Proteomic identification of a marker signature for MAPKi resistance in melanoma.

MAPK inhibitors (MAPKi) show outstanding clinical response rates in melanoma patients harbouring BRAF mutations, but resistance is common. The ability of melanoma cells to switch from melanocytic to mesenchymal phenotypes appears to be associated with therapeutic resistance. High-throughput, subcellular proteome analyses and RNAseq on two panels of primary melanoma cells that were either sensitive or resistant to MAPKi revealed that only 15 proteins were sufficient to distinguish between these phenotypes. The two proteins with the highest discriminatory power were PTRF and IGFBP7, which were both highly upregulated in the mesenchymal-resistant cells. Proteomic analysis of CRISPR/Cas-derived PTRF knockouts revealed targets involved in lysosomal activation, endocytosis, pH regulation, EMT, TGFß signalling and cell migration and adhesion, as well as a significantly reduced invasive index and ability to form spheres in 3D culture. Overexpression of PTRF led to MAPKi resistance, increased cell adhesion and sphere formation. In addition, immunohistochemistry of patient samples showed that PTRF expression levels were a significant biomarker of poor progression-free survival, and IGFBP7 levels in patient sera were shown to be higher after relapse.

Cuticular Poroma: A Rare Poroma Variant Simulating a Malignant Neoplasm That Often Harbors YAP1::NUTM1 Fusions Similar to Their Conventional Counterparts.

ABSTRACT: Cuticular poroma is a rare variant of poroma composed of exclusively or predominantly cuticular cells, namely of large cells with ample eosinophilic cytoplasm. We report 7 cases of this rare tumor identified among 426 neoplasms diagnosed as poroma or porocarcinoma. The patients were 4 males and 3 females, ranging in age from 18 to 88 years. All presented with a solitary asymptomatic nodule. The location included knee (2 cases), shoulder, thigh, shin, lower arm, and neck (each 1). All lesions were surgically removed. No evidence of disease was observed in 5 patients with available follow-up (range 12-124 months).Microscopically, all neoplasms were composed of variably sized, focally closed packed, or interconnecting nodules constituted mostly of cuticular cells. Small poroid cells were a focal feature in 5 tumors, whereas in the remaining 2 cases, poroid cells with conspicuous but still in minority. Five neoplasms were somewhat asymmetric, with irregular outlines. Ductal differentiation and intracytoplasmic vacuoles were seen in 6 tumors. Other features variably encountered were conspicuous intranuclear pseudoinclusions, cystic change, occasional multinucleated cells, increased mitoses, and stromal desmoplasia. Four of the 5 tumors analyzed with next-generation sequencing yielded YAP1::NUTM1 fusions. In addition, various mutations, mostly of unknown significance were identified in one neoplasm.

Real-world outcomes using PD-1 antibodies and BRAF + MEK inhibitors for adjuvant melanoma treatment from 39 skin cancer centers in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.

BACKGROUND: Programmed death-1 (PD-1) antibodies and BRAF + MEK inhibitors are widely used for adjuvant therapy of fully resected high-risk melanoma. Little is known about treatment efficacy outside of phase III trials. This real-world study reports on clinical outcomes of modern adjuvant melanoma treatment in specialized skin cancer centers in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. METHODS: Multicenter, retrospective study investigating stage III-IV melanoma patients receiving adjuvant nivolumab (NIV), pembrolizumab (PEM) or dabrafenib + trametinib (D + T) between 1/2017 and 10/2021. The primary endpoint was 12-month recurrence-free survival (RFS). Further analyses included descriptive and correlative statistics, and a multivariate linear-regression machine learning model to assess the risk of early melanoma recurrence. RESULTS: In total, 1198 patients from 39 skin cancer centers from Germany, Austria and Switzerland were analysed. The vast majority received anti PD-1 therapies (n = 1003). Twelve-month RFS for anti PD-1 and BRAF + MEK inhibitor-treated patients were 78.1% and 86.5%, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 1.998 [95% CI 1.335-2.991]; p = 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival (OS) in anti PD-1 (95.8%) and BRAF + MEK inhibitor (96.9%) treated patients (p > 0.05) during the median follow-up of 17 months. Data indicates that anti PD-1 treated patients who develop immune-related adverse events (irAEs) have lower recurrence rates compared to patients with no irAEs (HR 0.578 [95% CI 0.443-0.754], p = 0.001). BRAF mutation status did not affect overall efficacy of anti PD-1 treatment (p > 0.05). In both, anti PD-1 and BRAF + MEK inhibitor treated cohorts, data did not show any difference in 12-month RFS and 12-month OS comparing patients receiving total lymph node dissection (TLND) versus sentinel lymph node biopsy only (p > 0.05). The recurrence prediction model reached high specificity but only low sensitivity with an AUC = 0.65. No new safety signals were detected. Overall, recorded numbers and severity of adverse events were lower than reported in pivotal phase III trials. CONCLUSIONS: Despite recent advances in adjuvant melanoma treatment, early recurrence remains a significant clinical challenge. This study shows that TLND does not reduce the risk of early melanoma recurrence and should only be considered in selected patients. Data further highlight that variables collected during clinical routine are unlikely to allow for a clinically relevant prediction of individual recurrence risk.

