Effect of Electronic Symptom Monitoring on Patient-Reported Outcomes Among Patients With Metastatic Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Electronic systems that facilitate patient-reported outcome (PRO) surveys for patients with cancer may detect symptoms early and prompt clinicians to intervene. Objective: To evaluate whether electronic symptom monitoring during cancer treatment confers benefits on quality-of-life outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Report of secondary outcomes from the PRO-TECT (Alliance AFT-39) cluster randomized trial in 52 US community oncology practices randomized to electronic symptom monitoring with PRO surveys or usual care. Between October 2017 and March 2020, 1191 adults being treated for metastatic cancer were enrolled, with last follow-up on May 17, 2021. Interventions: In the PRO group, participants (n = 593) were asked to complete weekly surveys via an internet-based or automated telephone system for up to 1 year. Severe or worsening symptoms triggered care team alerts. The control group (n = 598) received usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The 3 prespecified secondary outcomes were physical function, symptom control, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 3 months, measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30; range, 0-100 points; minimum clinically important difference [MCID], 2-7 for physical function; no MCID defined for symptom control or HRQOL). Results on the primary outcome, overall survival, are not yet available. Results: Among 52 practices, 1191 patients were included (mean age, 62.2 years; 694 [58.3%] women); 1066 (89.5%) completed 3-month follow-up. Compared with usual care, mean changes on the QLQ-C30 from baseline to 3 months were significantly improved in the PRO group for physical function (PRO, from 74.27 to 75.81 points; control, from 73.54 to 72.61 points; mean difference, 2.47 [95% CI, 0.41-4.53]; P = .02), symptom control (PRO, from 77.67 to 80.03 points; control, from 76.75 to 76.55 points; mean difference, 2.56 [95% CI, 0.95-4.17]; P = .002), and HRQOL (PRO, from 78.11 to 80.03 points; control, from 77.00 to 76.50 points; mean difference, 2.43 [95% CI, 0.90-3.96]; P = .002). Patients in the PRO group had significantly greater odds of experiencing clinically meaningful benefits vs usual care for physical function (7.7% more with improvements of ≥5 points and 6.1% fewer with worsening of ≥5 points; odds ratio [OR], 1.35 [95% CI, 1.08-1.70]; P = .009), symptom control (8.6% and 7.5%, respectively; OR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.15-1.95]; P = .003), and HRQOL (8.5% and 4.9%, respectively; OR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.10-1.81]; P = .006). Conclusions and Relevance: In this report of secondary outcomes from a randomized clinical trial of adults receiving cancer treatment, use of weekly electronic PRO surveys to monitor symptoms, compared with usual care, resulted in statistically significant improvements in physical function, symptom control, and HRQOL at 3 months, with mean improvements of approximately 2.5 points on a 0- to 100-point scale. These findings should be interpreted provisionally pending results of the primary outcome of overall survival. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03249090.

Sex Differences in Tolerability to Anti-Programmed Cell Death Protein 1 Therapy in Patients with Metastatic Melanoma and Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Are We All Equal?

BACKGROUND: Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) have emerged as a serious clinical issue in the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Risk factors for irAEs remain controversial. Therefore, we studied sex differences in irAEs in patients treated with anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients with metastatic melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with anti-PD-1 therapy at Mayo Clinic Rochester and Florida from 2015 to 2018 were reviewed. Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test was used for time-to-event analysis. RESULTS: In 245 patients with metastatic melanoma, premenopausal women were more likely to experience irAEs (all grades) compared with postmenopausal women and men (67% vs. 60% vs. 46%), primarily because of an increase in endocrinopathies (33% vs. 12% vs. 10%, respectively). In patients with NSCLC (231 patients), women (all ages) were also more likely to develop irAEs of all grades (48% vs. 31%). Women with NSCLC were more likely to develop pneumonitis (11% vs. 4%) and endocrinopathies (14% vs. 5%). No differences in grade ≥3 toxicities were seen across sexes in both cohorts, but women were more likely to receive systemic steroids for the treatment of irAEs compared with men. Better progression-free-survival was observed in women with NSCLC and irAEs (10 months vs. 3.3 months) compared with women without irAEs. CONCLUSION: Women with metastatic melanoma and NSCLC are more likely to experience irAEs compared with men. We also observed differences between sexes in the frequency of certain irAEs. Larger studies are needed to investigate the mechanisms underlying these associations. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The results of this study suggest that women may be at a higher risk for immune-related adverse events (irAEs) compared with men when treated with anti-programmed cell death protein 1 therapy. In addition, women were more likely to develop certain irAEs, including endocrinopathies and pneumonitis. Close follow-up of women undergoing treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors will allow clinicians to diagnose these treatment-related complications early, potentially reducing their associated morbidity and mortality. In addition, a possible association between irAEs and response to therapy was observed.

