Operational classification of cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas based on unsupervised clustering of real cases by experts.

BACKGROUND: There is currently no staging system for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) that is adapted to decision-making and universally used. Experts have unconscious ability to simplify the heterogeneity of clinical situations into a few relevant groups to drive their therapeutic decisions. Therefore, we have used unsupervised clustering of real cases by experts to generate an operational classification of cSCCs, an approach that was successful for basal cell carcinomas. OBJECTIVE: To generate a consensual and operational classification of cSCCs. METHOD: Unsupervised independent clustering of 248 cases of cSCCs considered difficult-to-treat. Eighteen international experts from different specialties classified these cases into what they considered homogeneous clusters useful for management, each with freedom regarding clustering criteria. Convergences and divergences between clustering were analysed using a similarity matrix, the K-mean approach and the average silhouette method. Mathematical modelling was used to look for the best consensual clustering. The operability of the derived classification was validated on 23 new practitioners. RESULTS: Despite the high heterogeneity of the clinical cases, a mathematical consensus was observed. It was best represented by a partition into five clusters, which appeared a posteriori to describe different clinical scenarios. Applicability of this classification was shown by a good concordance (94%) in the allocation of cases between the new practitioners and the 18 experts. An additional group of easy-to-treat cSCC was included, resulting in a six-group final classification: easy-to-treat/complex to treat due to tumour and/or patient characteristics/multiple/locally advanced/regional disease/visceral metastases. CONCLUSION: Given the methodology based on the convergence of unguided intuitive clustering of cases by experts, this new classification is relevant for clinical practice. It does not compete with staging systems, but they may complement each other, whether the objective is to select the best therapeutic approach in tumour boards or to design homogeneous groups for trials.

Final analysis of phase II results with cemiplimab in metastatic basal cell carcinoma after hedgehog pathway inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic basal cell carcinoma (mBCC) is a rare condition with no effective second-line treatment options. Cemiplimab is an immune checkpoint inhibitor that blocks the binding of programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) to its ligands, programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) and programmed death-ligand 2 (PD-L2). Here, we present the final analysis of cemiplimab in patients with mBCC after first-line hedgehog pathway inhibitor (HHI) treatment (NCT03132636). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this open-label, single-arm, phase II study, adults with mBCC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1, post-HHI treatment, received cemiplimab 350 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for ≤93 weeks or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) by independent central review (ICR). Duration of response (DOR) was a key secondary endpoint. Other secondary endpoints were ORR per investigator assessment, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), complete response rate, safety, and tolerability. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were enrolled: 70% were male and the median age of patients was 64 [interquartile range (IQR) 57.0-73.0] years. The median duration of follow-up was 8 months (IQR 4-21 months). The ORR per ICR was 22% [95% confidence interval (CI) 12% to 36%], with 2 complete responses and 10 partial responses. Among responders, the median time to response per ICR was 3 months (IQR 2-7 months). The estimated median DOR per ICR was not reached [95% CI 10 months-not evaluable (NE)]. The disease control rate was 63% (95% CI 49% to 76%) per ICR and 70% (95% CI 56% to 82%) per investigator assessment. The median PFS per ICR was 10 months (95% CI 4-16 months); the median OS was 50 months (95% CI 28 months-NE). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were fatigue [23 (43%)] and diarrhoea [20 (37%)]. There were no treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Cemiplimab demonstrated clinically meaningful antitumour activity, including durable responses, and an acceptable safety profile in patients with mBCC who had disease progression on or intolerance to HHI therapy.

