Final, 10-Year Outcomes with Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Previous results from this trial showed longer overall survival after treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or with nivolumab monotherapy than with ipilimumab monotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma. Given that patients with advanced melanoma are living longer than 7.5 years, longer-term data were needed to address new clinically relevant questions. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with previously untreated advanced melanoma, in a 1:1:1 ratio, to one of the following regimens: nivolumab (1 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks; nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks plus placebo; or ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 3 weeks for four doses plus placebo. Treatment was continued until the occurrence of disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. Randomization was stratified according to BRAF mutation status, metastasis stage, and programmed death ligand 1 expression. Here, we report the final, 10-year results of this trial, including results for overall survival and melanoma-specific survival, as well as durability of response. RESULTS: With a minimum follow-up of 10 years, median overall survival was 71.9 months with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, 36.9 months with nivolumab, and 19.9 months with ipilimumab. The hazard ratio for death was 0.53 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44 to 0.65) for nivolumab plus ipilimumab as compared with ipilimumab and was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.76) for nivolumab as compared with ipilimumab. Median melanoma-specific survival was more than 120 months with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (not reached, with 37% of the patients alive at the end of the trial), 49.4 months with nivolumab, and 21.9 months with ipilimumab. Among patients who had been alive and progression-free at 3 years, 10-year melanoma-specific survival was 96% with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, 97% with nivolumab, and 88% with ipilimumab. CONCLUSIONS: The final trial results showed a continued, ongoing survival benefit with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and with nivolumab monotherapy, as compared with ipilimumab monotherapy, in patients with advanced melanoma. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 067 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844505.).

Chemokine profiling of melanoma-macrophage crosstalk identifies CCL8 and CCL15 as prognostic factors in cutaneous melanoma.

During cancer evolution, tumor cells attract and dynamically interact with monocytes/macrophages. To find biomarkers of disease progression in human melanoma, we used unbiased RNA sequencing and secretome analyses of tumor-macrophage co-cultures. Pathway analysis of genes differentially modulated in human macrophages exposed to melanoma cells revealed a general upregulation of inflammatory hallmark gene sets, particularly chemokines. A selective group of chemokines, including CCL8, CCL15, and CCL20, was actively secreted upon melanoma-macrophage co-culture. Because we previously described the role of CCL20 in melanoma, we focused our study on CCL8 and CCL15 and confirmed that in vitro both chemokines contributed to melanoma survival, proliferation, and 3D invasion through CCR1 signaling. In vivo, both chemokines enhanced primary tumor growth, spontaneous lung metastasis, and circulating tumor cell survival and lung colonization in mouse xenograft models. Finally, we explored the clinical significance of CCL8 and CCL15 expression in human skin melanoma, screening a collection of 67 primary melanoma samples, using multicolor fluorescence and quantitative image analysis of chemokine-chemokine receptor content at the single-cell level. Primary skin melanomas displayed high CCR1 expression, but there was no difference in its level of expression between metastatic and nonmetastatic cases. By contrast, comparative analysis of these two clinically divergent groups showed a highly significant difference in the cancer cell content of CCL8 (p = 0.025) and CCL15 (p < 0.0001). Kaplan-Meier curves showed that a high content of CCL8 or CCL15 in cancer cells correlated with shorter disease-free and overall survival (log-rank test, p < 0.001). Our results highlight the role of CCL8 and CCL15, which are highly induced by melanoma-macrophage interactions in biologically aggressive primary melanomas and could be clinically applicable biomarkers for patient profiling. © 2024 The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

Prophylactic TNF blockade uncouples efficacy and toxicity in dual CTLA-4 and PD-1 immunotherapy.

