Capivasertib in combination with enzalutamide for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer after docetaxel and abiraterone: Results from the randomized phase II RE-AKT trial.

BACKGROUND: PTEN loss and aberrations in PI3K/AKT signaling kinases associate with poorer response to abiraterone acetate (AA) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). In this study, we assessed antitumor activity of the AKT inhibitor capivasertib combined with enzalutamide in mCRPC with prior progression on AA and docetaxel. METHODS: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase 2 trial, recruited men ≥ 18 years with progressing mCRPC and performance status 0-2 from 15 UK centers. Randomized participants (1:1) received enzalutamide (160 mg orally, once daily) with capivasertib (400 mg)/ placebo orally, twice daily on an intermittent (4 days on, 3 days off) schedule. Primary endpoint was composite response rate (RR): RECIST 1.1 objective response, ≥ 50 % PSA decrease from baseline, or circulating tumor cell count conversion (from ≥ 5 at baseline to < 5 cells/7.5 mL). Subgroup analyses by PTENIHC status were pre-planned. RESULTS: Overall, 100 participants were randomized (50:50); 95 were evaluable for primary endpoint (47:48); median follow-up was 43 months. RR were 9/47 (19.1 %) enzalutamide/capivasertib and 9/48 (18.8 %) enzalutamide/placebo (absolute difference 0.4 % 90 %CI -12.8 to 13.6, p = 0.58), with similar results in the PTENIHC loss subgroup. Irrespective of treatment, OS was significantly worse for PTENIHC loss (10.1 months [95 %CI: 4.6-13.9] vs 14.8 months [95 %CI: 10.8-18]; p = 0.02). Most common treatment-emergent grade ≥ 3 adverse events for the combination were diarrhea (13 % vs 2 %) and fatigue (10 % vs 6 %). CONCLUSIONS: Combined capivasertib/enzalutamide was well tolerated but didn't significantly improve outcomes from abiraterone pre-treated mCRPC.

A randomised phase 2 study of intermittent versus continuous dosing of dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAFV600 mutant advanced melanoma (INTERIM).

BACKGROUND: BRAF+MEK inhibitors extend life expectancy of patients with BRAFV600 mutant advanced melanoma. Acquired resistance limits duration of benefit, but preclinical and case studies suggest intermittent dosing could overcome this limitation. INTERIM was a phase 2 trial evaluating an intermittent dosing regimen. METHODS: Patients with BRAFV600 mutant advanced melanoma due to start dabrafenib+trametinib were randomised to receive either continuous (CONT), or intermittent (INT; dabrafenib d1-21, trametinib d1-14 every 28 days) dosing. A composite primary endpoint included progression-free survival (PFS) and quality of life (QoL). Secondary endpoints included response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs). Mutant BRAFV600E ctDNA was measured by droplet digital PCR (ddPCR), using mutant allele frequency of > 1 % as the detection threshold. RESULTS: 79 patients (39 INT, 40 CONT) were recruited; median age 67 years, 65 % AJCC (7th ed) stage IV M1c, 29 % had brain metastases. With 19 months median follow-up, INT was inferior in all efficacy measures: median PFS 8.5 vs 10.7mo (HR 1.39, 95 %CI 0.79-2.45, p = 0.255); median OS 18.1mo vs not reached (HR 1.69, 95 %CI 0.87-3.28, p = 0.121), ORR 57 % vs 77 %. INT patients experienced fewer treatment-related AEs (76 % vs 88 %), but more grade > 3 AEs (53 % vs 42 %). QoL favoured CONT. Detection of BRAFV600E ctDNA prior to treatment correlated with worse OS (HR 2.55, 95 %CI 1.25-5.21, p = 0.01) in both arms. A change to undetected during treatment did not significantly predict better OS. CONCLUSION: INTERIM findings are consistent with other recent clinical trials reporting that intermittent dosing does not improve efficacy of BRAF+MEK inhibitors.