Single-agent anti-PD-1 or combined with ipilimumab in patients with mucosal melanoma: an international, retrospective, cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Mucosal melanoma (MM) is a rare melanoma subtype with distinct biology and poor prognosis. Data on the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are limited. We determined the efficacy of ICIs in MM, analyzed by primary site and ethnicity/race. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study from 25 cancer centers in Australia, Europe, USA and Asia was carried out. Patients with histologically confirmed MM were treated with anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) ± ipilimumab. Primary endpoints were response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) by primary site (naso-oral, urogenital, anorectal, other), ethnicity/race (Caucasian, Asian, Other) and treatment. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards model analyses were conducted. RESULTS: In total, 545 patients were included: 331 (63%) Caucasian, 176 (33%) Asian and 20 (4%) Other. Primary sites included 113 (21%) anorectal, 178 (32%) urogenital, 206 (38%) naso-oral and 45 (8%) other. Three hundred and forty-eight (64%) patients received anti-PD-1 and 197 (36%) anti-PD-1/ipilimumab. RR, PFS and OS did not differ by primary site, ethnicity/race or treatment. RR for naso-oral was numerically higher for anti-PD-1/ipilimumab [40%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 29% to 54%] compared with anti-PD-1 (29%, 95% CI 21% to 37%). Thirty-five percent of patients who initially responded progressed. The median duration of response (mDoR) was 26 months (95% CI 18 months-not reached). Factors associated with short PFS were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) ≥3 (P < 0.01), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) more than the upper limit of normal (ULN) (P = 0.01), lung metastases (P < 0.01) and ≥1 previous treatments (P < 0.01). Factors associated with short OS were ECOG PS ≥1 (P < 0.01), LDH >ULN (P = 0.03), lung metastases (P < 0.01) and ≥1 previous treatments (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: MM has poor prognosis. Treatment efficacy of anti-PD-1 ± ipilimumab was similar and did not differ by ethnicity/race. Naso-oral primaries had numerically higher response to anti-PD-1/ipilimumab, without difference in survival. The addition of ipilimumab did not show greater benefit over anti-PD-1 for other primary sites. In responders, mDoR was short and acquired resistance was common. Other factors, including site and number of metastases, were associated with survival.

Complete response of advanced cutaneous squamous cell and basal cell carcinomas with sequential cemiplimab and sonidegib therapy.

A 78-year-old woman was referred to our skin cancer centre with three previous incomplete resections in the left cavum conchae of a deep-infiltrating locally advanced, but still asymptomatic basal cell carcinoma (BCC). The patient noted furthermore two rapidly growing exophytic lesions in the left preauricular and cervical area in the last weeks. The clinical and histological distinction of locally advanced from metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) lesions was challenging. Imaging analysis with CT scans showed, however, an involvement of the parotid gland as well as multiple small lymph node metastases. The interdisciplinary tumour board decision at our institution recommended a systemic treatment with the PD1-antibody cemiplimab. After 13 cycles with cemiplimab at a dose of 350 mg intravenously every 3-weeks, the patient showed a complete response of the two CSCC lesions with histological confirmation. However, the BCC of the left ear appeared to be unchanged and still asymptomatic. The interdisciplinary tumour board considered this tumour to be no candidate for a curative resection or irradiation. Therefore, the patient was exposed to the hedgehog inhibitor sonidegib with a conventional dose of 200 mg orally per day. After 3 months of treatment, the tumour showed a markable regression and a complete response was confirmed by 3-punch biopsies from this preoperated lesion. Both cemiplimab and sonidegib were excellently tolerated with almost no adverse events apart from a mild fatigue (CTC grade 1) over the first 3 weeks of the cemiplimab therapy. There were no laboratory abnormalities found.

Effectiveness, safety and utilization of vismodegib in locally advanced basal cell carcinoma under real-world conditions in Germany - The non-interventional study NIELS.

BACKGROUND: Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) can arise by the uncontrolled proliferation of cells from multiple epidermal compartments due to aberrant activation of the Hedgehog (Hh) signalling pathway. Vismodegib, a small-molecule inhibitor of this pathway, is approved for treatment of patients with locally advanced (la) BCC inappropriate for surgery or radiotherapy or patients with symptomatic metastatic (m) BCC. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this non-interventional study was to assess effectiveness with a special focus on duration of response (DOR), safety and utilization of vismodegib for treatment of laBCC in daily practice in Germany. METHODS: This non-interventional study (NIS) observed treatment of laBCC with vismodegib according to the German label in clinical practice. All available patients who had received at least one dose of vismodegib between commercial availability of vismodegib in Germany (02 August 2013) and 3 years before end of study (31 March 2016) could be included and were documented retrospectively and/or prospectively for up to 3 years. Primary effectiveness variable was DOR. Assessment of tumour response was carried out by the treating physicians. Exploratory variables included utilization of vismodegib, decision makers for therapy and method of tumour response evaluation. All statistical analyses were descriptive. RESULTS: Between September 2015 and March 2019, 66 patients were observed at 26 German centres. The objective response rate (ORR) was 74.2% and the disease control rate (DCR) was 90.9%. The median DOR was 15.9 months (95% CI: 9.2; 25.7; n = 49 patients with response). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 19.1 months and the median time to response (TTR) 2.7 months. A total of 340 adverse events were reported in 63 (95.5%) patients; no new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The NIS NIELS shows effectiveness and safety of vismodegib in patients with laBCC. It confirms the transferability of the results of the pivotal trial into routine clinical practice.

