Pembrolizumab versus placebo as adjuvant therapy in completely resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma (KEYNOTE-716): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab prolongs progression-free and overall survival among patients with advanced melanoma and recurrence-free survival in resected stage III disease. KEYNOTE-716 assessed pembrolizumab as adjuvant therapy in patients with completely resected, high-risk, stage II melanoma. We report results from the planned first and second interim analyses for recurrence-free survival. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, involving 160 academic medical centres and hospitals in 16 countries (Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Poland, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, the UK, and the USA), patients aged 12 years or older with newly diagnosed, completely resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma (TNM stage T3b or T4 with a negative sentinel lymph node biopsy) were recruited. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1), in blocks of four and stratified by T-category (3b, 4a, and 4b) and paediatric status (age 12-17 years vs ≥18 years), using an interactive response technology system to intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg (2 mg/kg in paediatric patients) or placebo every 3 weeks for 17 cycles or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity. All patients, clinical investigators, and analysts were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed recurrence-free survival (defined as time from randomisation to recurrence or death) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (ie, all patients randomly assigned to treatment). The primary endpoint was met if recurrence-free survival was significantly improved for pembrolizumab versus placebo at either the first interim analysis (after approximately 128 patients had events) or second interim analysis (after 179 patients had events) under multiplicity control. Safety was assessed in all patients randomly assigned to treatment who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03553836, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Sept 23, 2018, and Nov 4, 2020, 1182 patients were screened, of whom 976 were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab (n=487) or placebo (n=489; ITT population). The median age was 61 years (IQR 52-69) and 387 (40%) patients were female and 589 (60%) were male. 874 (90%) of 976 patients were White and 799 (82%) were not Hispanic or Latino. 483 (99%) of 487 patients in the pembrolizumab group and 486 (99%) of 489 in the placebo group received assigned treatment. At the first interim analysis (data cutoff on Dec 4, 2020; median follow-up of 14·4 months [IQR 10·2-18·7] in the pembrolizumab group and 14·3 months [10·1-18·7] in the placebo group), 54 (11%) of 487 patients in the pembrolizumab group and 82 (17%) of 489 in the placebo group had a first recurrence of disease or died (hazard ratio [HR] 0·65 [95% CI 0·46-0·92]; p=0·0066). At the second interim analysis (data cutoff on June 21, 2021; median follow-up of 20·9 months [16·7-25·3] in the pembrolizumab group and 20·9 months [16·6-25·3] in the placebo group), 72 (15%) patients in the pembrolizumab group and 115 (24%) in the placebo group had a first recurrence or died (HR 0·61 [95% CI 0·45-0·82]). Median recurrence-free survival was not reached in either group at either assessment timepoint. At the first interim analysis, grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 78 (16%) of 483 patients in the pembrolizumab groups versus 21 (4%) of 486 in the placebo group. At the first interim analysis, four patients died from an adverse event, all in the placebo group (one each due to pneumonia, COVID-19-related pneumonia, suicide, and recurrent cancer), and at the second interim analysis, one additional patient, who was in the pembrolizumab group, died from an adverse event (COVID-19-related pneumonia). No deaths due to study treatment occurred. INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab as adjuvant therapy for up to approximately 1 year for stage IIB or IIC melanoma resulted in a significant reduction in the risk of disease recurrence or death versus placebo, with a manageable safety profile. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors and Carbon iON radiotherapy In solid Cancers with stable disease (ICONIC).

ICONIC is a multicenter, open-label, nonrandomized phase II clinical trial aiming to assess the feasibility and clinical activity of the addition of carbon ion radiotherapy to immune checkpoint inhibitors in cancer patients who have obtained disease stability with pembrolizumab administered as per standard-of-care. The primary end point is objective response rate, and the secondary end points are safety, survival and disease control rate. Translational research is an exploratory aim. The planned sample size is 27 patients. The study combination will be considered worth investigating if at least four objective responses are observed. If the null hypothesis is rejected, ICONIC will be the first proof of concept of the feasibility and clinical activity of the addition of carbon ion radiotherapy to immune checkpoint inhibitors in oncology.