Comparison of three-weekly and six-weekly pembrolizumab United Kingdom prescribing practice for advanced and resected melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab is approved for the treatment of advanced and resected melanoma and was originally licensed as a three-weekly infusion (Q3W). In April 2019, a six-weekly infusion schedule (Q6W) was also approved. We retrospectively reviewed pembrolizumab prescribing for patients with melanoma across multiple United Kingdom (UK) centres to compare the safety and efficacy of Q6W with Q3W in real-world clinical practice. METHODS: Case notes for melanoma patients treated with pembrolizumab between April 2019 and August 2020 at eight UK centres were reviewed. Prespecified baseline characteristics of the Q3W and Q6W cohorts were compared, as well as toxicity and efficacy outcomes. Prescribers were surveyed about their prescribing practice. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-seven patients were included: 116 commenced Q3W and 161 commenced Q6W pembrolizumab. The proportion of Q6W prescriptions varied by the centre (range 32-88%). Patient factors associated with an increased likelihood of receiving Q3W over Q6W were preexisting autoimmune comorbidity (odds ratio [OR] 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.12-0.82) and treatment for advanced (versus resected) disease (OR 0.54; 95%CI 0.33-0.90). Toxicity outcomes were broadly similar for Q6W and Q3W: 14.9% versus 15.5% ≥ grade 3 Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Estimated 12-month recurrence-free survival for adjuvantly treated patients was 78.9% for Q6W and 74.2% for Q3W (hazard ratio [HR] 0.93; 95%CI 0.50-1.73). Estimated 12-month progression-free survival for advanced patients was 41.8% for Q6W and 55.9% for Q3W (HR 1.21, 95%CI 0.67-2.18). CONCLUSIONS: Q6W is an appropriate option for administering pembrolizumab, given the opportunity to reduce the health service resource burden.

Longitudinal trajectory of quality of life for patients with melanoma brain metastases: A secondary analysis from a whole brain radiotherapy randomized clinical trial.

Purpose: Brain metastases are common in patients with advanced melanoma. This study describes 12-month quality of life (QoL) trajectories following local management of 1-3 melanoma brain metastases. Methods: This study assessed QoL data collected during a multi-center, prospective, open-label, phase III randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of adjuvant whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) with observation after local treatment of 1-3 melanoma brain metastases. Patients completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core (QLQ-C30) and Brain Tumour (BN-20) questionnaires at baseline and every 2 months, for 12 months.Using growth mixture modelling, QoL trajectories were identified for global health status, QLQ-C30 and BN-20 subscales for patients with baseline and at least one follow-up assessment. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine associations between trajectories, demographic, and clinical factors. Results: After combining QoL data from observation and WBRT arms, QLQ-C30 and BN-20 trajectories were calculated for 139 and 137 patients respectively. Depending on the QoL domain, 9-54 % of patients reported a deterioration in QoL. Older age (≥65 years) was significantly associated with deterioration in global health status (OR = 2.88, 95 %CI = 1.27-6.54), physical (OR = 3.49, 95 %CI = 1.29-9.41), role (OR = 4.15, 95 %CI = 1.77-9.71), social (OR = 4.42, 95 % CI = 1.57-12.46), cognitive (OR = 6.70, 95 % CI = 1.93-23.29) and motor functioning (OR = 4.95, 95 %CI = 1.95-12.61) and increased future uncertainty (OR = 0.20, 95 %CI = 0.07-0.53). Female sex (OR = 0.10, 95 %CI = 0.02-0.41), not having neurosurgery at baseline (OR = 0.09, 95 %CI = 0.02-0.52), 2-3 brain metastases (OR = 5.75, 95 %CI = 1.76-18.85) or receiving adjuvant WBRT (OR = 6.77, 95 %CI = 2.00-22.99) were associated with poorer physical, emotional, cognitive and social outcomes respectively. Conclusions: Poorer QoL outcomes in the first 12 months after diagnosis of melanoma brain metastases were observed in patients aged ≥ 65 years, females, having 2-3 brain metastases, non-surgical treatment of metastases or adjuvant WBRT.Clinical Trial Registration Number:Whole Brain Radiotherapy Trial (WBRTMel) was registered with the Australian Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12607000512426) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01503827).Study Support:This project was funded by Cancer Australia PdCCRS (Grants No. 512358, 1009485, and 1084046) and the National Helath and Medical Research Coucil of Australia (NHMRC; Grant No. 1135285).ADT was supported by a Cancer Australia Priority-driven Collaborative Cancer Research Scheme. Project #1046923. RLM was supported by an NHMRC Fellowship #1194703 and a University of Sydney, Robinson Fellowship. JFT was supported by an NHMRC Program Grant #1093017.

Small-Cell Carcinoma of the Prostate - Challenges of Diagnosis and Treatment: A Next of Kin and Physician Perspective Piece.