A multicentre study of naevus-associated melanoma vs. de novo melanoma, tumour thickness and body site differences.

BACKGROUND: Whether melanoma in histological contiguity with a naevus [naevus-associated melanoma (NAM)] is distinctly different from melanoma arising de novo remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the characteristics of de novo melanoma differ from NAM and are not due to naevus obliteration in thicker tumours. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre retrospective study of de novo melanoma and NAM in seven referral centres in Europe, Australia and the USA between 2006 and 2015. RESULTS: In a total of 9474 localized melanomas, de novo melanoma was associated with thicker tumours and body site differences compared with NAM. In the subset of T1 melanomas (n = 5307), similar body site differences were found in multivariate analysis by body site. When compared with NAM, de novo melanoma was more likely to affect older individuals (≥ 70 years) when located on the head/neck [odds ratio (OR) 4·65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2·55-8·46], the trunk (OR 1·82, 95% CI 1·40-2·36) or the upper extremity (OR 1·69, 95% CI 1·14-2·50), was more likely to affect female patients when located on the lower extremities (OR 1·36, 95% CI 1·03-1·80), and was more likely to be of the nodular melanoma subtype (OR 2·23, 95% CI 1·14-4·35) when located on the trunk. De novo melanoma was less likely to have regression present compared with NAM. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicopathological and body site differences between de novo melanoma and NAM support the divergent pathway model of development. These differences were also found in thin melanomas, suggesting that de novo melanomas are different from NAM and their differences are not due to the obliteration of naevus remnants in thicker tumours.

Which medical disciplines diagnose and treat melanoma in Europe in 2019? A survey of experts from melanoma centres in 27 European countries.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The incidence of melanoma is increasing. This places significant burden on societies to provide efficient cancer care. The European Cancer Organisation recently published the essential requirements for quality melanoma care. The present study is aimed for the first time to roughly estimate the extent to which these requirements have been met in Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A web-based survey of experts from melanoma centres in 27 European countries was conducted from 1 February to 1 August 2019. Data on diagnostic techniques, surgical and medical treatment, organization of cancer care and education were collected and correlated with national health and economic indicators and mortality-to-incidence ratio (MIR) as a surrogate for survival. Univariate linear regression analysis was performed to evaluate the correlations. SPSS software was used. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: The MIR was lower in countries with a high health expenditure per capita and with a higher numbers of general practitioners (GPs) and surgeons (SURG) per million inhabitants. In these countries, GPs and dermatologists (DER) were involved in melanoma detection; high percentage of DER used dermatoscopy and were involved in the follow-up of all melanoma stages; both medical oncologists (ONC) and dermato-oncologists administered systemic treatments; and patients had better access to sentinel lymph node biopsy and were treated within multidisciplinary tumour boards. CONCLUSION: Based on these first estimates, the greater involvement of GPs in melanoma detection; the greater involvement of highly trained DER in dermatoscopy, dermatosurgery, follow-up and the systemic treatment of melanoma; and the provision of ongoing dermato-oncology training for pathologists, SURG, DER and ONC are necessary to provide an optimal melanoma care pathway. A comprehensive analysis of the melanoma care pathway based on clinical melanoma registries will be needed to more accurately evaluate these first insights.

