence-free survival, which measures the time between a patient starting the study and the date of disease recurrence. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04410445 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Adjuvant pembrolizumab versus placebo in resected stage III melanoma (EORTC 1325-MG/KEYNOTE-054): distant metastasis-free survival results from a double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 1325/KEYNOTE-054 trial assessed pembrolizumab versus placebo in patients with resected high-risk stage III melanoma. At 15-month median follow-up, pembrolizumab improved recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·57 [98·4% CI 0·43-0·74], p<0·0001) compared with placebo, leading to its approval in the USA and Europe. This report provides the final results for the secondary efficacy endpoint, distant metastasis-free survival and an update of the recurrence-free survival results. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial was done at 123 academic centres and community hospitals across 23 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with complete resection of cutaneous melanoma metastatic to lymph node, classified as American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system, seventh edition (AJCC-7) stage IIIA (at least one lymph node metastasis >1 mm), IIIB, or IIIC (without in-transit metastasis), and with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a central interactive voice response system to receive intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 18 doses or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was stratified according to disease stage and region, using a minimisation technique, and clinical investigators, patients, and those collecting or analysing the data were masked to treatment assignment. The two coprimary endpoints were recurrence-free survival in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and in patients with PD-L1-positive tumours. The secondary endpoint reported here was distant metastasis-free survival in the ITT and PD-L1-positive populations. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02362594, and EudraCT, 2014-004944-37. FINDINGS: Between Aug 26, 2015, and Nov 14, 2016, 1019 patients were assigned to receive either pembrolizumab (n=514) or placebo (n=505). At an overall median follow-up of 42·3 months (IQR 40·5-45·9), 3·5-year distant metastasis-free survival was higher in the pembrolizumab group than in the placebo group in the ITT population (65·3% [95% CI 60·9-69·5] in the pembrolizumab group vs 49·4% [44·8-53·8] in the placebo group; HR 0·60 [95% CI 0·49-0·73]; p<0·0001). In the 853 patients with PD-L1-positive tumours, 3·5-year distant metastasis-free survival was 66·7% (95% CI 61·8-71·2) in the pembrolizumab group and 51·6% (46·6-56·4) in the placebo group (HR 0·61 [95% CI 0·49-0·76]; p<0·0001). Recurrence-free survival remained longer in the pembrolizumab group 59·8% (95% CI 55·3-64·1) than the placebo group 41·4% (37·0-45·8) at this 3·5-year follow-up in the ITT population (HR 0·59 [95% CI 0·49-0·70]) and in those with PD-L1-positive tumours 61·4% (56·3-66·1) in the pembrolizumab group and 44·1% (39·2-48·8) in the placebo group (HR 0·59 [95% CI 0·49-0·73]). INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab adjuvant therapy provided a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in distant metastasis-free survival at a 3·5-year median follow-up, which was consistent with the improvement in recurrence-free survival. Therefore, the results of this trial support the indication to use adjuvant pembrolizumab therapy in patients with resected high risk stage III cutaneous melanoma. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Adjuvant pembrolizumab versus placebo in resected stage III melanoma (EORTC 1325-MG/KEYNOTE-054): health-related quality-of-life results from a double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 1325-MG/KEYNOTE-054 trial in patients with resected, high-risk stage III melanoma demonstrated improved recurrence-free survival with adjuvant pembrolizumab compared with placebo (hazard ratio 0·57 [98·4% CI 0·43-0·74]; p<0·0001). This study reports the results from the health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) exploratory endpoint. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial was done at 123 academic centres and community hospitals across 23 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated histologically confirmed stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC resected cutaneous melanoma, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 1 or 0 were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a central interactive voice-response system on the basis of a minimisation technique stratified for stage and geographic region to receive intravenously 200 mg pembrolizumab or placebo. Treatment was administered every 3 weeks for 1 year, or until disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or death. The primary endpoint of the trial was recurrence-free survival (reported elsewhere). HRQOL was a prespecified exploratory endpoint, with global health/quality of life (GHQ) over 2 years measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30 as the primary analysis. Analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02362594, and EudraCT, 2014-004944-37, and long-term follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Aug 26, 2015, and Nov 14, 2016, 1019 patients were assigned to pembrolizumab (n=514) or placebo (n=505). Median follow-up was 15·1 months (IQR 12·8-16·9) at the time of this analysis. HRQOL compliance was greater than 90% at baseline, greater than 70% during the first year, and greater than 60% thereafter for both groups. Because of low absolute compliance numbers at later follow-up, the analysis was truncated to week 84. Baseline GHQ scores were similar between groups (77·55 [SD 18·20] in the pembrolizumab group and 76·54 [17·81] in the placebo group) and remained stable over time. The difference in average GHQ score between the two groups over the 2 years was -2·2 points (95% CI -4·3 to -0·2). The difference in average score during treatment was -1·1 points (95% CI -3·2 to 0·9) and the difference in average score after treatment was -2·2 points (-4·8 to 0·4). These differences are within the 5-point clinical relevance threshold for the QLQ-C30 and are therefore clinically non-significant. INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab does not result in a clinically significant decrease in HRQOL compared with placebo when given as adjuvant therapy for patients with resected, high-risk stage III melanoma. These results support the use of adjuvant pembrolizumab in this setting. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Adjuvant Pembrolizumab versus Placebo in Resected Stage III Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: The programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab has been found to prolong progression-free and overall survival among patients with advanced melanoma. We conducted a phase 3 double-blind trial to evaluate pembrolizumab as adjuvant therapy in patients with resected, high-risk stage III melanoma. METHODS: Patients with completely resected stage III melanoma were randomly assigned (with stratification according to cancer stage and geographic region) to receive 200 mg of pembrolizumab (514 patients) or placebo (505 patients) intravenously every 3 weeks for a total of 18 doses (approximately 1 year) or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxic effects occurred. Recurrence-free survival in the overall intention-to-treat population and in the subgroup of patients with cancer that was positive for the PD-1 ligand (PD-L1) were the primary end points. Safety was also evaluated. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 15 months, pembrolizumab was associated with significantly longer recurrence-free survival than placebo in the overall intention-to-treat population (1-year rate of recurrence-free survival, 75.4% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 71.3 to 78.9] vs. 61.0% [95% CI, 56.5 to 65.1]; hazard ratio for recurrence or death, 0.57; 98.4% CI, 0.43 to 0.74; P<0.001) and in the subgroup of 853 patients with PD-L1-positive tumors (1-year rate of recurrence-free survival, 77.1% [95% CI, 72.7 to 80.9] in the pembrolizumab group and 62.6% [95% CI, 57.7 to 67.0] in the placebo group; hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.69; P<0.001). Adverse events of grades 3 to 5 that were related to the trial regimen were reported in 14.7% of the patients in the pembrolizumab group and in 3.4% of patients in the placebo group. There was one treatment-related death due to myositis in the pembrolizumab group. CONCLUSIONS: As adjuvant therapy for high-risk stage III melanoma, 200 mg of pembrolizumab administered every 3 weeks for up to 1 year resulted in significantly longer recurrence-free survival than placebo, with no new toxic effects identified. (Funded by Merck; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02362594 ; EudraCT number, 2014-004944-37 .).