Ipilimumab alone or ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 therapy in patients with metastatic melanoma resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy: a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Anti-PD-1 therapy (hereafter referred to as anti-PD-1) induces long-term disease control in approximately 30% of patients with metastatic melanoma; however, two-thirds of patients are resistant and will require further treatment. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (pembrolizumab or nivolumab) compared with ipilimumab monotherapy in patients who are resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 therapy (hereafter referred to as anti-PD-[L]1). METHODS: This multicentre, retrospective, cohort study, was done at 15 melanoma centres in Australia, Europe, and the USA. We included adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with metastatic melanoma (unresectable stage III and IV), who were resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 (innate or acquired resistance) and who then received either ipilimumab monotherapy or ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (pembrolizumab or nivolumab), based on availability of therapies or clinical factors determined by the physician, or both. Tumour response was assessed as per standard of care (CT or PET-CT scans every 3 months). The study endpoints were objective response rate, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety of ipilimumab compared with ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1. FINDINGS: We included 355 patients with metastatic melanoma, resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 (nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or atezolizumab), who had been treated with ipilimumab monotherapy (n=162 [46%]) or ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (n=193 [54%]) between Feb 1, 2011, and Feb 6, 2020. At a median follow-up of 22·1 months (IQR 9·5-30·9), the objective response rate was higher with ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (60 [31%] of 193 patients) than with ipilimumab monotherapy (21 [13%] of 162 patients; p<0·0001). Overall survival was longer in the ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 group (median overall survival 20·4 months [95% CI 12·7-34·8]) than with ipilimumab monotherapy (8·8 months [6·1-11·3]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·50, 95% CI 0·38-0·66; p<0·0001). Progression-free survival was also longer with ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (median 3·0 months [95% CI 2·6-3·6]) than with ipilimumab (2·6 months [2·4-2·9]; HR 0·69, 95% CI 0·55-0·87; p=0·0019). Similar proportions of patients reported grade 3-5 adverse events in both groups (59 [31%] of 193 patients in the ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 group vs 54 [33%] of 162 patients in the ipilimumab group). The most common grade 3-5 adverse events were diarrhoea or colitis (23 [12%] of 193 patients in the ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 group vs 33 [20%] of 162 patients in the ipilimumab group) and increased alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase (24 [12%] vs 15 [9%]). One death occurred with ipilimumab 26 days after the last treatment: a colon perforation due to immune-related pancolitis. INTERPRETATION: In patients who are resistant to anti-PD-(L)1, ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 seemed to yield higher efficacy than ipilimumab with a higher objective response rate, longer progression-free, and longer overall survival, with a similar rate of grade 3-5 toxicity. Ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 should be favoured over ipilimumab alone as a second-line immunotherapy for these patients with advanced melanoma. FUNDING: None.

Improved detection of in-transit metastases of malignant melanoma with BSREM reconstruction in digital [18F]FDG PET/CT.