The evolving field of Dermato-oncology and the role of dermatologists: Position Paper of the EADO, EADV and Task Forces, EDF, IDS, EBDV-UEMS and EORTC Cutaneous Lymphoma Task Force.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of skin cancers has been increasing steadily over the last decades. Although there have been significant breakthroughs in the management of skin cancers with the introduction of novel diagnostic tools and innovative therapies, skin cancer mortality, morbidity and costs heavily burden the society. OBJECTIVE: Members of the European Association of Dermato-Oncology, European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, International Dermoscopy Society, European Dermatology Forum, European Board of Dermatovenereology of the European Union of Medical Specialists and EORTC Cutaneous Lymphoma Task Force have joined this effort to emphasize the fundamental role that the specialist in Dermatology-Venereology has in the diagnosis and management of different types of skin cancer. We review the role of dermatologists in the prevention, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with melanoma, non-melanoma skin cancers and cutaneous lymphomas, and discuss approaches to optimize their involvement in effectively addressing the current needs and priorities of dermato-oncology. DISCUSSION: Dermatologists play a crucial role in virtually all aspects of skin cancer management including the implementation of primary and secondary prevention, the formation of standardized pathways of care for patients, the establishment of specialized skin cancer treatment centres, the coordination of an efficient multidisciplinary team and the setting up of specific follow-up plans for patients. CONCLUSION: Skin cancers represent an important health issue for modern societies. The role of dermatologists is central to improving patient care and outcomes. In view of the emerging diagnostic methods and treatments for early and advanced skin cancer, and considering the increasingly diverse skills, knowledge and expertise needed for managing this heterogeneous group of diseases, dermato-oncology should be considered as a specific subspecialty of Dermatology-Venereology.

Sonidegib and vismodegib in the treatment of patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma: a joint expert opinion.

Sonidegib and vismodegib are hedgehog pathway inhibitors (HhIs) approved for the treatment of advanced basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Until recently, vismodegib was the only targeted treatment available for patients with locally advanced BCC (laBCC) in cases where surgery and radiotherapy are inappropriate. Sonidegib has recently been approved and now presents an alternative treatment option. The clinical differences between the two HhIs in patients with laBCC are unclear, as no head-to-head randomized controlled trials are or will be initiated. Moreover, there were important differences in the designs of their pivotal studies, BOLT (sonidegib) and ERIVANCE (vismodegib), and these differences complicate evidence-based analysis of their relative efficacy and safety profiles. In this paper, a group of clinical experts in the management of laBCC summarizes the clinical and pharmacological profiles of sonidegib and vismodegib based on published data and their own clinical experience. One key difference between the two pivotal studies was the criteria used to assess BCC severity. ERIVANCE (a single-arm phase II trial) used the conventional Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), while the more recent double-blind randomized BOLT trial used the stringent modified RECIST. A preplanned analysis adjusted the outcomes from BOLT with RECIST-like criteria, and this enabled the experts to discuss relative efficacy outcomes for the two treatments. Centrally reviewed objective response rate (ORR) for vismodegib was 47.6% (95% CI: 35.5-60.6) at 21-month follow-up using RECIST. After adjusting with RECIST-like criteria, the ORR for sonidegib according to central review at 18-month follow-up was 60.6% (95% CI: 47.8-72.4). Both treatments were associated with similar patterns of adverse events. Sonidegib and vismodegib share the same efficacy and tolerability profiles, but their pharmacokinetic profiles show several differences, such as volume of distribution and half-life. Further studies are needed to understand how these differences may impact clinical practice.

Access to innovative medicines for metastatic melanoma worldwide: Melanoma World Society and European Association of Dermato-oncology survey in 34 countries.

According to data from recent studies from Europe, a large percentage of patients have restricted access to innovative medicines for metastatic melanoma. Melanoma World Society and European Association of Dermato-oncology conducted a Web-based survey on access to first-line recommended treatments for metastatic melanoma by current guidelines (National Comprehensive Center Network, European Society for Medical Oncology [ESMO] and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/European Association of Dermato-oncology/European dermatology Forum) among melanoma experts from 27 European countries, USA, China, Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Mexico from September 1st, 2017 to July 1st, 2018. Data on licencing and reimbursement of medicines and the number of patient treated were correlated with the data on health expenditure per capita (HEPC), Mackenbach score of health policy performance, health technology assessment (HTA), ASCO and ESMO Magnitude of clinical benefit scale (ESMO MCBS) scores of clinical benefit and market price of medicines. Regression analysis for evaluation of correlation between the parameters was carried out using SPSS software. The estimated number of patients without access in surveyed countries was 13768. The recommended BRAFi + MEKi combination and anti-PD1 immunotherapy were fully reimbursed/covered in 19 of 34 (55.8%) and 17 of 34 (50%) countries, and combination anti-CTLA4+anti-PD1 in was fully covered in 6 of 34 (17.6%) countries. Median delay in reimbursement was 991 days, and it was in significant correlation with ESMO MCBS (p = 0.02), median market price (p = 0.001), HEPC and Mackenbach scores (p < 0.01). Price negotiations or managed entry agreements (MEAs) with national authorities were necessary for reimbursement. In conclusion, great discrepancy exists in metastatic melanoma treatment globally. Access to innovative medicines is in correlation with economic parameters as well as with healthcare system performance parameters. Patient-oriented drug development, market access and reimbursement pathways must be urgently found.