Combined PD-1 and CTLA-4-targeted immunotherapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab is effective against melanoma, renal cell carcinoma and non-small-cell lung cancer1-3. However, this comes at the cost of frequent, serious immune-related adverse events, necessitating a reduction in the recommended dose of ipilimumab that is given to patients4. In mice, co-treatment with surrogate anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies is effective in transplantable cancer models, but also exacerbates autoimmune colitis. Here we show that treating mice with clinically available TNF inhibitors concomitantly with combined CTLA-4 and PD-1 immunotherapy ameliorates colitis and, in addition, improves anti-tumour efficacy. Notably, TNF is upregulated in the intestine of patients suffering from colitis after dual ipilimumab and nivolumab treatment. We created a model in which Rag2-/-Il2rg-/- mice were adoptively transferred with human peripheral blood mononuclear cells, causing graft-versus-host disease that was further exacerbated by ipilimumab and nivolumab treatment. When human colon cancer cells were xenografted into these mice, prophylactic blockade of human TNF improved colitis and hepatitis in xenografted mice, and moreover, immunotherapeutic control of xenografted tumours was retained. Our results provide clinically feasible strategies to dissociate efficacy and toxicity in the use of combined immune checkpoint blockade for cancer immunotherapy.

Correlation between breast cancer subtypes determined by immunohistochemistry and n-COUNTER PAM50 assay: a real-world study.

PURPOSE: Molecular subtyping based on gene expression profiling (i.e., PAM50 assay) aids in determining the prognosis and treatment of breast cancer (BC), particularly in hormone receptor (HR)-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative tumors, where luminal A and B subtypes have different prognoses and treatments. Several surrogate classifications have been proposed for distinguishing between the luminal A and B subtypes. This study determines the accuracy of local immunohistochemistry (IHC) techniques for classifying HR-positive/HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-) tumors according to intrinsic subtypes using the nCOUNTER PAM50 assay as reference and the HR status definition according the ASCO/CAP recommendations. METHODS: Molecular subtypes resulting from nCOUNTER PAM50 performed in our laboratory between 2014 and 2020 were correlated with three different proxy surrogates proposed in the literature based on ER, PR, HER2, and Ki67 expression with different cut-off values. Concordance was measured using the level of agreement and kappa statistics. RESULTS: From 1049 samples with the nCOUNTER test, 679 and 350 were luminal A and B subtypes, respectively. Only a poor-to-fair correlation was observed between the three proxy surrogates and real genomic subtypes as determined by nCOUNTER PAM50. Moreover, 5-11% and 18-36% of the nCOUNTER PAM50 luminal B and A tumors were classified as luminal A and B, respectively, by these surrogates. CONCLUSION: The concordance between luminal subtypes determined by three different IHC-based classifiers and the nCOUNTER PAM50 assay was suboptimal. Thus, a significant proportion of luminal A and B tumors as determined by the surrogate classifiers could be undertreated or over-treated.

Five-Year Survival with Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone resulted in longer progression-free and overall survival than ipilimumab alone in a trial involving patients with advanced melanoma. We now report 5-year outcomes in the trial. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with previously untreated advanced melanoma to receive one of the following regimens: nivolumab (at a dose of 1 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks); nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks) plus ipilimumab-matched placebo; or ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses) plus nivolumab-matched placebo. The two primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and in the nivolumab group, as compared with the ipilimumab group. RESULTS: At a minimum follow-up of 60 months, the median overall survival was more than 60.0 months (median not reached) in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 36.9 months in the nivolumab group, as compared with 19.9 months in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio for death with nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.52; hazard ratio for death with nivolumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.63). Overall survival at 5 years was 52% in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 44% in the nivolumab group, as compared with 26% in the ipilimumab group. No sustained deterioration of health-related quality of life was observed during or after treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or with nivolumab alone. No new late toxic effects were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced melanoma, sustained long-term overall survival at 5 years was observed in a greater percentage of patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone than in those who received ipilimumab alone, with no apparent loss of quality of life in the patients who received regimens containing nivolumab. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 067 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844505.).