NCCTG N0879 (Alliance): A randomized phase 2 cooperative group trial of carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab ± everolimus for metastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Despite the success of immune checkpoint and targeted therapy, many patients with melanoma ultimately require further treatment. The combination of carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab (CPB) has demonstrated promising activity in a single-arm study. In the current study, the authors performed a randomized phase 2 study to confirm efficacy and to determine whether adding everolimus would increase the activity of the combination. METHODS: Through the North Central Cancer Treatment Group, a total of 149 patients with unresectable AJCC 6th edition stage IV melanoma were randomized from May 2010 to May 2014 to either CPB or CPB with everolimus (CPBE). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), with secondary endpoints of overall survival (OS), response rate, and tolerability. RESULTS: The CPB and CPBE treatment arms were balanced with regard to age (median age: 59 years vs 58 years) and high lactate dehydrogenase (48% vs 51%), but were unbalanced with regard to sex (male sex: 72% vs 55%; P = .03). Overall, there was no difference noted with regard to PFS, with a median PFS of 5.6 months for CPB versus 5.1 months for CPBE (hazard ratio [HR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.81-1.62 [P = .44]), or for OS, with a median OS of 14.5 months for CPB versus 10.8 months for CPBE (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.84-1.84). The confirmed response rate was 13% for CPB and 23% for CPBE (P = .13). Toxicity was higher for CPBE compared with CPB (83% for grade 3 + and 14% for grade 4 + vs 63% for grade 3 + and 11% for grade 4+, respectively) (toxicities were graded using the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program of the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 4.0]). Common grade 3 + toxicities were neutropenia, leukopenia, and fatigue, which occurred in both treatment arms with comparable frequency. CONCLUSIONS: Both experimental arms demonstrated activity, with a PFS of >5 months. However, the addition of everolimus to CPB failed to improve outcomes, with increased toxicity noted. These findings replicate the moderate antitumor activity of CPB, with future development possibly in combination with targeted or immunotherapy. Cancer 2018;124:537-45. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Neoadjuvant systemic therapy for regionally advanced melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Patients with regionally advanced melanoma are at high risk of distant failure and unlikely to be cured by surgery alone. Neoadjuvant therapy may provide benefit in these patients. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate our experience with neoadjuvant systemic therapy in high-risk stage III patients. METHODS: Retrospective review of patients with advanced stage III disease who received neoadjuvant therapy between August 2009 and August 2016 at Mayo Clinic Rochester. RESULTS: Twenty-three cases met our inclusion criteria, 16 with resectable disease and 7 with unresectable disease. No patients with resectable disease and one patient with borderline resectable disease progressed regionally, prohibiting surgical resection. Five of seven patients with unresectable disease were down-staged to a resectable state. Six of twenty-three (26%) had a CR and five are alive at last follow-up. Fifteen of twenty three patients (65%) progressed with a median progression free survival of 11 months; however, the 5 year overall survival estimate was 84%. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant systemic therapy is a reasonable approach for patients with advanced but resectable/borderline resectable disease and the risk of losing regional control is low. Our data also suggest some patients with unresectable disease will be converted to resectable and a complete clinical response to treatment can be obtained in approximately one quater of patients.

Incidence and Management of Immune-Related Adverse Events in Patients Undergoing Treatment with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The unleashing of the immune system in an effort to fight cancer has proven to be an incredible advance in the war on cancer. However that breakthrough has come with a price in the form of serious and potentially fatal immune-related adverse events (irAEs). RECENT FINDINGS: Rapid recognition and early intervention is imperative to avoid significant morbidity and mortality. Additionally, providers need to be aware that there are still new, rare, and long-term emerging irAEs that were not previously reported in clinical trials. Because of the significant difference between irAEs and those caused by chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy, providers must have a thorough understanding of which events would be considered immune related and require treatment. This review will cover descriptions of the most common and uncommon but serious irAEs experienced by patients on immunotherapy, as well as management of these irAEs.

Phase III double-blind, placebo-controlled study of gabapentin for the prevention of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy, NCCTG N08C3 (Alliance).