A randomized, multinational, noninferiority, phase III trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of BF-200 aminolaevulinic acid gel vs. methyl aminolaevulinate cream in the treatment of nonaggressive basal cell carcinoma with photodynamic therapy.

BACKGROUND: Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) represents the most common nonmelanoma skin cancer worldwide, affecting mainly adult, fair-skinned individuals. The World Health Organization distinguishes aggressive and nonaggressive forms, of which prototypical variants of the latter are primary nodular and superficial BCC. OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate noninferiority of BF-200 ALA (a nanoemulsion gel containing 5-aminolaevulinic acid) compared with MAL (a cream containing methyl aminolaevulinate) in the treatment of nonaggressive BCC with photodynamic therapy (PDT). Noninferiority of the primary efficacy variable (overall patient complete response 12 weeks after last PDT) would be declared if the mean response for BF-200 ALA was no worse than that for MAL, within a statistical margin of Δ = -15%. METHODS: The study was a randomized, phase III trial performed in Germany and the U.K. with ongoing 5-year follow-up. Of 281 randomized patients, 138 were treated with BF-200 ALA and 143 with MAL. Patients received two PDT sessions 1 week apart. Remaining lesions 12 weeks after the second PDT were retreated. Illumination was performed with a red light source (635 nm, 37 J cm-2 ). The results shown include clinical end points and patients' reassessment 12 months after the last PDT. The study was registered with EudraCT (number 2013-003241-42). RESULTS: Of the BF-200 ALA-treated patients, 93·4% were complete responders compared with 91·8% in the MAL group. The difference of means was 1·6, with a one-sided 97·5% confidence interval of -6·5, establishing noninferiority (P < 0·0001). The results for secondary efficacy parameters were in line with the primary outcome. Recurrence rates 12 months after the last treatment were ≤ 10%. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of nonaggressive BCC with BF-200 ALA-PDT is highly effective and well tolerated with proven noninferiority to MAL-PDT. It demonstrates low recurrence rates after 1 year of follow-up.

Vismodegib in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma: Primary analysis of STEVIE, an international, open-label trial.

BACKGROUND: The SafeTy Events in VIsmodEgib study (STEVIE, ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01367665), assessed safety and efficacy of vismodegib-a first-in-class Hedgehog pathway inhibitor demonstrating clinical benefit in advanced basal cell carcinoma (BCC)-in a patient population representative of clinical practice. Primary analysis data are presented. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic BCC received oral vismodegib 150 mg/d until progressive disease, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal. Primary objective was safety. Efficacy variables were assessed as secondary end-points. RESULTS: Evaluable adult patients (N = 1215, 1119 locally advanced; 96 metastatic BCC) from 36 countries were treated; 147 patients (12%) remained on study at time of reporting. Median (range) treatment duration was 8.6 (0-44) months. Most patients (98%) had ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). The incidence of the most common TEAEs was consistent with reports in previous analyses. No association between creatine phosphokinase (CPK) abnormalities and muscle spasm was observed. Serious TEAEs occurred in 289 patients (23.8%). Exposure ≥12 months did not lead to increased incidence or severity of new TEAEs. The majority of the most common TEAEs ongoing at time of treatment discontinuation resolved by 12 months afterwards, regardless of Gorlin syndrome status. Response rates (investigator-assessed) in patients with histologically confirmed measurable baseline disease were 68.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 65.7-71.3) in patients with locally advanced BCC and 36.9% (95% CI 26.6-48.1) in patients with metastatic BCC. CONCLUSIONS: The primary analysis of STEVIE demonstrates that vismodegib is tolerable in typical patients in clinical practice; safety profile is consistent with that in previous reports. Long-term exposure was not associated with worsening severity/frequency of TEAEs. Investigator-assessed response rates showed high rate of tumour control. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT01367665.

Vemurafenib in patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive metastatic melanoma: final overall survival results of the randomized BRIM-3 study.