ICONIC is a multicenter, open-label, nonrandomized, phase II clinical trial aiming to evaluate the feasibility and clinical activity of the addition of carbon ion radiotherapy to immune checkpoint inhibitors in cancer patients who have obtained disease stability with pembrolizumab administered as per standard-of-care. Considering that no clinical trials have been conducted thus far to assess the safety of the association between immune checkpoint inhibitors and carbon ion radiotherapy, the current clinical study will provide controlled data about the safety of this unprecedented therapeutic combination. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05229614 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Gut Microbiota, Metabolome, and Body Composition Signatures of Response to Therapy in Patients with Advanced Melanoma.

Despite the recent breakthroughs in targeted and immunotherapy for melanoma, the overall survival rate remains low. In recent years, considerable attention has been paid to the gut microbiota and other modifiable patient factors (e.g., diet and body composition), though their role in influencing therapeutic responses has yet to be defined. Here, we characterized a cohort of 31 patients with unresectable IIIC-IV-stage cutaneous melanoma prior to initiation of targeted or first-line immunotherapy via the following methods: (i) fecal microbiome and metabolome via 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, respectively, and (ii) anthropometry, body composition, nutritional status, physical activity, biochemical parameters, and immunoprofiling. According to our data, patients subsequently classified as responders were obese (i.e., with high body mass index and high levels of total, visceral, subcutaneous, and intramuscular adipose tissue), non-sarcopenic, and enriched in certain fecal taxa (e.g., Phascolarctobacterium) and metabolites (e.g., anethole), which were potentially endowed with immunostimulatory and oncoprotective activities. On the other hand, non-response was associated with increased proportions of Streptococcus, Actinomyces, Veillonella, Dorea, Fusobacterium, higher neutrophil levels (and a higher neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio), and higher fecal levels of butyric acid and its esters, which also correlated with decreased survival. This exploratory study provides an integrated list of potential early prognostic biomarkers that could improve the clinical management of patients with advanced melanoma, in particular by guiding the design of adjuvant therapeutic strategies to improve treatment response and support long-term health improvement.

Pembrolizumab versus placebo as adjuvant therapy in resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma (KEYNOTE-716): distant metastasis-free survival results of a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with stage IIB or IIC melanoma who undergo surgery alone are at a substantial risk for disease recurrence. Adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved recurrence-free survival versus placebo in stage IIB or IIC melanoma in the first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-716 trial. Here, we report results from the secondary endpoint of distant metastasis-free survival (prespecified third interim analysis), and recurrence-free survival with longer follow-up. METHODS: KEYNOTE-716 is a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover or rechallenge, randomised, phase 3 trial done at 160 academic medical centres and hospitals across 16 countries. Eligible patients were aged 12 years and older with newly-diagnosed, completely resected, and histologically confirmed stage IIB (T3b or T4a) or IIC (T4b) cutaneous melanoma; negative sentinel lymph node biopsy; and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either 200 mg of pembrolizumab (2 mg/kg up to a maximum of 200 mg in paediatric patients) or placebo, both intravenously, every 3 weeks for 17 cycles (part 1) or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity. Eligible patients with disease recurrence could receive further treatment with pembrolizumab in the part 2 crossover or rechallenge phase. Randomisation was done using an interactive response technology system and stratified by T category and paediatric status. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed recurrence-free survival (assessed here with longer follow-up), and we report the prespecified third interim analysis of distant metastasis-free survival (secondary endpoint). Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population (all patients who were randomly assigned, according to assigned group) and safety was assessed in all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of trial treatment, according to the treatment received. KEYNOTE-716 is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03553836, and has completed recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Sept 23, 2018, and Nov 4, 2020, 976 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab (n=487) or placebo (n=489). At a median follow-up of 27·4 months (IQR 23·1-31·7), median distant metastasis-free survival was not reached (95% CI not reached [NR]-NR) in either group. Pembrolizumab significantly improved distant metastasis-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·64, 95% CI 0·47-0·88, p=0·0029) versus placebo. Median recurrence-free survival was 37·2 months (95% CI NR-NR) in the pembrolizumab group and not reached in the placebo group (95% CI NR-NR). The risk of recurrence remained lower with pembrolizumab versus placebo (HR 0·64, 95% CI 0·50-0·84). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were hypertension (16 [3%] of 483 patients in the pembrolizumab group vs 17 [4%] of 486 patients in the placebo group), diarrhoea (eight [2%] vs one [<1%]), rash (seven [1%] vs two [<1%]), autoimmune hepatitis (seven [1%] vs two [<1%]), and increased lipase (six [1%] vs eight [2%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 49 (10%) patients in the pembrolizumab group and 11 (2%) patients in the placebo group. No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant pembrolizumab is an efficacious treatment option for resected stage IIB and IIC melanoma, with significant improvement in distant-metastasis free survival versus placebo and continued reduction in the risk of recurrence with an adverse event profile consistent with previous studies of pembrolizumab. The overall benefit-risk of pembrolizumab continues to be positive in the adjuvant setting. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co.