BACKGROUND: Despite targeted antiemetics, data support an unmet need related to the management of delayed nausea and vomiting (NV). Promising pilot data informed this phase III trial evaluating gabapentin for delayed NV from highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). METHODS: Participants were randomized to receive prophylactic treatment with 20 mg of dexamethasone and a 5HT3 receptor antagonist (RA) on the day of chemotherapy, followed by gabapentin 300 mg twice a day and dexamethasone (dex) or placebo and dex after HEC. Gabapentin/placebo was started the day of chemotherapy and continued through day 5 for the first chemotherapy cycle, whereas dex was titrated down on days 2-4. The primary end point was complete response (CR), defined as no emesis and no use of rescue medications on days 2-6, using an NV diary. The percentages of those in each group with a CR were compared by Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Four hundred thirty patients were enrolled in this study. Forty-seven percent of patients in the gabapentin arm and 41% in the placebo arm had a CR (P = .23). Mean number of emesis episodes was <0.5 daily, and mean nausea severity was < 2 (mild). In both arms, patient satisfaction with NV control was greater than 8 (with 10 being perfectly satisfied). There were no significant differences in unwanted side effects. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, gabapentin did not significantly improve delayed NV. Patients were satisfied with the control of their nausea and vomiting irrespective of arm. The use of a 5HT3 RA and dexamethasone provided good control of nausea and vomiting for most patients.

Real-world outcomes with immuno-oncology therapies in advanced melanoma: final results of the OPTIMIzE registry study.

Aim: The OPTIMIzE registry study evaluated real-world outcomes in patients with advanced melanoma receiving immuno-oncology therapies. Materials and methods: Data were collected for patients treated with anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1) monotherapy (nivolumab or pembrolizumab; n = 147) or nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 81) from 2015-2017 and followed for ≥3 years. Results: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus anti-PD-1 monotherapy was associated with a nonsignificantly lower risk of death (adjusted HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.54-1.28; p = 0.41), higher disease control rate (72 vs 56%; p = 0.04), and stable quality of life, but more grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (54 vs 26%; p < 0.0001). Conclusion: These results support the use of immuno-oncology therapy in advanced melanoma.

Melanoma is a serious form of skin cancer that develops from melanocytes, which are pigment cells that give the skin, hair, and other tissues their color. At advanced stages of spread, melanoma can be life-threatening. However, immunotherapy, a type of therapy that helps the body's immune system to destroy cancer cells, allows some patients with advanced melanoma to live longer. The OPTIMIzE study looked at how well patients with advanced melanoma did when treated with different immunotherapies. These patients were treated in a real-world setting, such as a doctor's office, and were not participating in a clinical trial. Compared with clinical trials, real-world studies like the OPTIMIzE study may include a more varied group of patients because of the less selective study enrollment requirements. In the OPTIMIzE study, patients were treated with either a single immunotherapy (nivolumab or pembrolizumab alone) or a combination of two immunotherapies (nivolumab plus ipilimumab). Both single and combination immunotherapies were effective and tolerable. Patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab had greater tumor shrinkage than patients receiving nivolumab or pembrolizumab alone, but with more side effects from their treatment. Despite the occurrence of side effects with both single and combination immunotherapies, patients reported that their quality of life remained stable while being treated. The OPTIMIzE study shows that immunotherapy is effective and tolerable for patients with advanced melanoma in the real-world setting. This information may help doctors with selecting treatments for their patients with advanced melanoma. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02780089 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Identification and Characterization of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Induced Toxicities From Electronic Health Records Using Natural Language Processing.

PURPOSE: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized cancer treatment, yet their use is associated with immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Estimating the prevalence and patient impact of these irAEs in the real-world data setting is critical for characterizing the benefit/risk profile of ICI therapies beyond the clinical trial population. Diagnosis codes, such as International Classification of Diseases codes, do not comprehensively illustrate a patient's care journey and offer no insight into drug-irAE causality. This study aims to capture the relationship between ICIs and irAEs more accurately by using augmented curation (AC), a natural language processing-based innovation, on unstructured data in electronic health records. METHODS: In a cohort of 9,290 patients treated with ICIs at Mayo Clinic from 2005 to 2021, we compared the prevalence of irAEs using diagnosis codes and AC models, which classify drug-irAE pairs in clinical notes with implied textual causality. Four illustrative irAEs with high patient impact-myocarditis, encephalitis, pneumonitis, and severe cutaneous adverse reactions, abbreviated as MEPS-were analyzed using corticosteroid administration and ICI discontinuation as proxies of severity. RESULTS: For MEPS, only 70% (n = 118) of patients found by AC were also identified by diagnosis codes. Using AC models, patients with MEPS received corticosteroids for their respective irAE 82% of the time and permanently discontinued the ICI because of the irAE 35.9% (n = 115) of the time. CONCLUSION: Overall, AC models enabled more accurate identification and assessment of patient impact of ICI-induced irAEs not found using diagnosis codes, demonstrating a novel and more efficient strategy to assess real-world clinical outcomes in patients treated with ICIs.