This article was co-authored by a patient's relative describing their experiences of receiving a diagnosis and subsequent clinical management of a rare form of prostate cancer, neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC). The difficulty of receiving this diagnosis, particularly as this was terminal with no options for systemic treatment, and experiences throughout this process are detailed. The relative's questions regarding the care of her partner, NEPC and clinical management are answered. The treating physician's perspective regarding clinical management is enclosed. Prostate cancer remains one of the most common cancer diagnoses, with small-cell carcinoma (SCC) of the prostate representing 0.5-2% of these. Prostatic SCC frequently develops in patients previously treated for prostate adenocarcinoma, more rarely arising de novo. Diagnosis and management present clinical challenges owing to its rarity, frequently aggressive disease course, lack of specific diagnostic and monitoring biomarkers, and treatment limitations. Current pathophysiological understanding of prostatic SCC, genomics and contemporary and evolving treatment options in addition to current guidelines are discussed. Written principally from the patient's relatives and physician experience with discussion of current evidence, diagnostic and treatment options, we hope this piece is informative for both patients and healthcare professionals alike.

International Center-Level Variation in Utilization of Completion Lymph Node Dissection and Adjuvant Systemic Therapy for Sentinel Lymph Node-Positive Melanoma at Major Referral Centers.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine overall trends and center-level variation in utilization of completion lymph node dissection (CLND) and adjuvant systemic therapy for sentinel lymph node (SLN)-positive melanoma. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Based on recent clinical trials, management options for SLN-positive melanoma now include effective adjuvant systemic therapy and nodal observation instead of CLND. It is unknown how these findings have shaped practice or how these contemporaneous developments have influenced their respective utilization. METHODS: We performed an international cohort study at 21 melanoma referral centers in Australia, Europe, and the United States that treated adults with SLN-positive melanoma and negative distant staging from July 2017 to June 2019. We used generalized linear and multinomial logistic regression models with random intercepts for each center to assess center-level variation in CLND and adjuvant systemic treatment, adjusting for patient and disease-specific characteristics. RESULTS: Among 1109 patients, performance of CLND decreased from 28% to 8% and adjuvant systemic therapy use increased from 29 to 60%. For both CLND and adjuvant systemic treatment, the most influential factors were nodal tumor size, stage, and location of treating center. There was notable variation among treating centers in management of stage IIIA patients and use of CLND with adjuvant systemic therapy versus nodal observation alone for similar risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: There has been an overall decline in CLND and simultaneous adoption of adjuvant systemic therapy for patients with SLN-positive melanoma though wide variation in practice remains. Accounting for differences in patient mix, location of care contributed significantly to the observed variation.

Risk Stratification of Sentinel Node Metastasis Disease Burden and Phenotype in Stage III Melanoma Patients.

BACKGROUND: Currently, all patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) pT2b-pT4b melanomas and a positive sentinel node biopsy are now considered for adjuvant systemic therapy without consideration of the burden of disease in the metastatic nodes. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort analysis of 1377 pT1-pT4b melanoma patients treated at an academic cancer center. Standard variables regarding patient, primary tumor, and sentinel node characteristics, in addition to sentinel node metastasis maximum tumor deposit size (MTDS) in millimeters and extracapsular spread (ECS) status, were analyzed for predicting disease-specific survival (DSS). RESULTS: The incidence of SN+ was 17.3% (238/1377) and ECS was 10.5% (25/238). Increasing AJCC N stage was associated with worse DSS. There was no difference in DSS between the IIIB and IIIC groups. Subgroup analyses showed that the optimal MTDS cut-point was 0.7 mm for the pT1b-pT4a SN+ subgroups, but there was no cut-point for the pT4b SN+ subgroup. Patients with MTDS <0.7 mm and no ECS had similar survival outcomes as the N0 patients with the same T stage. Nodal risk categories were developed using the 0.7 mm MTDS cut-point and ECS status. The incidence of low-risk disease, according to the new nodal risk model, was 22.3% (53/238) in the stage III cohort, with 49% (26/53) in the pT2b-pT3a and pT3b-pT4a subgroups and none in the pT4b subgroup. Similar outcomes were observed for overall and distant metastasis-free survival. CONCLUSION: We propose a more granular classification system, based on tumor burden and ECS status in the sentinel node, that identifies low-risk patients in the AJCC IIIB and IIIC subgroups who may otherwise be observed.

Outcomes with adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy in patients with sentinel lymph node-positive melanoma without completion lymph node dissection.