The "Great Debate" at Melanoma Bridge 2020: December, 5th, 2020.

The Great Debate session at the 2020 Melanoma Bridge virtual congress (December 3rd-5th, Italy) featured counterpoint views from experts on five specific controversial issues in melanoma. The debates considered whether or not innate immunity is important in the response to cancer and immunotherapy, how useful are the revised American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) classification for the staging of patients, the use of sentinel node biopsy for staging patients, the use of triplet combination of targeted therapy plus immunotherapy versus combined immunotherapy, and the respective benefits of neoadjuvant versus adjuvant therapy. As is usual with Bridge congresses, the debates were assigned by meeting Chairs and positions taken by experts during the debates may not have necessarily reflected their own personal opinion.

The Great Debate at "Melanoma Bridge", Naples, December 7th, 2019.

The Great Debate session at the 2019 Melanoma Bridge congress (December 5-7, Naples, Italy) featured counterpoint views from experts on five topical issues in melanoma. These were whether to choose local intratumoral treatment or systemic treatment, whether patients with stage IIIA melanoma require adjuvant therapy or not, whether treatment is better changed at disease progression or during stable disease, whether adoptive cell transfer (ACT) therapy is more appropriate used before or in combination with checkpoint inhibition therapy, and whether treatment can be stopped while the patient is still on response. As was the case for previous meetings, the debates were assigned by meeting Chairs. As such, positions taken by each of the melanoma experts during the debates may not have reflected their respective personal approach.

KEYNOTE-716: Phase III study of adjuvant pembrolizumab versus placebo in resected high-risk stage II melanoma.

Patients with high-risk stage II melanoma are at significant risk for recurrence after surgical resection. Adjuvant treatment options to lower the risk for distant metastases are limited. Although adjuvant IFN-α2b is associated with improved relapse-free survival in patients with high-risk melanoma, toxicity and limited overall survival benefits limit its use. Adjuvant treatment with the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab significantly improved recurrence-free survival, compared with placebo, in patients with resected stage III melanoma in the Phase III KEYNOTE-054 trial; efficacy in patients with stage II disease has not been established. This article describes the design and rationale of KEYNOTE-716 (NCT03553836), a two-part, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter Phase III study of adjuvant pembrolizumab in patients with surgically resected high-risk stage II melanoma. Clinical trial registry & ID: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03553836.

eIF4F is a nexus of resistance to anti-BRAF and anti-MEK cancer therapies.

In BRAF(V600)-mutant tumours, most mechanisms of resistance to drugs that target the BRAF and/or MEK kinases rely on reactivation of the RAS-RAF-MEK-ERK mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signal transduction pathway, on activation of the alternative, PI(3)K-AKT-mTOR, pathway (which is ERK independent) or on modulation of the caspase-dependent apoptotic cascade. All three pathways converge to regulate the formation of the eIF4F eukaryotic translation initiation complex, which binds to the 7-methylguanylate cap (m(7)G) at the 5' end of messenger RNA, thereby modulating the translation of specific mRNAs. Here we show that the persistent formation of the eIF4F complex, comprising the eIF4E cap-binding protein, the eIF4G scaffolding protein and the eIF4A RNA helicase, is associated with resistance to anti-BRAF, anti-MEK and anti-BRAF plus anti-MEK drug combinations in BRAF(V600)-mutant melanoma, colon and thyroid cancer cell lines. Resistance to treatment and maintenance of eIF4F complex formation is associated with one of three mechanisms: reactivation of MAPK signalling, persistent ERK-independent phosphorylation of the inhibitory eIF4E-binding protein 4EBP1 or increased pro-apoptotic BCL-2-modifying factor (BMF)-dependent degradation of eIF4G. The development of an in situ method to detect the eIF4E-eIF4G interactions shows that eIF4F complex formation is decreased in tumours that respond to anti-BRAF therapy and increased in resistant metastases compared to tumours before treatment. Strikingly, inhibiting the eIF4F complex, either by blocking the eIF4E-eIF4G interaction or by targeting eIF4A, synergizes with inhibiting BRAF(V600) to kill the cancer cells. eIF4F not only appears to be an indicator of both innate and acquired resistance but also is a promising therapeutic target. Combinations of drugs targeting BRAF (and/or MEK) and eIF4F may overcome most of the resistance mechanisms arising in BRAF(V600)-mutant cancers.

Reversible and adaptive resistance to BRAF(V600E) inhibition in melanoma.