Proton Craniospinal Irradiation with Immunotherapy in Two Patients with Leptomeningeal Disease from Melanoma.

Introduction: Proton craniospinal irradiation (pCSI) is a treatment option for leptomeningeal disease (LMD), which permits whole neuroaxis treatment while minimizing toxicity. Despite this, patients inevitably experience progression. Adding systemic therapy to pCSI may improve outcomes. Methods: In this single-institution retrospective case series, we present the feasibility of treatment with pCSI (30Gy, 10 fractions) and an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) in two sequential patients with LMD from melanoma. Results: The first patient developed LMD related to BRAF V600E-mutant melanoma after prior ICI and BRAF-targeted therapy. After pCSI with concurrent nivolumab, the addition of relatlimab, and BRAF-targeted therapy, he remained alive 7 months after LMD diagnosis despite central nervous system progression. The second patient developed LMD related to BRAF-wildtype melanoma after up-front ICI. He received pCSI with concurrent ipilimumab and nivolumab, then nivolumab maintenance. Though therapy was held for ICI hepatitis, the patient remained progression-free 5 months after LMD diagnosis. Conclusion: Adding an ICI to pCSI is feasible for patients with LMD and demonstrates a tolerable toxicity profile. While prospective evaluation is ultimately warranted, pCSI with ICI may confer survival benefits, even after prior ICI.

A Phase I Trial of Nab-Paclitaxel/Bevacizumab (AB160) Nano-Immunoconjugate Therapy for Gynecologic Malignancies.

PURPOSE: AB160 is a 160-nm nano-immunoconjugate consisting of nab-paclitaxel (ABX) nanoparticles noncovalently coated with bevacizumab (BEV) for targeted delivery into tissues expressing high levels of VEGF. Preclinical data showed that AB160 resulted in greater tumor targeting and tumor inhibition compared with sequential treatment with ABX then BEV. Given individual drug activity, we investigated the safety and toxicity of AB160 in patients with gynecologic cancers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A 3+3 phase I trial was conducted with three potential dose levels in patients with previously treated endometrial, cervical, and platinum-resistant ovarian cancer to ascertain the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). AB160 was administered intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle (ABX 75-175 mg/m2, BEV 30-70 mg/m2). Pharmacokinetic analyses were performed. RESULTS: No dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) were seen among the three dose levels tested. Grade 3/4 toxicities included neutropenia, thromboembolic events, and leukopenia. DL2 (ABX 150 mg/m2, BEV 60 mg/m2) was chosen as the RP2D. Seven of the 19 patients with measurable disease (36.8%) had confirmed partial responses (95% confidence interval, 16.3%-61.6%). Pharmacokinetic analyses demonstrated that AB160 allowed 50% higher paclitaxel dosing and that paclitaxel clearance mirrored that of therapeutic antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: The safety profile and clinical activity of AB160 supports further clinical testing in patients with gynecologic cancers; the RP2D is DL2 (ABX 150 mg/m2, BEV 60 mg/m2).

Neoadjuvant cobimetinib and atezolizumab with or without vemurafenib for high-risk operable Stage III melanoma: the Phase II NeoACTIVATE trial.

Both targeted therapies and immunotherapies provide benefit in resected Stage III melanoma. We hypothesized that the combination of targeted and immunotherapy given prior to therapeutic lymph node dissection (TLND) would be tolerable and drive robust pathologic responses. In NeoACTIVATE (NCT03554083), a Phase II trial, patients with clinically evident resectable Stage III melanoma received either 12 weeks of neoadjuvant vemurafenib, cobimetinib, and atezolizumab (BRAF-mutated, Cohort A, n = 15), or cobimetinib and atezolizumab (BRAF-wild-type, Cohort B, n = 15) followed by TLND and 24 weeks of adjuvant atezolizumab. Here, we report outcomes from the neoadjuvant portion of the trial. Based on intent to treat analysis, pathologic response (≤50% viable tumor) and major pathologic response (complete or near-complete, ≤10% viable tumor) were observed in 86.7% and 66.7% of BRAF-mutated and 53.3% and 33.3% of BRAF-wild-type patients, respectively (primary outcome); these exceeded pre-specified benchmarks of 50% and 30% for major pathologic response. Grade 3 and higher toxicities, primarily dermatologic, occurred in 63% during neoadjuvant treatment (secondary outcome). No surgical delays nor progression to regional unresectability occurred (secondary outcome). Peripheral blood CD8 + TCM cell expansion associated with favorable pathologic responses (exploratory outcome).