BACKGROUND: The BRIM-3 trial showed improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for vemurafenib compared with dacarbazine in treatment-naive patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive metastatic melanoma. We present final OS data from BRIM-3. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned in a 1 : 1 ratio to receive vemurafenib (960 mg twice daily) or dacarbazine (1000 mg/m2 every 3 weeks). OS and PFS were co-primary end points. OS was assessed in the intention-to-treat population, with and without censoring of data for dacarbazine patients who crossed over to vemurafenib. RESULTS: Between 4 January 2010 and 16 December 2010, a total of 675 patients were randomized to vemurafenib (n = 337) or dacarbazine (n = 338, of whom 84 crossed over to vemurafenib). At the time of database lock (14 August 2015), median OS, censored at crossover, was significantly longer for vemurafenib than for dacarbazine {13.6 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 12.0-15.4] versus 9.7 months [95% CI 7.9-12.8; hazard ratio (HR) 0.81 [95% CI 0.67-0.98]; P = 0.03}, as was median OS without censoring at crossover [13.6 months (95% CI 12.0-15.4) versus 10.3 months (95% CI 9.1-12.8); HR 0.81 (95% CI 0.68-0.96); P = 0.01]. Kaplan-Meier estimates of OS rates for vemurafenib versus dacarbazine were 56% versus 46%, 30% versus 24%, 21% versus 19% and 17% versus 16% at 1, 2, 3 and 4 years, respectively. Overall, 173 of the 338 patients (51%) in the dacarbazine arm and 175 of the 337 (52%) of those in the vemurafenib arm received subsequent anticancer therapies, most commonly ipilimumab. Safety data were consistent with the primary analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Vemurafenib continues to be associated with improved median OS in the BRIM-3 trial after extended follow-up. OS curves converged after ≈3 years, likely as a result of crossover from dacarbazine to vemurafenib and receipt of subsequent anticancer therapies. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT01006980.

Dabrafenib plus trametinib versus dabrafenib monotherapy in patients with metastatic BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma: long-term survival and safety analysis of a phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Previous analysis of COMBI-d (NCT01584648) demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with combination dabrafenib and trametinib versus dabrafenib monotherapy in BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. This study was continued to assess 3-year landmark efficacy and safety after ≥36-month follow-up for all living patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This double-blind, phase 3 study enrolled previously untreated patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma. Patients were randomized to receive dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) plus trametinib (2 mg once daily) or dabrafenib plus placebo. The primary endpoint was PFS; secondary endpoints were OS, overall response, duration of response, safety, and pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: Between 4 May and 30 November 2012, a total of 423 of 947 screened patients were randomly assigned to receive dabrafenib plus trametinib (n = 211) or dabrafenib monotherapy (n = 212). At data cut-off (15 February 2016), outcomes remained superior with the combination: 3-year PFS was 22% with dabrafenib plus trametinib versus 12% with monotherapy, and 3-year OS was 44% versus 32%, respectively. Twenty-five patients receiving monotherapy crossed over to combination therapy, with continued follow-up under the monotherapy arm (per intent-to-treat principle). Of combination-arm patients alive at 3 years, 58% remained on dabrafenib plus trametinib. Three-year OS with the combination reached 62% in the most favourable subgroup (normal lactate dehydrogenase and <3 organ sites with metastasis) versus only 25% in the unfavourable subgroup (elevated lactate dehydrogenase). The dabrafenib plus trametinib safety profile was consistent with previous clinical trial observations, and no new safety signals were detected with long-term use. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that durable (≥3 years) survival is achievable with dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma and support long-term first-line use of the combination in this setting.

Incidence, course, and management of toxicities associated with cobimetinib in combination with vemurafenib in the coBRIM study.

Background: In the coBRIM phase III trial, the addition of cobimetinib, an MEK inhibitor, to vemurafenib, a BRAF inhibitor, significantly improved progression-free survival [hazard ratio (HR), 0.58; P < 0.0001] and overall survival (HR, 0.70; P = 0.005) in advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma. Here, we report on the incidence, course, and management of key adverse events (AEs) in the coBRIM study. Patients and methods: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive vemurafenib (960 mg twice a day) and either cobimetinib (60 mg once a day, 21 days on/7 days off) or placebo. In addition to standard safety evaluations, patients underwent regular ophthalmic, cardiac, and dermatologic surveillance examinations. Results: Of 495 patients recruited to the study, 493 patients received treatment and constituted the safety population (cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib, 247; vemurafenib, 246). At data cut-off (30 September 2015), median follow-up was 18.5 months. Nearly every patient experienced an AE. In patients who received cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib, the frequency of grade ≥3 AEs was higher than in patients who received vemurafenib alone (75% versus 61%). Most AEs, including grade ≥3 AEs, occurred within the first treatment cycle. After the first cycle (28 days), the incidence of common AEs (rash, diarrhoea, photosensitivity, elevated creatine phosphokinase, serous retinopathy, pyrexia, and liver laboratory abnormalities) decreased substantially over time. Most AEs were managed conservatively by supportive care measures, dose modifications of study treatment, and, occasionally, permanent treatment discontinuation. Conclusions: These data indicate that most AEs arising from treatment with cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib generally occur early in the treatment course, are mild or moderate and are manageable by patient monitoring, dose modification and supportive care. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01689519.