Until recently, most patients with sentinel lymph node-positive (SLN+) melanoma underwent a completion lymph node dissection (CLND), as mandated in published trials of adjuvant systemic therapies. Following multicenter selective lymphadenectomy trial-II, most patients with SLN+ melanoma no longer undergo a CLND prior to adjuvant systemic therapy. A retrospective analysis of clinical outcomes in SLN+ melanoma patients treated with adjuvant systemic therapy after July 2017 was performed in 21 international cancer centers. Of 462 patients who received systemic adjuvant therapy, 326 patients received adjuvant anti-PD-1 without prior immediate (IM) CLND, while 60 underwent IM CLND. With median follow-up of 21 months, 24-month relapse-free survival (RFS) was 67% (95% CI 62% to 73%) in the 326 patients. When the patient subgroups who would have been eligible for the two adjuvant anti-PD-1 clinical trials mandating IM CLND were analyzed separately, 24-month RFS rates were 64%, very similar to the RFS rates from those studies. Of these no-CLND patients, those with SLN tumor deposit >1 mm, stage IIIC/D and ulcerated primary had worse RFS. Of the patients who relapsed on adjuvant anti-PD-1, those without IM CLND had a higher rate of relapse in the regional nodal basin than those with IM CLND (46% vs 11%). Therefore, 55% of patients who relapsed without prior CLND underwent surgery including therapeutic lymph node dissection (TLND), with 30% relapsing a second time; there was no difference in subsequent relapse between patients who received observation vs secondary adjuvant therapy. Despite the increased frequency of nodal relapses, adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy may be as effective in SLN+ pts who forego IM CLND and salvage surgery with TLND at relapse may be a viable option for these patients.

Clinical Outcomes and Risk Stratification of Early-Stage Melanoma Micrometastases From an International Multicenter Study: Implications for the Management of American Joint Committee on Cancer IIIA Disease.

PURPOSE: Indications for offering adjuvant systemic therapy for patients with early-stage melanomas with low disease burden sentinel node (SN) micrometastases, namely, American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC; eighth edition) stage IIIA disease, are presently controversial. The current study sought to identify high-risk SN-positive AJCC stage IIIA patients who are more likely to derive benefit from adjuvant systemic therapy. METHODS: Patients were recruited from an intercontinental (Australia/Europe/North America) consortium of nine high-volume cancer centers. All were adult patients with pathologic stage pT1b/pT2a primary cutaneous melanomas who underwent SN biopsy between 2005 and 2020. Patient data, primary tumor and SN characteristics, and survival outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Three thousand six hundred seven patients were included. The median follow-up was 34 months. Pairwise disease comparison demonstrated no significant survival difference between N1a and N2a subgroups. Survival analysis identified a SN tumor deposit maximum dimension of 0.3 mm as the optimal cut point for stratifying survival. Five-year disease-specific survival rates were 80.3% and 94.1% for patients with SN metastatic tumor deposits ≥ 0.3 mm and < 0.3 mm, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.26 [1.11 to 1.44]; P < .0001). Similar findings were seen for overall disease-free and distant metastasis-free survival. There were no survival differences between the AJCC IB patients and low-risk (< 0.3 mm) AJCC IIIA patients. The newly identified high-risk (≥ 0.3 mm) subgroup comprised 271 (66.4%) of the AJCC IIIA cohort, whereas only 142 (34.8%) patients had SN tumor deposits > 1 mm in maximum dimension. CONCLUSION: Patients with AJCC IIIA melanoma with SN tumor deposits ≥ 0.3 mm in maximum dimension are at higher risk of disease progression and may benefit from adjuvant systemic therapy or enrollment into a clinical trial. Patients with SN deposits < 0.3 mm in maximum dimension can be managed similar to their SN-negative, AJCC IB counterparts, thereby avoiding regular radiological surveillance and more intensive follow-up.

Evaluation of the Indications for Sentinel Node Biopsy in Early-Stage Melanoma with the Advent of Adjuvant Systemic Therapy: An International, Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients presenting with early-stage melanoma (AJCC pT1b-pT2a) reportedly have a relatively low risk of a positive SNB (~5-10%). Those patients are usually found to have low-volume metastatic disease after SNB, typically reclassified to AJCC stage IIIA, with an excellent prognosis of ~90% 5-year survival. Currently, adjuvant systemic therapy is not routinely recommended for most patients with AJCC stage IIIA melanoma. The purpose was to assess the SN-positivity rate in early-stage melanoma and to identify primary tumor characteristics associated with high-risk nodal disease eligible for adjuvant systemic therapy METHODS: An international, multicenter retrospective cohort study from 7 large-volume cancer centers identified 3,610 patients with early primary cutaneous melanomas 0.8-2.0 mm in Breslow thickness (pT1b-pT2a; AJCC 8th edition). Patient demographics, primary tumor characteristics, and SNB status/details were analyzed. RESULTS: The overall SNB-positivity rate was 11.4% (412/3610). Virtually all SNB-positive patients (409/412; 99.3%) were reclassified to AJCC stage IIIA. Multivariate analysis identified age, T-stage, mitotic rate, primary site and subtype, and lymphovascular invasion as independent predictors of sentinel node status. A mitotic rate of >1/mm2 was associated with a significantly increased SN-positivity rate and was the only significant independent predictor of high-risk SNB metastases (>1 mm maximum diameter). CONCLUSIONS: The new treatment paradigm brings into question the role of SNB for patients with early-stage melanoma. The results of this large international cohort study suggest that a reevaluation of the indications for SNB for some patients with early-stage melanoma is required.