A randomized phase 2 study of temozolomide and bevacizumab or nab-paclitaxel, carboplatin, and bevacizumab in patients with unresectable stage IV melanoma : a North Central Cancer Treatment Group study, N0775.

BACKGROUND: Increasing evidence shows chemotherapy in combination with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibition is a clinically active therapy for patients with metastatic melanoma (MM). METHODS: A phase 2 trial was conducted in chemotherapy-naive patients with unresectable stage IV MM who were randomized to temozolomide (200 mg/m(2) on days 1 through 5) and bevacizumab (10 mg/kg intravenously on days 1 and 15) every 28 days (Regimen TB) or nab-paclitaxel (100 mg/m(2) , or 80 mg/m(2) post-addendum 5 secondary to toxicity, on days 1, 8, and 15), bevacizumab (10 mg/kg on days 1 and 15), and carboplatin (area under the curve [AUC] 6 on day 1, or AUC 5 post-addendum 5) every 28 days (Regimen ABC). Accrual goal was 41 patients per regimen. The primary aim of this study was to estimate progression-free survival rate at 6 months (PFS6) in each regimen. A regimen would be considered promising if its PFS6 rate was > 60%. RESULTS: Ninety-three eligible patients (42 TB and 51 ABC) were enrolled. The majority of patients had M1c disease (20 TB and 26 ABC). The median PFS and overall survival times with ABC were 6.7 months and 13.9 months, respectively. Median PFS time and median overall survival with TB were 3.8 months and 12.3 months, respectively. The most common severe toxicities (≥ grade 3) in both regimens were cytopenias, fatigue, and thrombosis. Among the first 41 patients enrolled onto each regimen, PFS6 rate was 32.8% (95% confidence interval: 21.1%-51.2%) for TB and 56.1% (90% confidence interval: 44.7%-70.4%) for ABC. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of bevacizumab to nab-paclitaxel and carboplatin shows promising activity despite tolerability issues.

The use of Ginkgo biloba for the prevention of chemotherapy-related cognitive dysfunction in women receiving adjuvant treatment for breast cancer, N00C9.

PURPOSE: Patients undergoing treatment for cancer often report problems with their cognitive function, which is an essential component of health-related quality of life. Pursuant to this, a two-arm randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase III clinical trial was conducted to evaluate Ginkgo biloba (EGB 761) for the prevention of chemotherapy-related cognitive dysfunction in patients with breast cancer. METHODS: Previously chemotherapy naïve women about to receive adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer were randomized to receive 60 mg of EGB 761 or a matching placebo twice daily. The study agent was to begin before their second cycle of chemotherapy and to be taken throughout chemotherapy and 1 month beyond completion. The primary measure for cognitive function was the High Sensitivity Cognitive Screen (HSCS), with a secondary measure being the Trail Making Tests (TMT) A and B. Subjective assessment of cognitive function was evaluated by the cognitive subscale of the Perceived Health Scale (PHS) and the Profile of Mood States (POMS). Data were collected at baseline and at intervals throughout and after chemotherapy, up to 24 months after completion of adjuvant treatment. The primary statistical analysis included normalized area under the curve (AUC) comparisons of the HSCS, between the arms. Secondary analyses included evaluation of the other measures of cognition as well as correlational analyses between self-report and cognitive testing. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-six women provided evaluable data. There were no significant differences in AUC up to 12 months on the HSCS between arms at the end of chemotherapy or at any other time point after adjuvant treatment. There were also no significant differences in TMT A or B at any data point. Perceived cognitive functions, as measured by the PHS and confusion/bewilderment subscale of the POMS, were not different between arms at the end of chemotherapy. There was also little correlation between self-reported cognition and cognitive testing. No differences were observed in toxicities per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) assessment between Ginkgo biloba and placebo throughout the study; however, after chemotherapy, the placebo group reported worse nausea (p = .05). CONCLUSION: This study did not provide any support for the notion that Ginkgo biloba, at a dose of 60 mg twice a day, can help prevent cognitive changes from chemotherapy. These analyses do provide data to further support the low associations between patients' self-report of cognition and cognitive performance, based on more formal testing.