OBJECTIVES: To compare block sequential regularized expectation maximization (BSREM) and ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) for the detection of in-transit metastasis (ITM) of malignant melanoma in digital [18F]FDG PET/CT. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of 100 [18F]FDG PET/CT scans of melanoma patients with ITM, performed between May 2017 and January 2020. PET images were reconstructed with both OSEM and BSREM algorithms. SUVmax, target-to-background ratio (TBR), and metabolic tumor volume (MTV) were recorded for each ITM. Differences in PET parameters were analyzed with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Differences in image quality for different reconstructions were tested using the Man-Whitney U test. RESULTS: BSREM reconstruction led to the detection of 287 ITM (39% more than OSEM). PET parameters of ITM were significantly different between BSREM and OSEM reconstructions (p < 0.001). SUVmax and TBR were higher (76.5% and 77.7%, respectively) and MTV lower (49.5%) on BSREM. ITM missed with OSEM had significantly lower SUVmax (mean 2.03 vs. 3.84) and TBR (mean 1.18 vs. 2.22) and higher MTV (mean 2.92 vs. 1.01) on OSEM compared to BSREM (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: BSREM detects significantly more ITM than OSEM, owing to higher SUVmax, higher TBR, and less blurring. BSREM is particularly helpful in small and less avid lesions, which are more often missed with OSEM. KEY POINTS: • In melanoma patients, [18F]FDG PET/CT helps to detect in-transit metastases (ITM), and their detection is improved by using BSREM instead of OSEM reconstruction. • BSREM is particularly useful in small lesions.

The role of cyclin D1 and Ki-67 in the development and prognostication of thin melanoma.

AIMS: Despite their low individual metastatic potential, thin melanomas (≤1 mm Breslow thickness) contribute significantly to melanoma mortality overall. Therefore, identification of prognostic biomarkers is particularly important in this subgroup of melanoma. Prompted by preclinical results, we investigated cyclin D1 protein and Ki-67 expression in in-situ, metastatic and non-metastatic thin melanomas. METHODS AND RESULTS: Immunohistochemistry was performed on 112 melanoma specimens, comprising 22 in situ, 48 non-metastatic and 42 metastatic thin melanomas. Overall, epidermal and dermal cyclin D1 and Ki-67 expression were semiquantitatively evaluated by three independent investigators and compared between groups. Epidermal Ki-67 expression did not differ statistically in in-situ and invasive melanoma (P = 0.7). Epidermal cyclin D1 expression was significantly higher in thin invasive than in in-situ melanoma (P = 0.003). No difference was found in cyclin D1 expression between metastatic and non-metastatic invasive tumours. Metastatic and non-metastatic thin melanomas did not show significant differences in epidermal expression of Ki-67 and cyclin D1 (P = 0.148 and P = 0.611, respectively). In contrast, strong dermal expression of Ki-67 was more frequent in metastatic than non-metastatic samples (28.6 versus 8.3%, respectively, P = 0.001). The prognostic value of dermal Ki-67 expression was confirmed by multivariate analysis (P = 0.047). CONCLUSION: We found an increased expression of cyclin D1 in invasive thin melanomas compared to in-situ melanomas, which supports a potential role of this protein in early invasion in melanoma, as suggested by preclinical findings. Moreover, our results confirm that high dermal Ki-67 expression is associated with an increased risk of development of metastasis in thin melanoma and could possibly serve as a prognostic biomarker in clinical practice, especially if combined with additional methods.

Eight autopsy cases of melanoma brain metastases showing angiotropism and pericytic mimicry. Implications for extravascular migratory metastasis.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic tumor spread is a complex multistep process. Due to the blood-brain barrier, metastasis to the central nervous system is restrictive with a distinct predilection for certain tumor types. In melanoma patients, brain metastasis is a common endpoint with the majority showing evidence of widespread disease at autopsy. In a previous murine melanoma model, we have shown that melanoma cells migrate along preexisting vessels into the brain, showing angiotropism/vascular co-option and pericytic mimicry. METHODS: Using conventional morphology and immunohistochemistry, we analyze brain metastases from eight autopsy cases. In addition, tissue clearing, which enables three-dimensional visualization over a distance of 100 µm is used. RESULTS: We show the angiotropic localization of melanoma deposits in the brains in all eight autopsy cases. Tissue clearing techniques have allowed visualization of melanoma cells in one case exclusively along the abluminal surface of brain blood vessels over a distance of 100 µm, thus showing pericytic mimicry. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses show clear-cut evidence of angiotropism and pericytic mimicry of melanoma cells within the brain over some distance. In addition, these results support the hypothesis of metastasis along pathways other than hematogenous spread, or extravascular migratory metastasis (EVMM). During EVMM, melanoma cells may metastasize to the brain through pericytic mimicry, circumventing the blood-brain barrier.