Machine-learning algorithm to predict multidisciplinary team treatment recommendations in the management of basal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common human cancer. Facial BCCs most commonly occur on the nose and the management of these lesions is particularly complex, given the functional and complex implications of treatment. Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings are routinely held to integrate expertise from dermatologists, surgeons, oncologists, radiologists, pathologists and allied health professionals. The aim of this research was to develop a supervised machine-learning algorithm to predict MDT recommendations for nasal BCC to potentially reduce MDT caseload, provide automatic decision support and permit data audit in a health service context. METHODS: The study population included all consecutive patients who were discussed at skin cancer-specialised MDT (SSMDT) with a diagnosis of nasal BCC between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2015. We conducted analyses for gender, age, anatomical location, histological subtype, tumour size, tumour recurrence, anticoagulation, pacemaker, immunosuppressants and therapeutic modalities (Mohs surgery, conventional excision or radiotherapy). We used S-statistic computing language to develop a supervised machine-learning algorithm. RESULTS: We found that 37.5% of patients could be reliably predicted to be triaged to Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS), based on tumour location and age. Similarly, the choice of conventional treatment (surgical excision or radiotherapy) by the MDT could be reliably predicted based on the patient's age, tumour phenotype and lesion size. Accordingly, the algorithm reliably predicted the MDT decision outcome of 45.1% of nasal BCCs. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that the machine-learning approach is a potentially useful tool for predicting MDT decisions for MMS vs conventional surgery or radiotherapy for a significant group of patients. We suggest that utilising this algorithm gives the MDT more time to consider more complex patients, where multiple factors, including recurrence, financial costs and cosmetic outcome, contribute to the final decision, but cannot be reliably predicted to determine that outcome. This approach has the potential to reduce the burden and improve the efficiency of the specialist skin MDT and, in turn, improve patient care, reduce waiting times and reduce the financial burden. Such an algorithm would need to be updated regularly to take into account any changes in patient referral patterns, treatment options or local clinical expertise. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: lPLAS_20-21_A08.

Active surveillance of patients who have sentinel node positive melanoma: An international, multi-institution evaluation of adoption and early outcomes after the Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial II (MSLT-2).

BACKGROUND: For patients with sentinel lymph node (SLN)-positive cutaneous melanoma, the Second Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy trial demonstrated equivalent disease-specific survival (DSS) with active surveillance using nodal ultrasound versus completion lymph node dissection (CLND). Adoption and outcomes of active surveillance in clinical practice and in adjuvant therapy recipients are unknown. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort of SLN-positive adults treated at 21 institutions in Australia, Europe, and the United States from June 2017 to November 2019, the authors evaluated the impact of active surveillance and adjuvant therapy on all-site recurrence-free survival (RFS), isolated nodal RFS, distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and DSS using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: Among 6347 SLN biopsies, 1154 (18%) were positive and had initial negative distant staging. In total, 965 patients (84%) received active surveillance, 189 (16%) underwent CLND. Four hundred thirty-nine patients received adjuvant therapy (surveillance, 38%; CLND, 39%), with the majority (83%) receiving anti-PD-1 immunotherapy. After a median follow-up of 11 months, 220 patients developed recurrent disease (surveillance, 19%; CLND, 22%), and 24 died of melanoma (surveillance, 2%; CLND, 4%). Sixty-eight patients had an isolated nodal recurrence (surveillance, 6%; CLND, 4%). In patients who received adjuvant treatment without undergoing prior CLND, all isolated nodal recurrences were resectable. On risk-adjusted multivariable analyses, CLND was associated with improved isolated nodal RFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.36; 95% CI, 0.15-0.88), but not all-site RFS (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.45-1.02). Adjuvant therapy improved all-site RFS (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.47-0.57). DSS and DMFS did not differ by nodal management or adjuvant treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Active surveillance has been adopted for most SLN-positive patients. At initial assessment, real-world outcomes align with randomized trial findings, including in adjuvant therapy recipients. LAY SUMMARY: For patients with melanoma of the skin and microscopic spread to lymph nodes, monitoring with ultrasound is an alternative to surgically removing the remaining lymph nodes. The authors studied adoption and real-world outcomes of ultrasound monitoring in over 1000 patients treated at 21 centers worldwide, finding that most patients now have ultrasounds instead of surgery. Although slightly more patients have cancer return in the lymph nodes with this strategy, typically, it can be removed with delayed surgery. Compared with up-front surgery, ultrasound monitoring results in the same overall risk of melanoma coming back at any location or of dying from melanoma.