Characterization and management of neurological adverse events during immune-checkpoint inhibitors treatment: an Italian multicentric experience.

BACKGROUND: Neurological immune-related adverse events (nirAEs) are rare toxicities of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). With the increase of ICI oncological indications, their incidence is growing. Their recognition and management remain nevertheless challenging. METHODS: A national, web-based database was built to collect cases of neurological symptoms in patients receiving ICI and not attributable to other causes after an adequate workup. RESULTS: We identified 27 patients who developed nirAEs (20 males, median age 69 years). Patients received anti-PD1/PDL1 (78%), anti-CTLA4 (4%), or both (19%). Most common cancers were melanoma (30%) and non-small cell lung cancer (26%). Peripheral nervous system was mostly affected (78%). Median time to onset was 43.5 days and was shorter for peripheral versus central nervous system toxicities (36 versus 144.5 days, p = 0.045). Common manifestations were myositis (33%), inflammatory polyradiculoneuropathies (33%), and myasthenia gravis (19%), alone or in combination, but the spectrum of diagnoses was broad. Most patients received first-line glucocorticoids (85%) or IVIg (15%). Seven patients (26%) needed second-line treatments. At last follow-up, four (15%) patients were deceased (encephalitis, 1; myositis/myasthenia with concomitant myocarditis, 2; acute polyradiculoneuropathy, 1), while seven (26%) had a complete remission, eight (30%) partial improvement, and six (22%) stable/progressing symptoms. ICI treatment was discontinued in most patients (78%). CONCLUSIONS: Neurological irAEs are rare but potentially fatal. They primarily affect neuromuscular structures but encompass a broad range of presentations. A prompt recognition is mandatory to timely withheld immunotherapy and administrate glucocorticoids. In corticoresistant or severely affected patients, second-line treatments with IVIg or plasmapheresis may result in additional benefit.

Survival in Patients With Sentinel Node-Positive Melanoma With Extranodal Extension.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic parameters in sentinel node (SN)-positive melanoma are important indicators to identify patients at high risk of recurrence who should be candidates for adjuvant therapy. We aimed to evaluate the presence of melanoma cells beyond the SN capsule-extranodal extension (ENE)-as a prognostic factor in patients with positive SNs. METHODS: Data from 1,047 patients with melanoma and positive SNs treated from 2001 to 2020 at the Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori in Milano, Italy, were retrospectively investigated. Kaplan-Meier survival and crude cumulative incidence of recurrence curves were estimated. A multivariable logistic model was used to investigate the association between ENE and selected predictive factors. Cox models estimated the effect of the selected predictors on survival endpoints. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 69 months. The 5-year overall survival rate was 62.5% and 71.7% for patients with positive SNs with and without ENE, respectively. The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 54.0% and 64.0% for patients with positive SNs with and without ENE, respectively. The multivariable logistic model showed that age, size of the main metastatic focus in the SN, and numbers of metastatic non-SNs were associated with ENE (all P<.0001). The multivariable Cox regression models showed the estimated prognostic effects of ENE associated with age, ulceration, size of the main metastatic focus in the SN, and number of metastatic non-SNs (all P<.0001) on disease-free survival and overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: ENE was a significant prognostic factor in patients with positive-SN melanoma. This parameter may be useful in clinical practice as a selection criterion for adjuvant treatment in patients with stage IIIA disease with a tumor burden <1 mm in the SN. We recommend its inclusion as an independent prognostic determinant in future updates of melanoma guidelines.