Update on adjuvant melanoma therapy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We review the results from relevant clinical trials and discuss current strategies in the melanoma adjuvant setting. RECENT FINDINGS: The favorable therapeutic efficacy and the significant less toxicity of nivolumab compared with ipilimumab, fully substitutes today's approval of ipilimumab, regardless mutation status, whereas in BRAF-mutated patients, dabrafenib and trametinib seem to confirm their high efficacy also in adjuvant setting. The use of interferon is restricted to patients with ulcerated melanoma and countries with no access to the new drugs. SUMMARY: Systemic adjuvant treatment after complete disease resection in high-risk melanoma patients aims to increase relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). According to the eighth edition of melanoma classification of American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC), the prognosis in stage III patients is heterogeneous and depends not only on N (nodal) but also on T (tumor thickness) category criteria. Recent data from randomized, phase-3 clinical trials analyzing the use of adjuvant anti-programmed death-1 and targeted therapies ultimately affect the standard of care and change the landscape of the adjuvant treatment.

Methadone-Not a magic bullet in melanoma therapy.

Methadone (Met) mainly acts as a µ-opioid receptor agonist. Recent evidence pointing towards the role of Met in sensitization of certain cancer cell lines to chemotherapeutic agents has promoted the hypothesis that Met may be a useful adjuvant to cancer chemotherapy. We wanted to address whether Met has, alone or in combination with a chemotherapeutic agent, an effect on melanoma cell viability in vitro. Only a small fraction (4.3%) of our 102 melanoma biobank cell lines with RNA-sequencing data showed expression of the main receptor for Met (OPRM1). We assessed the viability of melanoma cell lines with high, medium or low/no OPRM1 expression (OPRM1high , OPRM1med , OPRM1neg ) 72 hours after treatment with Met alone or combined with cisplatin (Cis). Our analyses show that Met alone did not affect cell viability. While Cis/Met treatment did not have an effect on viability of OPRM1med or OPRM1neg cell lines, it resulted in a slightly decreased cell viability of OPRM1high cells. Clinically, concurrent temozolomide/Met treatment did not have an effect in our single-case report of a patient suffering from uveal melanoma. Taken together, our findings do not provide evidence for recommending Met as an adjuvant to chemotherapy in patients with melanoma.

Real-World Data on Clinical Outcomes and Treatment Management of Advanced Melanoma Patients: Single-Center Study of a Tertiary Cancer Center in Switzerland.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and BRAF/MEK inhibitors (BRAF/MEKi) have drastically changed the outcomes of advanced melanoma patients in both the resectable/adjuvant and unresectable/metastatic setting. In this follow-up analysis of real-world data, we aimed to investigate the clinical management and outcomes of advanced melanoma patients in a tertiary referral center in Switzerland approximately a decade after the introduction of ICIs and BRAF/MEKi into clinical use. Moreover, we aimed to compare the results with seminal phase 3 trials and to identify areas of high unmet clinical need. METHODS: This single-center retrospective cohort study analyzed the melanoma registry of the University Hospital Zurich, a tertiary cancer center in Switzerland, and included patients treated in the resectable/adjuvant (n = 331) or unresectable/metastatic setting (n = 375). RESULTS: In the resectable setting, adjuvant anti-PD1 or BRAF/MEKi showed a 3-year relapse-free survival (RFS) of 53% and 67.6%, respectively, and the overall median RFS was 50 months. Patients with lymph node plus in-transit metastases or with distant metastases prior to commencing adjuvant treatment had a significantly reduced overall survival (OS). In 10.9% of patients, the treatment was stopped due to toxicity, which did not affect RFS/OS, unless the duration of the treatment was <3 months. Following a relapse of the disease during the first adjuvant treatment, the median progression-free survival (PFS2) was only 6.6 months; outcomes were particularly poor for relapses that were unresectable (median PFS2 3.9 months) or occurred within the first 2 months (median PFS2 2.7 months). A second adjuvant treatment for patients with resectable relapses still showed efficacy (median RFS2 43.7 months). Elevated LDH levels in patients with an unresectable relapse was correlated with a strong reduction in OS2 (HR 9.84, p = 0.018). In the unresectable setting, first-line anti-PD1, anti-CTLA4/PD1 combination, or BRAF/MEKi showed a 5-year OS of 46.5%, 52.4%, and 49.2%, respectively. In a multivariate analysis, elevated LDH levels or the presence of brain metastases substantially shortened OS (HR > 1.78, p < 0.035). There was a non-significant trend for the improved survival of patients treated with anti-CTLA4/PD1 compared to anti-PD1 (HR 0.64, p = 0.15). After a progression on first-line therapy, the median OS2 was reduced to below two years. Elevated LDH (HR 4.65, p < 0.001) levels and widespread disease with at least three metastatic sites, particularly bone metastases (HR 2.62, p = 0.026), affected OS2. CONCLUSION: Our study offers real-world insights into the clinical management, treatment patterns, and outcomes of advanced melanoma patients in both the adjuvant and unresectable setting. Early relapses in patients undergoing adjuvant treatment pose a particular challenge but these patients are generally excluded from first-line trials. The approved first-line metastatic treatments are highly effective in the real-world setting with 5-year OS rates around 50%. However, outcomes remain poor for patients with brain metastases or who fail first-line treatment.