Adjuvant nivolumab versus ipilimumab in resected stage IIIB-C and stage IV melanoma (CheckMate 238): 4-year results from a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Previously, findings from CheckMate 238, a double-blind, phase 3 adjuvant trial in patients with resected stage IIIB-C or stage IV melanoma, showed significant improvements in recurrence-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival with nivolumab versus ipilimumab. This report provides updated 4-year efficacy, initial overall survival, and late-emergent safety results. METHODS: This multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial was done in 130 academic centres, community hospitals, and cancer centres across 25 countries. Patients aged 15 years or older with resected stage IIIB-C or IV melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive nivolumab or ipilimumab via an interactive voice response system and stratified according to disease stage and baseline PD-L1 status of tumour cells. Patients received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or intravenous ipilimumab 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, and then every 12 weeks until 1 year of treatment, disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival by investigator assessment, and overall survival was a key secondary endpoint. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned patients). All patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included in the safety analysis. The results presented in this report reflect the 4-year update of the ongoing study with a database lock date of Jan 30, 2020. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02388906. FINDINGS: Between March 30 and Nov 30, 2015, 906 patients were assigned to nivolumab (n=453) or ipilimumab (n=453). Median follow-up was 51·1 months (IQR 41·6-52·7) with nivolumab and 50·9 months (36·2-52·3) with ipilimumab; 4-year recurrence-free survival was 51·7% (95% CI 46·8-56·3) in the nivolumab group and 41·2% (36·4-45·9) in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·71 [95% CI 0·60-0·86]; p=0·0003). With 211 (100 [22%] of 453 patients in the nivolumab group and 111 [25%] of 453 patients in the ipilimumab group) of 302 anticipated deaths observed (about 73% of the originally planned 88% power needed for significance), 4-year overall survival was 77·9% (95% CI 73·7-81·5) with nivolumab and 76·6% (72·2-80·3) with ipilimumab (HR 0·87 [95% CI 0·66-1·14]; p=0·31). Late-emergent grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in three (1%) of 452 and seven (2%) of 453 patients. The most common late-emergent treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events reported were diarrhoea, diabetic ketoacidosis, and pneumonitis (one patient each) in the nivolumab group, and colitis (two patients) in the ipilimumab group. Two previously reported treatment-related deaths in the ipilimumab group were attributed to study drug toxicity (marrow aplasia in one patient and colitis in one patient); no further treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: At a minimum of 4 years' follow-up, nivolumab demonstrated sustained recurrence-free survival benefit versus ipilimumab in resected stage IIIB-C or IV melanoma indicating a long-term treatment benefit with nivolumab. With fewer deaths than anticipated, overall survival was similar in both groups. Nivolumab remains an efficacious adjuvant treatment for patients with resected high-risk melanoma, with a safety profile that is more tolerable than that of ipilimumab. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical.

Overall Survival with Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab combined with ipilimumab resulted in longer progression-free survival and a higher objective response rate than ipilimumab alone in a phase 3 trial involving patients with advanced melanoma. We now report 3-year overall survival outcomes in this trial. METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, patients with previously untreated advanced melanoma to receive nivolumab at a dose of 1 mg per kilogram of body weight plus ipilimumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks; nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks plus placebo; or ipilimumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses plus placebo, until progression, the occurrence of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. Randomization was stratified according to programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status, BRAF mutation status, and metastasis stage. The two primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and in the nivolumab group versus the ipilimumab group. RESULTS: At a minimum follow-up of 36 months, the median overall survival had not been reached in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and was 37.6 months in the nivolumab group, as compared with 19.9 months in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio for death with nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.55 [P<0.001]; hazard ratio for death with nivolumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.65 [P<0.001]). The overall survival rate at 3 years was 58% in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 52% in the nivolumab group, as compared with 34% in the ipilimumab group. The safety profile was unchanged from the initial report. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 59% of the patients in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group, in 21% of those in the nivolumab group, and in 28% of those in the ipilimumab group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced melanoma, significantly longer overall survival occurred with combination therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or with nivolumab alone than with ipilimumab alone. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 067 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844505 .).