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.

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 .).

miR-146a-5p impairs melanoma resistance to kinase inhibitors by targeting COX2 and regulating NFkB-mediated inflammatory mediators.

BACKGROUND: Targeted therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors has improved the survival of patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma, but most patients relapse upon the onset of drug resistance induced by mechanisms including genetic and epigenetic events. Among the epigenetic alterations, microRNA perturbation is associated with the development of kinase inhibitor resistance. Here, we identified and studied the role of miR-146a-5p dysregulation in melanoma drug resistance. METHODS: The miR-146a-5p-regulated NFkB signaling network was identified in drug-resistant cell lines and melanoma tumor samples by expression profiling and knock-in and knock-out studies. A bioinformatic data analysis identified COX2 as a central gene regulated by miR-146a-5p and NFkB. The effects of miR-146a-5p/COX2 manipulation were studied in vitro in cell lines and with 3D cultures of treatment-resistant tumor explants from patients progressing during therapy. RESULTS: miR-146a-5p expression was inversely correlated with drug sensitivity and COX2 expression and was reduced in BRAF and MEK inhibitor-resistant melanoma cells and tissues. Forced miR-146a-5p expression reduced COX2 activity and significantly increased drug sensitivity by hampering prosurvival NFkB signaling, leading to reduced proliferation and enhanced apoptosis. Similar effects were obtained by inhibiting COX2 by celecoxib, a clinically approved COX2 inhibitor. CONCLUSIONS: Deregulation of the miR-146a-5p/COX2 axis occurs in the development of melanoma resistance to targeted drugs in melanoma patients. This finding reveals novel targets for more effective combination treatment. Video Abstract.

Cutaneous melanoma in adolescents and young adults.

Cutaneous melanoma is rare in children, but has greater incidence in adolescents and young adults (AYAs). Diagnosis may be challenging due to its rarity in these age groups. Few studies have specifically addressed the topic of AYA melanoma. Though young-age melanoma may have particular biological characteristics, available data suggest that its clinical history is similar to that of adults. However, advances in treatment of adult melanoma have not been reflected in the treatment of AYAs. There is no standard treatment, and access to clinical trials is difficult for AYAs. Further efforts are needed to overcome these issues by improving cooperation with experts on adult melanoma.

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.