Treatment of BRAF(V600E) mutant melanoma by small molecule drugs that target the BRAF or MEK kinases can be effective, but resistance develops invariably. In contrast, colon cancers that harbour the same BRAF(V600E) mutation are intrinsically resistant to BRAF inhibitors, due to feedback activation of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Here we show that 6 out of 16 melanoma tumours analysed acquired EGFR expression after the development of resistance to BRAF or MEK inhibitors. Using a chromatin-regulator-focused short hairpin RNA (shRNA) library, we find that suppression of sex determining region Y-box 10 (SOX10) in melanoma causes activation of TGF-ß signalling, thus leading to upregulation of EGFR and platelet-derived growth factor receptor-ß (PDGFRB), which confer resistance to BRAF and MEK inhibitors. Expression of EGFR in melanoma or treatment with TGF-ß results in a slow-growth phenotype with cells displaying hallmarks of oncogene-induced senescence. However, EGFR expression or exposure to TGF-ß becomes beneficial for proliferation in the presence of BRAF or MEK inhibitors. In a heterogeneous population of melanoma cells having varying levels of SOX10 suppression, cells with low SOX10 and consequently high EGFR expression are rapidly enriched in the presence of drug, but this is reversed when the drug treatment is discontinued. We find evidence for SOX10 loss and/or activation of TGF-ß signalling in 4 of the 6 EGFR-positive drug-resistant melanoma patient samples. Our findings provide a rationale for why some BRAF or MEK inhibitor-resistant melanoma patients may regain sensitivity to these drugs after a 'drug holiday' and identify patients with EGFR-positive melanoma as a group that may benefit from re-treatment after a drug holiday.

Prognostic value of patient-reported outcomes from international randomised clinical trials on cancer: a systematic review.

A previous review published in 2008 highlighted the prognostic significance of baseline patient-reported outcomes (PROs) as independent predictors of the overall survival of patients with cancer in clinical studies. In response to the methodological limitations of studies included in the previous review, recommendations were subsequently published in the same year to promote a higher level of methodological rigour in studies of prognostic factors. Our systematic review aimed to provide an update on progress with the implementation of these recommendations and to assess whether the methodological quality of prognostic factor analyses has changed over time. Of the 44 studies published between 2006 and 2018 that were included in our review, more standardisation and rigour of the methods used for prognostic factor analysis was found compared with the previous review. 41 (93%) of the trials reported at least one PRO domain as independently prognostic. The most common significant prognostic factors reported were physical functioning (17 [39%] studies) and global health or quality of life (15 [34%] studies). These findings highlight the value of PROs as prognostic or stratification factors in research across most types of cancer.

Neoadjuvant systemic therapy in melanoma: recommendations of the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium.

Advances in the treatment of metastatic melanoma have improved responses and survival. However, many patients continue to experience resistance or toxicity to treatment, highlighting a crucial need to identify biomarkers and understand mechanisms of response and toxicity. Neoadjuvant therapy for regional metastases might improve operability and clinical outcomes over upfront surgery and adjuvant therapy, and has become an established role for drug development and biomarker discovery in other cancers (including locally advanced breast cancer, head and neck squamous cell carcinomas, gastroesophageal cancer, and anal cancer). Patients with clinically detectable stage III melanoma are ideal candidates for neoadjuvant therapy, because they represent a high-risk patient population with poor outcomes when treated with upfront surgery alone. Neoadjuvant therapy is now an active area of research for melanoma with numerous completed and ongoing trials (since 2014) with disparate designs, endpoints, and analyses under investigation. We have, therefore, established the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium with experts in medical oncology, surgical oncology, pathology, radiation oncology, radiology, and translational research to develop recommendations for investigating neoadjuvant therapy in melanoma to align future trial designs and correlative analyses. Alignment and consistency of neoadjuvant trials will facilitate optimal data organisation for future regulatory review and strengthen translational research across the melanoma disease continuum.