Adjuvant Nivolumab versus Ipilimumab in Resected Stage III or IV Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab and ipilimumab are immune checkpoint inhibitors that have been approved for the treatment of advanced melanoma. In the United States, ipilimumab has also been approved as adjuvant therapy for melanoma on the basis of recurrence-free and overall survival rates that were higher than those with placebo in a phase 3 trial. We wanted to determine the efficacy of nivolumab versus ipilimumab for adjuvant therapy in patients with resected advanced melanoma. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 906 patients (≥15 years of age) who were undergoing complete resection of stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV melanoma to receive an intravenous infusion of either nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks (453 patients) or ipilimumab at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses and then every 12 weeks (453 patients). The patients were treated for a period of up to 1 year or until disease recurrence, a report of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. The primary end point was recurrence-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: At a minimum follow-up of 18 months, the 12-month rate of recurrence-free survival was 70.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 66.1 to 74.5) in the nivolumab group and 60.8% (95% CI, 56.0 to 65.2) in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.65; 97.56% CI, 0.51 to 0.83; P<0.001). Treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported in 14.4% of the patients in the nivolumab group and in 45.9% of those in the ipilimumab group; treatment was discontinued because of any adverse event in 9.7% and 42.6% of the patients, respectively. Two deaths (0.4%) related to toxic effects were reported in the ipilimumab group more than 100 days after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing resection of stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV melanoma, adjuvant therapy with nivolumab resulted in significantly longer recurrence-free survival and a lower rate of grade 3 or 4 adverse events than adjuvant therapy with ipilimumab. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 238 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02388906 ; Eudra-CT number, 2014-002351-26 .).

Recent Therapeutic Advances and Change in Treatment Paradigm of Patients with Merkel Cell Carcinoma.