Binimetinib versus dacarbazine in patients with advanced NRAS-mutant melanoma (NEMO): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: There are no established therapies specific for NRAS-mutant melanoma despite the emergence of immunotherapy. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the MEK inhibitor binimetinib versus that of dacarbazine in patients with advanced NRAS-mutant melanoma. METHODS: NEMO is an ongoing, randomised, open-label phase 3 study done at 118 hospitals in 26 countries. Patients with advanced, unresectable, American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IIIC or stage IV NRAS-mutant melanoma who were previously untreated or had progressed on or after previous immunotherapy were randomised (2:1) to receive either binimetinib 45 mg orally twice daily or dacarbazine 1000 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by stage, performance status, and previous immunotherapy. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by blinded central review in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the safety population, consisting of all patients who received at least one study drug dose and one post-baseline safety assessment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01763164 and with EudraCT, number 2012-003593-51. FINDINGS: Between Aug 19, 2013, and April 28, 2015, 402 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 269 to binimetinib and 133 to dacarbazine. Median follow-up was 1·7 months (IQR 1·4-4·1). Median progression-free survival was 2·8 months (95% CI 2·8-3·6) in the binimetinib group and 1·5 months (1·5-1·7) in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio 0·62 [95% CI 0·47-0·80]; one-sided p<0·001). Grade 3-4 adverse events seen in at least 5% of patients the safety population in either group were increased creatine phosphokinase (52 [19%] of 269 patients in the binimetinib group vs none of 114 in the dacarbazine group), hypertension (20 [7%] vs two [2%]), anaemia (five [2%] vs six [5%]), and neutropenia (two [1%] vs ten [9%]). Serious adverse events (all grades) occurred in 91 (34%) patients in the binimetinib group and 25 (22%) patients in the dacarbazine group. INTERPRETATION: Binimetinib improved progression-free survival compared with dacarbazine and was tolerable. Binimetinib might represent a new treatment option for patients with NRAS-mutant melanoma after failure of immunotherapy. FUNDING: Array BioPharma and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Ipilimumab 10 mg/kg versus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma: a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: A phase 2 trial suggested increased overall survival and increased incidence of treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events with ipilimumab 10 mg/kg compared with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg in patients with advanced melanoma. We report a phase 3 trial comparing the benefit-risk profile of ipilimumab 10 mg/kg versus 3 mg/kg. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial was done in 87 centres in 21 countries worldwide. Patients with untreated or previously treated unresectable stage III or IV melanoma, without previous treatment with BRAF inhibitors or immune checkpoint inhibitors, were randomly assigned (1:1) with an interactive voice response system by the permuted block method using block size 4 to ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or 3 mg/kg, administered by intravenous infusion for 90 min every 3 weeks for four doses. Patients were stratified by metastasis stage, previous treatment for metastatic melanoma, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. The patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population and safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is completed and was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01515189. FINDINGS: Between Feb 29, and July 9, 2012, 727 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to ipilimumab 10 mg/kg (365 patients; 364 treated) or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (362 patients; all treated). Median follow-up was 14·5 months (IQR 4·6-42·3) for the ipilimumab 10 mg/kg group and 11·2 months (4·9-29·4) for the ipilimumab 3 mg/kg group. Median overall survival was 15·7 months (95% CI 11·6-17·8) for ipilimumab 10 mg/kg compared with 11·5 months (9·9-13·3) for ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (hazard ratio 0·84, 95% CI 0·70-0·99; p=0·04). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea (37 [10%] of 364 patients in the 10 mg/kg group vs 21 [6%] of 362 patients in the 3 mg/kg group), colitis (19 [5%] vs nine [2%]), increased alanine aminotransferase (12 [3%] vs two [1%]), and hypophysitis (ten [3%] vs seven [2%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 133 (37%) patients in the 10 mg/kg group and 66 (18%) patients in the 3 mg/kg group; four (1%) versus two (<1%) patients died from treatment-related adverse events. INTERPRETATION: In patients with advanced melanoma, ipilimumab 10 mg/kg resulted in significantly longer overall survival than did ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, but with increased treatment-related adverse events. Although the treatment landscape for advanced melanoma has changed since this study was initiated, the clinical use of ipilimumab in refractory patients with unmet medical needs could warrant further assessment. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Vemurafenib in BRAFV600 mutated metastatic melanoma: a subanalysis of the Italian population of a global safety study.

AIM: We describe the ad interim analysis of the Italian cohort of the global safety study on vemurafenib in patients with metastatic melanoma. PATIENTS & METHODS: A total of 385 patients received vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily. RESULTS: In total, 330 patients (86%) reported adverse events; 16 serious adverse events were observed (three related to vemurafenib). The response rate was 30.4%. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 5.9 months and 16.3 months, respectively. In patients with brain metastasis (BM; n = 83), median PFS was 4.3 months and OS was 7.6 months. In patients without BM, PFS was 6.5 months and OS was not reached. Median PFS was 12.6 months in patients with M1a stage of disease, 9.6 months in those with M1b stage and 5.4 months in subjects with M1c stage. CONCLUSION: Vemurafenib appears safe and active in clinical practice, and seems particularly active in patients without BM and low tumor burden.