Baseline metastatic growth rate is an independent prognostic marker in patients with advanced BRAF V600 mutated melanoma receiving targeted therapy.

BACKGROUND: Targeted therapy (TT) of BRAF V600 mutated unresectable melanoma with inhibitors of the MAPK pathway achieves response rates of up to 76%, but most patients develop secondary resistance. Albeit TT is strikingly efficacious during the first days of treatment, even in advanced cases, long-term survival is highly unlikely, especially in patients with unfavorable baseline characteristics like elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). In patients treated with anti-PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitors, elevated baseline metastatic growth rate (MGR) was the most important prognostic factor. Here, we aimed at investigating the prognostic impact of MGR in patients with unresectable melanoma receiving TT. METHODS: Clinical records of 242 patients with at least one measurable target lesion (TL) receiving TT at seven skin cancer centers were reviewed. Baseline MGR was determined measuring the largest TL at baseline and at one earlier timepoint. RESULTS: Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were significantly impaired in patients with an MGR > 3.9 mm/month (median OS: 11.4 vs. 35.5 months, P < 0.0001; median PFS: 4.8 vs. 9.2 months, P < 0.0001). Multivariable analysis of OS and PFS revealed that the prognostic impact of elevated MGR was independent of LDH, presence of brain and liver metastases, tumor burden, and line of treatment. The prognostic significance of elevated MGR was highest in patients with normal LDH. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline MGR is an important independent prognostic marker for OS and PFS in melanoma patients treated with TT. Its implementation in clinical routine is easy and could facilitate the prognostic stratification.

The features and management of acquired resistance to PD1-based therapy in metastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Anti-PD-1 therapy (PD1) either alone or with anti-CTLA-4 (CTLA4), has high initial response rates, however 20% of patients (pts) with complete response (CR) and 30% with partial response (PR) within 12 months of treatment experience subsequent disease progression by 6 years. The nature and optimal management of this acquired resistance (AR) remains unknown. METHODS: Pts from 16 centres who responded to PD1-based therapy and who later progressed were examined. Demographics, disease characteristics and subsequent treatments were evaluated. RESULTS: 299 melanoma pts were identified, median age 64y, 44% BRAFV600m. 172 (58%) received PD1 alone, 114 (38%) PD1/CTLA4 and 13 (4%) PD1 and an investigational drug. 90 (30%) pts had CR, 209 (70%) PR. Median time to AR was 12.6 mo (95% CI, 11.3, 14.2). Most (N = 193, 65%) progressed in a single organ site, and in a solitary lesion (N = 151, 51%). The most frequent sites were lymph nodes (38%) and brain (25%). Management at AR included systemic therapy (ST, 45%), local therapy (LT) +ST (31%), LT alone (21%), or observation (3%). There was no statistical difference in PFS2 or OS based on management, however, PFS2 was numerically superior for pts treated with ST alone who progressed off PD1 therapy than those who progressed on PD1 (2-year PFS2 42% versus 25%, p = 0.249). mOS from AR was 38.0 months (95% CI, 29.5-NR); longer in single-site versus multi-site progression (2-year OS 70% vs 54%, p < 0·001). CONCLUSIONS: Acquired resistance to PD1 therapy in melanoma is largely oligometastatic, and pts may have a favorable survival outcome following salvage treatment.