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare, aggressive, primary cutaneous neuroendocrine tumor that typically presents as an indurated nodule on sun-exposed areas of the head and neck in the white population. Major risk factors include immunosuppression, UV light exposure, and advanced age. Up to 80% of MCC are associated with Merkel cell polyomavirus. About 50% of patients present with localized disease, and surgical resection with or without adjuvant radiotherapy is generally indicated in this context. However, recurrence rates are high and overall prognosis rather poor, with mortality rates of 33%-46%. MCC is a chemosensitive disease, but responses in the advanced setting are seldom durable and not clearly associated with improved survival. Several recent trials with checkpoint inhibitors (pembrolizumab, avelumab, nivolumab) have shown very promising results with a favorable safety profile, in both chemonaïve and pretreated patients. In 2017, avelumab was approved by several regulatory agencies for the treatment of metastatic MCC, the first drug to be approved for this orphan disease. More recently, pembrolizumab has also been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in this setting. Immunotherapy has therefore become the new standard of care in advanced MCC. This article reviews current evidence and recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of MCC and discusses recent therapeutic advances and their implications for care in patients with advanced disease. This consensus statement is the result of a collaboration between the Spanish Cooperative Group for Neuroendocrine Tumors, the Spanish Group of Treatment on Head and Neck Tumors, and the Spanish Melanoma Group. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is an uncommon aggressive skin cancer associated with advanced age, UV light exposure, and immunosuppression. Up to 80% are associated with Merkel cell polyomavirus. MCC is a chemosensitive disease, but tumor responses in the advanced setting are short-lived with no long-term survivors. Recent clinical trials with immune checkpoint inhibitors (i.e., pembrolizumab, avelumab, nivolumab) have shown promising results, with avelumab becoming the first drug to receive regulatory approval for this orphan indication. Further follow-up is needed, however, to define more adequately the long-term benefits of these drugs, and continued research is warranted to optimize immunotherapeutic strategies in this setting.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab alone in advanced melanoma (CheckMate 067): 4-year outcomes of a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Previously reported results from the phase 3 CheckMate 067 trial showed a significant improvement in objective responses, progression-free survival, and overall survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone compared with ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma. The aim of this report is to provide 4-year updated efficacy and safety data from this study. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with previously untreated, unresectable, stage III or stage IV melanoma, known BRAFV600 mutation status, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive intravenous nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus placebo, or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses plus placebo. Randomisation was done via an interactive voice response system with a permuted block schedule (block size of six) and stratification by PD-L1 status, BRAF mutation status, and metastasis stage. The patients, investigators, study site staff, and study funder were masked to the study drug administered. The co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival. Efficacy analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population, whereas safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The results presented in this report reflect the 4-year update of the ongoing study with a database lock date of May 10, 2018. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01844505. FINDINGS: Between July 3, 2013, and March 31, 2014, 945 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n=314), nivolumab (n=316), or ipilimumab (n=315). Median follow-up was 46·9 months (IQR 10·9-51·8) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, 36·0 months (10·5-51·4) in the nivolumab group, and 18·6 months (7·6-49·5) in the ipilimumab group. At a minimum follow-up of 48 months from the date that the final patient was enrolled and randomised, median overall survival was not reached (95% CI 38·2-not reached) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, 36·9 months (28·3-not reached) in the nivolumab group, and 19·9 months (16·9-24·6) in the ipilimumab group. The hazard ratio for death for the combination versus ipilimumab was 0·54 (95% CI 0·44-0·67; p<0·0001) and for nivolumab versus ipilimumab was 0·65 (0·53-0·79; p<0·0001). Median progression-free survival was 11·5 months (95% CI 8·7-19·3) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, 6·9 months (5·1-10·2) in the nivolumab group, and 2·9 months (2·8-3·2) in the ipilimumab group. The hazard ratio for progression-free survival for the combination versus ipilimumab was 0·42 (95% CI 0·35-0·51; p<0·0001) and for nivolumab versus ipilimumab was 0·53 (0·44-0·64; p<0·0001). Treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were reported in 185 (59%) of 313 patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab, 70 (22%) of 313 who received nivolumab, and 86 (28%) of 311 who received ipilimumab. The most common treatment-related grade 3 adverse events were diarrhoea in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group (29 [9%] of 313) and in the nivolumab group (nine [3%] of 313) and colitis in the ipilimumab group (23 [7%] of 311); the most common grade 4 adverse event in all three groups was increased lipase (15 [5%] of 313 in the combination group, ten [3%] of 313 in the nivolumab group, and four [1%] of 311 in the ipilimumab group). Serious adverse events were not analysed for the 4-year follow-up. In total for the study, there were four treatment-related deaths: two in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group (one cardiomyopathy and one liver necrosis), one in the nivolumab group (neutropenia), and one in the ipilimumab group (colon perforation). No additional treatment-related deaths have occurred since the previous (3-year) analysis. INTERPRETATION: The results of this analysis at 4 years of follow-up show that a durable, sustained survival benefit can be achieved with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab or Monotherapy in Untreated Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab (a programmed death 1 [PD-1] checkpoint inhibitor) and ipilimumab (a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 [CTLA-4] checkpoint inhibitor) have been shown to have complementary activity in metastatic melanoma. In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study, nivolumab alone or nivolumab plus ipilimumab was compared with ipilimumab alone in patients with metastatic melanoma. METHODS: We assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, 945 previously untreated patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma to nivolumab alone, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, or ipilimumab alone. Progression-free survival and overall survival were coprimary end points. Results regarding progression-free survival are presented here. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was 11.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.9 to 16.7) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, as compared with 2.9 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 3.4) with ipilimumab (hazard ratio for death or disease progression, 0.42; 99.5% CI, 0.31 to 0.57; P<0.001), and 6.9 months (95% CI, 4.3 to 9.5) with nivolumab (hazard ratio for the comparison with ipilimumab, 0.57; 99.5% CI, 0.43 to 0.76; P<0.001). In patients with tumors positive for the PD-1 ligand (PD-L1), the median progression-free survival was 14.0 months in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and in the nivolumab group, but in patients with PD-L1-negative tumors, progression-free survival was longer with the combination therapy than with nivolumab alone (11.2 months [95% CI, 8.0 to not reached] vs. 5.3 months [95% CI, 2.8 to 7.1]). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 16.3% of the patients in the nivolumab group, 55.0% of those in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group, and 27.3% of those in the ipilimumab group. CONCLUSIONS: Among previously untreated patients with metastatic melanoma, nivolumab alone or combined with ipilimumab resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than ipilimumab alone. In patients with PD-L1-negative tumors, the combination of PD-1 and CTLA-4 blockade was more effective than either agent alone. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 067 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844505.).