More than 5000 patients with metastatic melanoma in Europe per year do not have access to recommended first-line innovative treatments.

BACKGROUND: Despite the efficacy of innovative treatments for metastatic melanoma, their high costs has led to disparities in cancer care among different European countries. We analysed the availability of these innovative therapies in Europe and estimated the number of patients without access to first-line recommended treatment per current guidelines of professional entities such as the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), the European Association of Dermato-Oncology (EADO), and European Dermatology Forum (EDF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Web-based online survey was conducted in 30 European countries with questions about the treatment schedules from 1st May 2015 to 1st May 2016: number of metastatic melanoma patients, registration and reimbursement of innovative medicines (updated data, as of 1st October 2016), percentage of patients treated and availability of clinical studies and compassionate-use programmes. RESULTS: The recommended BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi) + MEK inhibitor (MEKi) combination was both registered and fully reimbursed in 9/30 (30%) countries, and in 13/30 (43%) (all from Eastern Europe) not reimbursed. First-line immunotherapy with anti-PD1 antibodies was registered and fully reimbursed in 14/30 (47%) countries, while in 13/30 (43%) (all from Eastern Europe) not reimbursed. It was estimated that in Europe 19,600 patients with metastatic melanoma are treated, and 5238 (27%) do not have access to recommended first-line therapy. Significant correlation was found between human development index (HDI, UNDP report 2015), (r = 0.662; p < 0.001), health expenditure per capita (r = 0.695; p < 0.001) and the Mackenbach score of health policy performance (r = 0.765; p < 0.001) with the percentage of patients treated with innovative medicines and a number of reimbursed medicines. CONCLUSIONS: Great discrepancy exists in metastatic melanoma treatment across Europe. It is crucial to increase the awareness of national and European policymakers, oncological societies, melanoma patients' associations and pharma industry.

Efficacy and safety of nilotinib in patients with KIT-mutated metastatic or inoperable melanoma: final results from the global, single-arm, phase II TEAM trial.

BACKGROUND: The single-arm, phase II Tasigna Efficacy in Advanced Melanoma (TEAM) trial evaluated the KIT-selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor nilotinib in patients with KIT-mutated advanced melanoma without prior KIT inhibitor treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-two patients with KIT-mutated advanced melanoma were enrolled and treated with nilotinib 400 mg twice daily. TEAM originally included a comparator arm of dacarbazine (DTIC)-treated patients; the design was amended to a single-arm trial due to an observed low number of KIT-mutated melanomas. Thirteen patients were randomized to DTIC before the protocol amendment removing this study arm. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR), determined according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors. RESULTS: ORR was 26.2% (n = 11/42; 95% CI, 13.9%-42.0%), sufficient to reject the null hypothesis (ORR ≤10%). All observed responses were partial responses (PRs; median response duration, 7.1 months). Twenty patients (47.6%) had stable disease and 10 (23.8%) had progressive disease; 1 (2.4%) response was unknown. Ten of the 11 responding patients had exon 11 mutations, four with an L576P mutation. The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 4.2 and 18.0 months, respectively. Three of the 13 patients on DTIC achieved a PR, and another patient had a PR following switch to nilotinib. CONCLUSION: Nilotinib activity in patients with advanced KIT-mutated melanoma was similar to historical data from imatinib-treated patients. DTIC treatment showed potential activity, although the low patient number limits interpretation. Similar to previously reported results with imatinib, nilotinib showed greater activity among patients with an exon 11 mutation, including L576P, suggesting that nilotinib may be an effective treatment option for patients with specific KIT mutations. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01028222.