Surveillance of Sentinel Node-Positive Melanoma Patients with Reasons for Exclusion from MSLT-II: Multi-Institutional Propensity Score Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In sentinel lymph node (SLN)-positive melanoma, two randomized trials demonstrated equivalent melanoma-specific survival with nodal surveillance vs completion lymph node dissection (CLND). Patients with microsatellites, extranodal extension (ENE) in the SLN, or >3 positive SLNs constitute a high-risk group largely excluded from the randomized trials, for whom appropriate management remains unknown. STUDY DESIGN: SLN-positive patients with any of the three high-risk features were identified from an international cohort. CLND patients were matched 1:1 with surveillance patients using propensity scores. Risk of any-site recurrence, SLN-basin-only recurrence, and melanoma-specific mortality were compared. RESULTS: Among 1,154 SLN-positive patients, 166 had ENE, microsatellites, and/or >3 positive SLN. At 18.5 months median follow-up, 49% had recurrence (vs 26% in patients without high-risk features, p < 0.01). Among high-risk patients, 52 (31%) underwent CLND and 114 (69%) received surveillance. Fifty-one CLND patients were matched to 51 surveillance patients. The matched cohort was balanced on tumor, nodal, and adjuvant treatment factors. There were no significant differences in any-site recurrence (CLND 49%, surveillance 45%, p = 0.99), SLN-basin-only recurrence (CLND 6%, surveillance 14%, p = 0.20), or melanoma-specific mortality (CLND 14%, surveillance 12%, p = 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: SLN-positive patients with microsatellites, ENE, or >3 positive SLN constitute a high-risk group with a 2-fold greater recurrence risk. For those managed with nodal surveillance, SLN-basin recurrences were more frequent, but all-site recurrence and melanoma-specific mortality were comparable to patients treated with CLND. Most recurrences were outside the SLN-basin, supporting use of nodal surveillance for SLN-positive patients with microsatellites, ENE, and/or >3 positive SLN.

RADVAN: a randomised phase 2 trial of WBRT plus vandetanib for melanoma brain metastases - results and lessons learnt.

BACKGROUND: Brain metastases occur in up to 75% of patients with advanced melanoma. Most are treated with whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT), with limited effectiveness. Vandetanib, an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, epidermal growth factor receptor and rearranged during transfection tyrosine kinases, is a potent radiosensitiser in xenograft models. We compared WBRT with WBRT plus vandetanib in the treatment of patients with melanoma brain metastases. METHODS: In this double-blind, multi-centre, phase 2 trial patients with melanoma brain metastases were randomised to receive WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fractions) plus 3 weeks of concurrent vandetanib 100 mg once daily or placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in brain (PFS brain). The main study was preceded by a safety run-in phase to confirm tolerability of the combination. A post-hoc analysis and literature review considered barriers to recruiting patients with melanoma brain metastases to clinical trials. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients were recruited, six to the safety phase and 18 to the randomised phase. The study closed early due to poor recruitment. Median PFS brain was 3.3 months (90% confidence interval (CI): 1.6-5.6) in the vandetanib group and 2.5 months (90% CI: 0.2-4.8) in the placebo group (P=0.34). Median overall survival (OS) was 4.6 months (90% CI: 1.6-6.3) and 2.5 months (90% CI: 0.2-7.2), respectively (P=0.54). The most frequent adverse events were fatigue, alopecia, confusion and nausea. The most common barrier to study recruitment was availability of alternative treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of WBRT plus vandetanib was well tolerated. Compared with WBRT alone, there was no significant improvement in PFS brain or OS, although we are unable to provide a definitive result due to poor accrual. A review of barriers to trial accrual identified several factors that affect study recruitment in this difficult disease area.