Evaluation of Breast Cancer Patients with Genetic Risk in a University Hospital: Before and After the Implementation of a Heredofamilial Cancer Unit.

The identification of patients at risk for breast cancer by genetic testing has proven to reduce breast cancer mortality. In 2010, due to a lack of systematization in hereditary cancer assistance in our center, we implemented a multidisciplinary Heredofamilial Cancer Unit (HFCU). We analyze if the HFCU improved the rates of referrals and preventive management of breast cancer patients with genetic risk. We retrospectively compared family history records, referrals of high-risk patients to genetic counseling, and detection and management of patients with BRCA1/2 mutations in two cohorts of breast cancer patients diagnosed before (first period: 2007-2010) and after the creation of the HFCU (second period: 2010-2013). In the first period, 893 patients were included, and 902 were included in the second. Due to the inability to establish their genetic risk, 142 patients (15.9%) vs. 70 (7.8%) were excluded from analysis (p < 0.001). Among the evaluable patients, 194 (25.8%) vs. 223 (26.8%) fulfilled one or more risk criteria (p = 0.65). Family history documentation in patient's medical records (92.4 vs. 97.8%, p < 0.001) and referral rate (26.3 vs. 52%, p < 0.0001) significantly increased in the second period. Eight BRCA1/2 mutations were detected among patients referred in the first period and 17 among those referred to the HFCU. The rate of preventive surgeries in patients with BRCA mutations significantly increased in the second period (25 vs. 76.5%, p = 0.03). In conclusion, there was a clear improvement in family history records, referrals, and preventive surgeries in breast cancer patients with genetic risk after the implementation of the HFCU.

Dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma brain metastases (COMBI-MB): a multicentre, multicohort, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Dabrafenib plus trametinib improves clinical outcomes in BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma without brain metastases; however, the activity of dabrafenib plus trametinib has not been studied in active melanoma brain metastases. Here, we report results from the phase 2 COMBI-MB trial. Our aim was to build on the current body of evidence of targeted therapy in melanoma brain metastases through an evaluation of dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma brain metastases. METHODS: This ongoing, multicentre, multicohort, open-label, phase 2 study evaluated oral dabrafenib (150 mg twice per day) plus oral trametinib (2 mg once per day) in four patient cohorts with melanoma brain metastases enrolled from 32 hospitals and institutions in Europe, North America, and Australia: (A) BRAFV600E-positive, asymptomatic melanoma brain metastases, with no previous local brain therapy, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1; (B) BRAFV600E-positive, asymptomatic melanoma brain metastases, with previous local brain therapy, and an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1; (C) BRAFV600D/K/R-positive, asymptomatic melanoma brain metastases, with or without previous local brain therapy, and an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1; and (D) BRAFV600D/E/K/R-positive, symptomatic melanoma brain metastases, with or without previous local brain therapy, and an ECOG performance status of 0, 1, or 2. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed intracranial response in cohort A in the all-treated-patients population. Secondary endpoints included intracranial response in cohorts B, C, and D. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02039947. FINDINGS: Between Feb 28, 2014, and Aug 5, 2016, 125 patients were enrolled in the study: 76 patients in cohort A; 16 patients in cohort B; 16 patients in cohort C; and 17 patients in cohort D. At the data cutoff (Nov 28, 2016) after a median follow-up of 8·5 months (IQR 5·5-14·0), 44 (58%; 95% CI 46-69) of 76 patients in cohort A achieved an intracranial response. Intracranial response by investigator assessment was also achieved in nine (56%; 95% CI 30-80) of 16 patients in cohort B, seven (44%; 20-70) of 16 patients in cohort C, and ten (59%; 33-82) of 17 patients in cohort D. The most common serious adverse events related to study treatment were pyrexia for dabrafenib (eight [6%] of 125 patients) and decreased ejection fraction (five [4%]) for trametinib. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events, regardless of study drug relationship, were pyrexia (four [3%] of 125) and headache (three [2%]). INTERPRETATION: Dabrafenib plus trametinib was active with a manageable safety profile in this melanoma population that was consistent with previous dabrafenib plus trametinib studies in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma without brain metastases, but the median duration of response was relatively short. These results provide evidence of clinical benefit with dabrafenib plus trametinib and support the need for additional research to further improve outcomes in patients with melanoma brain metastases. FUNDING: Novartis.