Outcomes of patients with resected stage III/IV acral or mucosal melanoma, treated with adjuvant anti-PD-1 based therapy.

IMPORTANCE: Acral (AM) and mucosal melanomas (MM) are rare subtypes with a poor prognosis. In those with advanced disease, anti-PD-1 (PD1) therapy has reduced activity compared to that seen in non-acral cutaneous melanoma. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of adjuvant PD1 in resected AM or MM. DESIGN: An international, retrospective cohort study SETTING: Data up to November 2021 collected from 20 centres across 10 countries. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and ninety four patients with resected stage III or IV1 AM or MM who received adjuvant PD1 were included and compared to matched patients from the Melanoma Institute Australia (MIA) database using a propensity score matching analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Recurrence-free survival (RFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS) were investigated. RESULTS: Forty five of 139 (32%) AM and 9 of 55 (16%) MM patients completed adjuvant therapy. The main reason for early treatment cessation in both groups was disease recurrence: 51 (37%) and 30 (55%) in the AM and MM groups, respectively. In the AM group adjuvant PD1 was associated with a longer RFS [HR-0.69 (0.52-0.92, p = 0.0127)], DMFS [HR0.58 (0.38-0.89, p = 0.0134)] and OS [HR of 0.59 (0.38-0.92, p-value 0.0196)] when compared to the historical cohort. In the MM group there was no statistical difference in RFS [HR1.36 (0.69-2.68,p-value 0.3799], DMFS or OS. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: After adjuvant PD1, both AM and MM have a high risk of recurrence. Our data suggests a benefit to using adjuvant PD1 therapy in resected AM but not in resected MM. Additional studies to investigate the efficacy of adjuvant PD1 for MM are needed.

Cutaneous Adverse Events of Systemic Melanoma Treatments: A Retrospective Single-Center Analysis.

Recent progress in the treatment of advanced melanoma has led to the improved survival of affected patients. However, novel treatments also lead to considerable and distinct skin toxicity. To further characterize cutaneous adverse events (AE) of systemic treatments, we conducted a single-center retrospective study of biopsy-proven cutaneous adverse events of melanoma treatment over a period of 10 years at the University Hospital of Zurich, Switzerland. In 102 identified patients, 135 individual skin AEs developed. Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) was causal for 81 skin AEs, and 54 were related to targeted therapies (TT). Recorded types of skin AEs included lichenoid, maculopapular, acneiform, urticarial, panniculitis, folliculitis, psoriasiform, granulomatous, eczematous, and others. The incidence of skin AEs was higher with TT (18.54%) than with ICB (9.64%, p = 0.0029). Most AEs were low-grade, although 19.21% of AEs were common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) Grades 3 or 4. A large spectrum of skin AEs was documented during treatment of advanced melanoma, and distinct phenotypes were observed, depending on treatment classes. AEs occurred earlier during treatment with TT than with ICB, and distinct types of skin AEs were associated with respective treatment classes. This study comprehensively describes skin AEs occurring during systemic treatment for melanoma at a single center.

Clock-like Mutation Signature May Be Prognostic for Worse Survival Than Signatures of UV Damage in Cutaneous Melanoma.