A UK feasibility and validation study of the VE1 monoclonal antibody immunohistochemistry stain for BRAF-V600E mutations in metastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Determining the BRAF mutation status of patients with advanced metastatic melanoma is essential in order to assess patients' eligibility for targeted BRAF inhibitor therapy. The aim of this study was to validate the utility of immunohistochemistry (IHC) to rapidly obtain the BRAF status in the UK cancer centre setting. METHODS: All samples sent for molecular testing for detection of the BRAF mutation over a 26-month period were prospectively tested using the VE1 monoclonal antibody IHC stain. RESULTS: Two-hundred and nineteen samples from 214 patients were identified. All patients were AJCC stage III/IV, except one. There was an overall 95.0% (208/219) concordance rate, with a sensitivity of 94.4% (84/89) and a specificity of 95.4% (124/130) when using genomic assays as the gold standard. Discordance resulted from the inability of the molecular technique to detect the V600E2 mutation and an inability of the IHC staining technique to detect non-V600E mutations. Molecular testing on smaller tumour deposits was also unreliable. CONCLUSIONS: IHC staining has good sensitivity and excellent specificity for BRAF V600E mutations. BRAF IHC can be incorporated into a BRAF mutation testing algorithm for UK cancer centres to as a feasible first-line assay and identify a subset of cases that require subsequent genomic testing. It has the additional major advantages of reduced cost and rapid turnaround time.

Ipilimumab in the real world: the UK expanded access programme experience in previously treated advanced melanoma patients.

Before licensing, ipilimumab was first made available to previously treated advanced melanoma patients through an expanded access programme (EAP) across Europe. We interrogated data from UK EAP patients to inform future clinical practice. Clinicians registered in the UK EAP provided anonymized patient data using a prespecified variable fields datasheet. Data collected were baseline patient characteristics, treatment delivered, toxicity, response, progression-free survival and overall survival (OS). Data were received for 193 previously treated metastatic melanoma patients, whose primary sites were cutaneous (82%), uveal (8%), mucosal (2%), acral (3%) or unknown (5%). At baseline, 88% of patients had a performance status (PS) of 0-1 and 20% had brain metastases. Of the patients, 53% received all four planned cycles of ipilimumab; the most common reason for stopping early was disease progression, including death from melanoma. Toxicity was recorded for 171 patients, 30% of whom experienced an adverse event of grade 3 or higher, the most common being diarrhoea (13%) and fatigue (9%). At a median follow-up of 23 months, the median progression-free survival and OS were 2.8 and 6.1 months, respectively; the 1-year and 2-year OS rates were 31 and 14.8%, respectively. The 2-year OS was significantly lower for patients with poorer PS (P<0.0001), low albumin concentrations (P<0.0001), the presence of brain metastases (P=0.007) and lactate dehydrogenase levels more than two times the upper limit of normal (P<0.0001) at baseline. These baseline characteristics are negative predictors of benefit from ipilimumab and should be taken into consideration before prescription.

Adjuvant bevacizumab in patients with melanoma at high risk of recurrence (AVAST-M): preplanned interim results from a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets VEGF, has shown restricted activity in patients with advanced melanoma. We aimed to assess the role of bevacizumab as adjuvant treatment for patients with resected melanoma at high risk of recurrence. We report results from the preplanned interim analysis. METHODS: We did a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled phase 3 trial at 48 centres in the UK between July 18, 2007, and March 29, 2012. Patients aged 16 years or older with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage (AJCC) stage IIB, IIC, and III cutaneous melanoma were randomly allocated (1:1), via a central, computer-based minimisation procedure, to receive intravenous bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg, every 3 weeks for 1 year, or to observation. Randomisation was stratified by Breslow thickness of the primary tumour, N stage according to AJCC staging criteria, ulceration of the primary tumour, and patient sex. The primary endpoint was overall survival; secondary endpoints included disease-free interval, distant-metastases interval and quality of life. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered as an International Standardised Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN81261306. FINDINGS: 1343 patients were randomised to either the bevacizumab group (n=671) or the observation group (n=672). Median follow-up was 25 months (IQR 16-37) in the bevacizumab group and 25 months (17-37) in the observation group. At the time of interim analysis, 286 (21%) of 1343 enrolled patients had died: 140 (21%) of 671 patients in the bevacizumab group, and 146 (22%) of 672 patients in the observation group. 134 (96%) of patients in the bevacizumab group died because of melanoma versus 139 (95%) in the observation group. We noted no significant difference in overall survival between treatment groups (hazard ratio [HR] 0.97, 95% CI 0.78-1.22; p=0.76); this finding persisted after adjustment for stratification variables (HR 1.03; 95% CI 0.81-1.29; p=0.83). Median duration of treatment with bevacizumab was 51 weeks (IQR 21-52) and dose intensity was 86% (41-96), showing good tolerability. 180 grade 3 or 4 adverse events were recorded in 101 (15%) of 671 patients in the bevacizumab group, and 36 (5%) of 672 patients in the observation group. Bevacizumab resulted in a higher incidence of grade 3 hypertension than did observation (41 [6%] vs one [<1%]). There was an improvement in disease-free interval for patients in the bevacizumab group compared with those in the observation group (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70-0.98, p=0.03), but no significant difference between groups for distant-metastasis-free interval (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.73-1.06, p=0.18). No significant differences were noted between treatment groups in the standardised area under the curve for any of the quality-of-life scales over 36 months. Three adverse drug reactions were regarded as both serious and unexpected: one patient had optic neuritis after the first bevacizumab infusion, a second patient had persistent erectile dysfunction, and a third patient died of a haemopericardium after receiving two bevacizumab infusions and was later identified to have had significant predisposing cardiovascular risk factors. INTERPRETATION: Bevacizumab has promising tolerability. Longer follow-up is needed to identify an effect on the primary endpoint of overall survival at 5 years.