Vemurafenib in patients with BRAF(V600) mutated metastatic melanoma: an open-label, multicentre, safety study.

BACKGROUND: The orally available BRAF kinase inhibitor vemurafenib, compared with dacarbazine, shows improved response rates, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival in patients with metastatic melanoma that has a BRAF(V600) mutation. We assessed vemurafenib in patients with advanced metastatic melanoma with BRAF(V600) mutations who had few treatment options. METHODS: In an open-label, multicentre study, patients with untreated or previously treated melanoma and a BRAF(V600) mutation received oral vemurafenib 960 mg twice a day. The primary endpoint was safety. All analyses were done on the safety population, which included all patients who received at least one dose of vemurafenib. This report is the third interim analysis of this study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01307397. FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2011, and Jan 31, 2013, 3226 patients were enrolled in 44 countries. 3222 patients received at least one dose of vemurafenib (safety population). At data cutoff, 868 (27%) patients were on study treatment and 2354 (73%) had withdrawn, mainly because of disease progression. Common adverse events of all grades included rash (1592 [49%]), arthralgia (1259 [39%]), fatigue (1093 [34%]), photosensitivity reaction (994 [31%]), alopecia (826 [26%]), and nausea (628 [19%]). 1480 (46%) patients reported grade 3 or 4 adverse events, including cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (389 [12%]), rash (155 [5%]), liver function abnormalities (165 [5%]), arthralgia (106 [3%]), and fatigue (93 [3%]). Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were reported more frequently in patients aged 75 years and older (n=257; 152 [59%, 95% CI 53-65] and ten [4%, 2-7], respectively) than in those younger than 75 years (n=2965; 1286 [43%, 42-45] and 82 [3%, 2-3], respectively). INTERPRETATION: Vemurafenib safety in this diverse population of patients with BRAF(V600) mutated metastatic melanoma, who are more representative of routine clinical practice, was consistent with the safety profile shown in the pivotal trials of this drug. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Clinical experience with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg: real-world efficacy and safety data from an expanded access programme cohort.

BACKGROUND: Ipilimumab improves survival in patients with advanced melanoma. The activity and safety of ipilimumab outside of a clinical trial was assessed in an expanded access programme (EAP). METHODS: Ipilimumab was available upon physician request for patients aged 16 or over with pretreated stage III (unresectable)/IV melanoma, for whom no other therapeutic option was available. Patients received ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses. Patients with stable disease or an objective response to ipilimumab were eligible for retreatment upon disease progression. Tumour assessments were conducted at baseline and week 12. Patients were monitored for adverse events (AEs) within 3 to 4 days of each scheduled visit. RESULTS: Of 855 patients participating in the EAP in Italy, 833 were evaluable for response. Of these, 13% had an objective immune response, and the immune-related disease control rate was 34%. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 3.7 and 7.2 months, respectively. Efficacy was independent of BRAF and NRAS mutational status. Overall, 33% of patients reported an immune-related AE (irAE). The frequency of irAEs was not associated with response to ipilimumab. CONCLUSIONS: Outside of a clinical trial setting, ipilimumab is a feasible treatment option in patients with pretreated metastatic melanoma, regardless of BRAF and NRAS mutational status. Data from this large cohort of patients support clinical trial evidence that ipilimumab can induce durable disease control and long-term survival in patients who have failed to respond to prior treatment.

Sequential treatment with ipilimumab and BRAF inhibitors in patients with metastatic melanoma: data from the Italian cohort of the ipilimumab expanded access program.

Of 93 patients with pretreated, BRAF(V600) mutation-positive advanced melanoma who received vemurafenib or dabrafenib before (n = 45) or after (n = 48) treatment with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, median overall survival (mOS) from first treatment was 9.9 and 14.5 months, respectively. Among patients treated with a BRAF inhibitor first, mOS from the end of BRAF inhibition was 1.2 months for those who did not complete ipilimumab treatment as per protocol, compared with 12.7 months for those who did (p < .001). Prospective, randomized studies are required to determine the optimal sequencing of ipilimumab and BRAF inhibitors in patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma.