Multicenter analysis of neoadjuvant docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab in HER2-positive breast cancer.

PURPOSE: In an era where neoadjuvant dual blockade is emerging as the standard of care for early and locally advanced HER2-positive breast cancer, we aimed to identify predictors of response to single-blockade chemotherapy. METHODS: This retrospective analysis reviewed all the incident stage I-III HER2-positive breast cancer patients who received neoadjuvant docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab (TCH) in three institutions. pCR was defined as the absence of invasive tumor in breast and axillary nodes (ypT0/isypN0). RESULTS: From 2008 to 2015, 84 patients receiving neoadjuvant TCH were identified within our institutions. The mean age at diagnosis was 51.8 years. 59.5% of the patients were hormone receptor (HR) positive, lymph node involvement occurred in 67.9%, and clinical distribution was 2.4, 65.5, and 32.1% for stage I, II, and III, respectively. pCR rate was 47.6%; there was a significantly lower response in HR-positive patients compared to HR-negative ones (34 vs 67.6%, p = 0.005). pCR rate was associated with tumor size, whereas differences did not reach significance either for stage or for nodal status. Multivariate analysis found that only HR status was associated with response (p = 0.003). At a median follow-up of 31.7 months, disease-free survival, distant disease-free survival, and overall survival were 78.6, 85.7, and 94%, respectively. Breast-conserving surgery was performed in 44% of the patients. Overall, TCH was well tolerated, with low rates of grade 3-4 adverse events, and neither late toxicities nor cardiac dysfunctions were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant TCH, an anthracycline-free single-blockade regimen, achieved a pCR of 47.6%. Further molecular analyses are required in order to identify stronger predictive markers of pCR and thus for an accurate selection of patients who do not benefit from dual blockade.

Ribociclib for the treatment of advanced hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.

CDK4/6 inhibitors are a promising new class of drugs for hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer and have been shown to overcome and delay hormone resistance in advanced breast cancer. Ribociclib, a selective oral inhibitor of CDK4/6, was approved by the US FDA for first-line treatment of hormone-receptor-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. This review summarizes the clinical evidence available for ribociclib, from preclinical data to the pivotal studies, with a special focus on toxicity and its management. In addition, this article reviews potential new combinations under study, as well as ongoing clinical trials both in the metastatic and early setting. Finally, this review compares ribociclib activity and toxicity with those of the drugs of the same class (palbociclib and abemaciclib).

Frequency of germline DNA genetic findings in an unselected prospective cohort of triple-negative breast cancer patients participating in a platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy trial.