Novel treatment modalities comprising immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies have revolutionized treatment of metastatic melanoma. Still, some patients suffer from rapid progression and decease within months after a diagnosis of stage IV melanoma. We aimed to assess whether genomic alterations may predict survival after the development of stage IV disease, irrespective of received therapy. We analyzed tumor samples of 79 patients with stage IV melanoma using a custom next-generation gene-sequencing panel, MelArray, designed to detect alterations in 190 melanoma-relevant genes. We classified the patients: first, as short survivors (survival ≤6 months after stage IV disease, n = 22) and long survivors (survival >6 months, n = 57); second, by using a cut-off of one year; and third, by comparing the longest surviving 20 patients to the shortest surviving 20. Among analyzed genes, no individual gene alterations, or combinations of alterations, could be dichotomously associated with survival. However, the cohort's mutational profiles closely matched three known mutational signatures curated by the Catalog of Somatic Mutations in Cancer (COSMIC): UV signature COSMIC_7 (cosine-similarity 0.932), clock-like signature COSMIC_5 (cosine-similarity 0.829), and COSMIC_30 (cosine-similarity 0.726). Patients with UV signature had longer survival compared to patients with clock-like and COSMIC 30 (p < 0.0001). Subgroup dichotomization at 6 months showed that 75% of patients with UV signature survived longer than 6 months, and about 75% of patients with clock-like signature survived less than 6 months after development of stage IV disease. In our cohort, clock-like COSMIC_5 mutational signature predicted poor survival while a UV signature COSMIC_7 predicted longer survival. The prognostic value of mutational signatures should be evaluated in prospective studies.

Treatment reality of patients with BRAF-mutant advanced/metastatic melanoma in Switzerland in the era of choice.

Cutaneous melanoma represents a major cause of cancer death in Europe. Without adequate therapy, the 5-year survival rate is 15-20% in distant metastatic disease. Evaluating the status quo of treatment standards in advanced melanoma and rationale for therapy decisions in Switzerland between January 2016 and September 2018. In this retrospective, anonymized registry, data of male and female patients with unresectable advanced/metastatic BRAF-positive cutaneous melanoma treated in first-, second- and third-line with registered substances were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Forty-one patients (56.1% male) were included providing a total of 70 treatment lines (first-line: n = 41; second-line: n = 18; and third-line: n = 11). Within the patients presenting with stage III or IV melanoma, immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors was more frequently administered as first-line treatment than targeted therapy (TT) (70.7% vs. 29.3%). Across all lines, patients received TT in 47.1% (predominantly combined BRAF-MEK-inhibition) and immunotherapy in 52.9% of the cases (anti-PD-1 monotherapy in 62.2% and anti-PD-1/anti-CTLA-4 combinations in 37.8%). Most commonly, the treatment type was switched from TT to immunotherapy or vice versa upon disease progression. The most frequent rationales for prescribing either TT or immunotherapy were physician's preference (40.0%) or remission pressure (28.6%), respectively. Disease progression led to treatment discontinuation more frequently than undesired events. Patients in Switzerland with unresectable advanced or metastatic BRAF-mutant melanoma predominantly receive guideline-recommended treatments. IO was used as predominant front-line therapy, with TT/immunotherapy switch being the predominant treatment principle. Sequencing studies are underway to identify the optimal treatment regimen for those patients. 32: 366-372 Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Impact of Covid-19 on the management of patients with metastatic melanoma.

The Covid-19 pandemic created new uncertainties in the management of metastatic melanoma patients. In particular, the impact of immunotherapy, targeted therapy, or chemotherapy on the risk of Sars-CoV-2 infection and severity was debated. In this study, we analyzed all patients with metastatic melanoma receiving therapy who developed Covid-19 between February 2020 and February 2022. We retrospectively collected demographic data, cancer-specific parameters, melanoma treatment regimen, comorbidities and Covid-19-specific parameters in these patients. Of the 350 patients with metastatic melanoma, 25 had Covid-19. The median age at the time of Covid-19 diagnosis was 66 years (range 36-86), 10 patients were female, and 15 patients were male. The treatment regimen during infection was immunotherapy in 12 cases, followed by targeted therapy (n = 8), chemotherapy (n = 2), and TVEC injections, follow-up and palliative therapy in 1 case each. The severity was mild in 17 patients and 8 had a moderate to critical course. Patients with a severe Covid-19 course were often older and had more comorbidities than patients with a mild infection. Many of the patients had a mild Covid-19 course despite having metastatic melanoma and systemic therapy. We therefore recommend continuing systemic therapy whenever possible, even in such exceptional situations as the Covid-19 pandemic.