Efficacy and safety of ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma and brain metastases.

Patients with melanoma brain metastases have a poor prognosis and historically have been excluded from clinical trials. The Expanded Access Program (EAP) provided an opportunity to evaluate the feasibility of ipilimumab (3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses) in patients with stage 3 (unresectable) or 4 melanoma and asymptomatic brain metastases, who had failed or did not tolerate previous treatments and had no other therapeutic option available. Tumor assessments were conducted at baseline and week 12 using immune-related response criteria and patients were monitored for adverse events (AEs). Of 855 patients participating in the EAP in Italy, 146 had asymptomatic brain metastases. With a median follow-up of 4 months, the global disease control rate was 27%, including 4 patients with a complete response and 13 with a partial response. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 2.8 and 4.3 months, respectively and approximately one-fifth of patients were alive 1 year after starting ipilimumab. In total, 29% of patients reported a treatment-related AE of any grade, which were grade 3/4 in 6% of patients. AEs were generally reversible with treatment as per protocol-specific guidelines. Ipilimumab shows durable benefits in some patients with advanced melanoma metastatic to the brain, with safety results consistent with those previously reported in clinical trials.

Melanoma and sex hormones: Pathogenesis, progressive disease and response to treatments.

Cutaneous melanoma represents the fifth tumor in terms of incidence in young adults, with a major involvement of males than females. Despite the significant changes in available effective treatments for cutaneous melanoma, there is still a proportion of patients that do not benefit long-term disease control with immune checkpoint inhibitors and/or BRAF/MEK inhibitors, and eventually develop progressive disease. In addition to the emerging biomarkers under investigation to understand resistance to treatments, recent studies resumed the role of sex hormones (estrogens, progesterone and androgens) in melanoma patients. In the last decades, the impact of sex hormones has been considered controversial in melanoma patients, but actual growing preclinical and clinical evidence underline the potential influence on melanoma cells' growth, tumor microenvironment, the immune system and consequently on the course of disease.This review will provide available insights on the role of sex hormones in melanoma pathogenesis, disease progression and response/resistance to systemic treatments. We will also offer an overview on the recent studies on the theme, describing the hormonal contribution to disease response and the interaction with targeted therapies and immune-checkpoint inhibitors in cutaneous melanoma patients, illustrating an insight into future research in this field.

Curative carbon ion radiotherapy in a head and neck mucosal melanoma series: Facing the future within multidisciplinarity.

PURPOSE: To evaluate efficacy and toxicity of carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) in locally advanced head and neck mucosal melanoma (HNMM) patients treated at our Institute. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between June 2013 and June 2020, 40 HNMM patients were treated with CIRT. Prescription dose was 65.6-68.8 Gy relative biological effectiveness [RBE] in 16 fractions. Twelve (30%) patients received only biopsy, 28 (70%) surgical resection before CIRT. Immunotherapy was administered before and/or after CIRT in 45% of patients, mainly for distant progression (89%). RESULTS: Median follow-up was 18 months. 2-year Local Relapse Free Survival (LRFS), Overall Survival (OS), Progression Free Survival (PFS) and Distant Metastasis Free Survival (DMFS) were 84.5%, 58.6%, 33.2% and 37.3%, respectively. At univariate analysis, LRFS was significantly better for non-recurrent status, < 2 surgeries before CIRT and treatment started < 9 months from the initial diagnosis, with no significant differences for operated versus unresected patients. After relapse, immunotherapy provided longer median OS (17 months vs 3.6, p-value<0.001). Late toxicity ≥ G3 (graded with CTCAE 5.0 scale) was reported in 10% of patients. CONCLUSION: CIRT in advanced HNMM patients is safe and locally effective. Prospective trials are warranted to assess the role of targeted/immune- systemic therapy to improve OS.