Neoadjuvant Cytoreductive Treatment With BRAF/MEK Inhibition of Prior Unresectable Regionally Advanced Melanoma to Allow Complete Surgical Resection, REDUCTOR: A Prospective, Single-arm, Open-label Phase II Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the potency of short-term neoadjuvant cytoreductive therapy with dabrafenib plus trametinib (BRAF and MEK inhibitor) to allow for radical surgical resection in patients with unresectable locally advanced melanoma. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Approximately 5% of stage III melanoma patients presents with unresectable locally advanced disease, making standard of care with resection followed by adjuvant systemic therapy impossible. Although neoadjuvant targeted therapy has shown promising results in resectable stage III melanoma, its potency to enable surgical resection in patients with primarily unresectable locally advanced stage III melanoma is still unclear. METHODS: In this prospective, single-arm, phase II trial, patients with unresectable BRAF-mutated locally advanced stage IIIC or oligometastatic stage IV melanoma were included. After 8 weeks of treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib, evaluation by positron emission tomography/computed tomography and physical examination were used to assess sufficient downsizing of the tumor to enable resection. The primary objective was the percentage of patients who achieved a radical (R0) resection. RESULTS: Between August 2014 and March 2019, 21 patients (20/21 stage IIIC American Joint Committee on Cancer staging manual 7th edition) were included. Planned inclusion of 25 patients was not reached due to slow accrual and changing treatment landscape. Despite this, the predefined endpoint was successfully met. In 18/21 (86%) patients a resection was performed, of which 17 were R0 resections. At a median follow-up of 50 months (interquartile range 37.7-57.1 months), median recurrence-free survival was 9.9 months (95% confidence interval 7.52-not reached) in patients undergoing surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective, single-arm, open-label phase II trial, shows neoadjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib as a potent cytoreductive treatment, allowing radical resection of metastases in 17/21 (81%) patients with prior unresectable locally advanced melanoma.

Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab in macroscopic stage III melanoma.

Adjuvant ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4) and nivolumab (anti-PD-1) both improve relapse-free survival of stage III melanoma patients1,2. In stage IV disease, the combination of ipilimumab + nivolumab is superior to ipilimumab alone and also appears to be more effective than nivolumab monotherapy3. Preclinical work suggests that neoadjuvant application of checkpoint inhibitors may be superior to adjuvant therapy4. To address this question and to test feasibility, 20 patients with palpable stage III melanoma were 1:1 randomized to receive ipilimumab 3 mg kg-1 and nivolumab 1 mg kg-1, as either four courses after surgery (adjuvant arm) or two courses before surgery and two courses postsurgery (neoadjuvant arm). Neoadjuvant therapy was feasible, with all patients undergoing surgery at the preplanned time point. However in both arms, 9/10 patients experienced one or more grade 3/4 adverse events. Pathological responses were achieved in 7/9 (78%) patients treated in the neoadjuvant arm. None of these patients have relapsed so far (median follow-up, 25.6 months). We found that neoadjuvant ipilimumab + nivolumab expand more tumor-resident T cell clones than adjuvant application. While neoadjuvant therapy appears promising, with the current regimen it induced high toxicity rates; therefore, it needs further investigation to preserve efficacy but reduce toxicity.

The effect of seasonal variation and secretion of sunitinib in sweat on the development of hand-foot syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Hand-foot syndrome (HFS) is a side effect of sunitinib with considerable impact on quality of life. Seasonal variation and hyperhydrosis are possibly correlated to occurrence of HFS. Therefore, we proposed to study the prevalence of HFS in different seasons retrospectively and to study the relationship between sunitinib sweat secretion and HFS prospectively. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort of 19 patients treated with sunitinib was used to determine seasonal prevalence of HFS. In a prospective study, sunitinib and N-desethyl sunitinib levels in sweat patches of 25 patients treated with sunitinib were quantified and correlated to severity of HFS. RESULTS: In the retrospective cohort, the patients suffered from more severe HFS during summertime compared with the rest of the year. In the prospective study, the cumulative amounts of sunitinib plus metabolite measured in the patches of the on-treatment phase (median 129.4 ng/patch) were higher than the off-treatment phase (median 39.5 ng/patch). A tendency was observed towards increasing amounts of drug per patch with increasing severity of HFS. CONCLUSION: Patients experienced more HFS in summer time compared to other seasons. However, no statistically significant correlation between sunitinib sweat secretion and severity of HFS could be demonstrated within our patient cohort.

Determination of sunitinib and its active metabolite N-desethylsunitinib in sweat of a patient.

Skin reactions are side effects of sunitinib therapy with an adverse impact on quality of life often necessitating dose reductions. For conventional antineoplastic agents, such as doxorubicin, previous studies have indicated a possible relationship between sweat excretion and the development of skin toxicity. However, the determination of sunitinib and its active metabolite in sweat has not yet been reported. A sensitive and accurate method for the determination of sunitinib and its active metabolite N-desethylsunitinib in human sweat was developed using high-performance liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry detection (LC-MS-MS). Sweat samples of a patient treated with sunitinib were collected using Pharmchek™ Drugs of Abuse patches to determine cumulative amounts of sunitinib and metabolite. Validation of the LC-MS-MS method was performed over a range from 1.0 to 200 ng/patch with good intra- and interassay accuracies for sunitinib and N-desethylsunitinib. Ranges of 76-119 and 7.9-10.5 ng/patch for cumulative secretion of sunitinib and metabolite, respectively, were found in patient samples. To our knowledge, this is the first method for determination of cumulative secretion of sunitinib and N-desethylsunitinib in human sweat samples. Sunitinib and its metabolite were easily detectable in sweat patches of a patient treated with sunitinib.

Management of hot flashes in patients who have breast cancer with venlafaxine and clonidine: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Therapies for breast cancer may induce hot flashes that can affect quality of life. We undertook a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with the primary objective of comparing the average daily hot flash scores in the twelfth week among patients treated with venlafaxine, clonidine, and placebo. Additional analyses of the hot flash score over the full 12 weeks of treatment were performed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 102 patients with a history of breast cancer were randomly assigned (2:2:1) to venlafaxine 75 mg, clonidine 0.1 mg, or placebo daily for 12 weeks. Questionnaires at baseline and during treatment assessed daily hot flash scores, sexual function, sleep quality, anxiety, and depression. RESULTS: After 12 weeks, a total of 80 patients were evaluable for the primary end point. During week 12, hot flash scores were significantly lower in the clonidine group versus placebo (P = .03); for venlafaxine versus placebo, the difference was borderline not significant (P = .07). However, hot flash scores were equal in the clonidine and venlafaxine groups. Over the course of 12 weeks, the differences between both treatments and placebo were significant (P <.001 for venlafaxine v placebo; P = .045 for clonidine v placebo). Frequencies of treatment-related adverse effects of nausea (P = .02), constipation (P = .04), and severe appetite loss were higher in the venlafaxine group. CONCLUSION: Venlafaxine and clonidine are effective treatments in the management of hot flashes in patients with breast cancer. Venlafaxine resulted in a more immediate reduction of hot flash scores when compared with clonidine; however, hot flash scores at week 12 were lower in the clonidine group than in the venlafaxine group.