A prospective, randomized pilot study evaluating the effects of metformin and lifestyle intervention on patients with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy.

UNLABELLED: Study Type - Therapy (RCT) Level of Evidence 1b What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Men with prostate cancer have higher rates of non-cancer mortality and CV morbidity and some of that excess risk has been attributed to the treatment they receive. ADT is an established treatment option for men with locally-advanced and metastatic prostate cancer and, although it has been shown to confer a disease-free survival advantage, it has also been associated with an increased incidence of CV disease and the metabolic syndrome (characterized by a cluster of CV risk factors, including insulin resistance). The benefits of the insulin sensitizer metformin and lifestyle intervention for reducing the incidence of metabolic syndrome have been shown in patients with impaired glucose tolerance. At the time of writing, the present study is the first to use metformin and lifestyle intervention in men with prostate cancer with the aim of reducing the risk of developing ADT-related CV morbidity and the metabolic syndrome. The study shows that lifestyle changes and metformin may indeed reduce the complications of androgen suppression in these men. Although further investigations are needed to establish which of the two interventions may be most beneficial, the favourable effects of a combination of these interventions on patients' quality of life and the potential for improved overall survival are of clinical significance. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of metformin and lifestyle changes on the development of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT)-related metabolic syndrome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men with prostate cancer due to receive ADT were recruited and randomized. Controls received ADT alone. Men in the intervention arm received ADT with 6 months of metformin, a low glycaemic index diet and an exercise programme. All patients were investigated pretreatment and at 6 months for the metabolic syndrome, as well as for related biochemical and physical parameters. RESULTS: In total, 40 men were recruited and randomized (20 to each arm). After 6 months, significant improvements in abdominal girth (P= 0.05), weight (P < 0.001), body mass index (P < 0.001) and systolic blood pressure (P= 0.01) were seen in the intervention arm compared to controls. Biochemical markers of insulin resistance did not differ significantly. CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows the potential benefits of metformin and lifestyle changes in ADT-treated men. Further studies will aim to determine which intervention is most important, and may show that overall survival can be improved.

Long-term toxicity and quality of life up to 10 years after low-dose rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To report on the long-term toxicity outcome for patients with prostate cancer treated by low-dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy (BXT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study population comprised a cohort of men treated in our centre between March 1999 and April 2004 with LDR BXT for prostate cancer who had at least 5 years of follow-up post-implant. Patients who had died or experienced biochemical failure were excluded. We contacted eligible patients and asked them to complete a questionnaire to assess current urinary, erectile and bowel function. Urinary and erectile function was compared pre- and post-treatment and outcomes were assessed by treatment modality. RESULTS: Of the 226 LDR BXT-treated patients with >5 years of follow-up, 174 (77.0%) responded to the questionnaire. The mean International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) increased from 6.70 pre-BXT to 7.91 at follow-up (P = 0.003). Of the patients with mild symptoms pre-BXT (IPSS, 0-7), 64.2% retained mild symptoms at follow-up, 31.2% developed moderate symptoms (IPSS, 8-9) and 4.6% reported severe symptoms (IPSS, 20-35). A good or acceptable quality of life (QoL) secondary to urinary symptoms (IPSS QoL, 0-4) was reported by 98.0% of respondents. Of those patients potent (International Index of Erectile Function-5 ≥11) pre-BXT, 62.9% remained potent at follow-up. There were no differences in the proportion of patients who were potent when analyzed by the number of years post-implant. At follow-up, 51.7% and 45.4% of patients, respectively, had normal or mild bowel symptoms as indicated by the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer questionnaire (QLQ-C30/PR25 scores, 4-8). Moderate bowel symptoms (QLQ-C30/PR25 scores, 9-12) were reported by 2.9% of respondents; none reported severe symptoms. CONCLUSION: The present study shows low morbidity after LDR BXT over the long-term for a large cohort of patients.