We describe the status and frequency of germline DNA genetic findings in an unselected prospective cohort of triple negative breast cancer patients participating in a platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy trial. Study population includes 124 consecutive patients with stage II-III TNBC from a trial exploring the antitumor activity of neoadjuvant carboplatin/docetaxel chemotherapy enrolled between 2012 and March 2015, to determine the frequency of germline DNA genetic mutations. 17.1 % of the patients with germline DNA tested had deleterious mutations in any of the analyzed genes (12.38 % in BRCA1, 1.9 % in BRCA2 and BARD1 and 0.95 % in RAD51D). Attending the intrinsic subtype, all the BRCA1/2 carriers tested had basal-like subtype. Among wild-type (WT) patients, 70.11 % had basal subtype, 16.09 % HER2 enriched, 1.15 % Luminal B, and 4.60 % Normal-like. Mean age at diagnosis was significantly lower in mutation-carriers compared with no carriers (43.72 vs 53.10, p = 0.004). 3 BRCA1/2 carriers were detected between 51 and 60 years, and only one deleterious mutation (BARD1) over 60 years. A positive familiar history of breast and ovarian cancer was more frequent in patients with deleterious mutations (39.39 vs 17.94 %, p = 0.043). Our study confirms the prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutations in TNBC patients. TNBC should therefore be considered by itself as a criterion for BRCA1/2 genetic testing. Determination of other breast cancer predisposition genes implicated in homologous recombination should also be discussed in this population. However, no definitive conclusions can be reached due to the low prevalence and the uncertain clinical impact of most of the genes included.

Who detects melanoma? Impact of detection patterns on characteristics and prognosis of patients with melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Despite the importance of early diagnosis, patients with cutaneous melanoma often seek consultation at advanced stages of the disease. The impact on prognosis according to who first detects the primary tumor has not been established. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine who first detects melanoma, the reasons that patients with melanoma consult a doctor, and the impact of detection patterns on the characteristics and prognosis of melanoma. METHODS: Seven hundred eighty-three patients with cutaneous melanoma who were diagnosed between 1996 and 2012 were included. Associations between who first noticed the melanoma (ie, self-detected, relatives, health care workers, or dermatologists), epidemiology, clinical presentation, histology, and patient outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Most melanomas were self-detected (53%). Among these patients, 32% consulted because of bleeding, itching/pain, or nodule enlargement. There were more melanomas self-detected among women than among men, and these had a better prognosis. Men had significantly more melanomas on non-easily visible locations than women did. Among melanomas noticed by dermatologists, 80% were incidental findings. Self-detected melanomas were thicker and more frequently ulcerated, developed metastases more often, and were associated with more melanoma-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with melanomas detected by dermatologists had better prognoses than patients with self-detected melanomas. Patients with melanomas that were self-detected by women had better prognoses than those that were self-detected by men, especially for patients >70 years of age. This group might therefore be a logical target for melanoma detection education.

MicroRNA expression signatures for the prediction of BRCA1/2 mutation-associated hereditary breast cancer in paraffin-embedded formalin-fixed breast tumors.

Screening for germline mutations in breast cancer-associated genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 is indicated for patients with breast cancer from high-risk breast cancer families and influences both treatment options and clinical management. However, only 25% of selected patients test positive for BRCA1/2 mutation, indicating that additional diagnostic biomarkers are necessary. We analyzed 124 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumor samples from patients with hereditary (104) and sporadic (20) invasive breast cancer, divided into two series (A and B). Microarray expression profiling of 829 human miRNAs was performed on 76 samples (Series A), and bioinformatics tool Prophet was used to develop and test a microarray classifier. Samples were stratified into a training set (n = 38) for microarray classifier generation and a test set (n = 38) for signature validation. A 35-miRNA microarray classifier was generated for the prediction of BRCA1/2 mutation status with a reported 95% (95% CI = 0.88-1.0) and 92% (95% CI: 0.84-1.0) accuracy in the training and the test set, respectively. Differential expression of 12 miRNAs between BRCA1/2 mutation carriers versus noncarriers was validated by qPCR in an independent tumor series B (n = 48). Logistic regression model based on the expression of six miRNAs (miR-142-3p, miR-505*, miR-1248, miR-181a-2*, miR-25* and miR-340*) discriminated between tumors from BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and noncarriers with 92% (95% CI: 0.84-0.99) accuracy. In conclusion, we identified miRNA expression signatures predictive of BRCA1/2 mutation status in routinely available FFPE breast tumor samples, which may be useful to complement current patient selection criteria for gene testing by identifying individuals with high likelihood of being BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.