Triple M Syndrome: Implications for Hematology-Oncology Advanced Practice Providers.

During the past decade, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized the landscape of cancer treatment. ICI-related side effects occur via direct overactivation of the immune system, and patients can experience sym.

SALVO: Single-Arm Trial of Ipilimumab and Nivolumab as Adjuvant Therapy for Resected Mucosal Melanoma.

PURPOSE: Mucosal melanoma is a rare, aggressive form of melanoma with extremely high recurrence rates despite definitive surgical resection with curative intent. Currently there is no consensus on adjuvant therapy. Data on checkpoint inhibitors for adjuvant therapy are lacking. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a single-arm, multicenter clinical trial using "flip dose" ipilimumab (1 mg/kg q3w × 4 cycles), and nivolumab (3 mg/kg q3w × 4 cycles), then nivolumab 480 mg q4w × 11 cycles to complete a year of adjuvant therapy. Participants must have had R0/R1 resection ≤90 days before registration, no prior systemic therapy (adjuvant radiotherapy allowed), ECOG 0/1, and no uncontrolled autoimmune disease or other invasive cancer. Patients were recruited through the Midwest Melanoma Partnership/Hoosier Oncology Network. RESULTS: From September 2017 to August 2021, 35 patients were enrolled. Of these, 29 (83%) had R0 resections, and 7 (20%) received adjuvant radiotherapy. Median age was 67 years, 21 (60.0%) female. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates at 1 and 2 years were 50% [95% confidence interval (CI), 31%-66%] and 37% (95% CI, 19%-55%), respectively. Overall survival rates at 1 and 2 years were 87% (95% CI, 68%-95%) and 68% (95% CI, 46%-83%), respectively. Median RFS was 10.3 months (95% CI, 5.7-25.8). Most common grade 3 toxicities were diarrhea (14%), hypertension (14%), and hyponatremia (11%), with no grade 4/5 toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: Flip-dose ipilimumab and nivolumab after resection of mucosal melanoma is associated with outcomes improved over that of surgical resection alone. Long-term follow-up, subgroup analyses and correlative studies are ongoing.

Plasma Methylated DNA Markers for Melanoma Surveillance.

PURPOSE: Surveillance after primary melanoma treatment aims to detect early signs of low-volume systemic disease. The current standard of care, surveillance imaging, is costly and difficult to access. We therefore sought to develop methylated DNA markers (MDMs) as promising alternatives for disease surveillance. METHODS: We used reduced representation bisulfite sequencing (RRBS) to identify MDMs in DNA samples obtained from metastatic melanoma, benign nevi, and normal skin tissues. The identified MDMs underwent validation in an independent cohort of tissue and buffy coat DNA samples. Subsequently, we tested the validated MDMs in the plasma DNA of patients with metastatic melanoma undergoing surveillance with total body imaging and compared them with cancer-free controls. To estimate the overall predictive accuracy of the MDMs, we used random forest modeling with bootstrap cross-validation. RESULTS: Forty MDMs demonstrated discrimination between melanoma cases and controls consisting of benign nevi and normal skin. Nine MDMs passing biological validation in tissue were run on 77 plasma samples from individuals with a history of metastatic melanoma, 49 of whom had evidence of disease detected by imaging at the time of blood draw, and 100 cancer-free controls. The cross-validated sensitivity of the panel for imaging-positive disease was 80% with a specificity of 100% in cancer-free controls, resulting in an overall AUC of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.81 to 0.96). The survival estimates for patients with melanoma who tested positive for the panel at 6 months and 1 year were 67% and 56%, respectively, while those who tested negative had survival rates of 100% and 92%. CONCLUSION: MDMs identified by RRBS demonstrate a high degree of concordance with imaging results in the plasma of patients with metastatic melanoma. Further prospective studies in larger intended use cohorts are needed to confirm these findings.

A phase I oncolytic virus trial with vesicular stomatitis virus expressing human interferon beta and tyrosinase related protein 1 administered intratumorally and intravenously in uveal melanoma: safety, efficacy, and T cell responses.

Introduction: Metastatic uveal melanoma (MUM) has a poor prognosis and treatment options are limited. These patients do not typically experience durable responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Oncolytic viruses (OV) represent a novel approach to immunotherapy for patients with MUM. Methods: We developed an OV with a Vesicular Stomatitis Virus (VSV) vector modified to express interferon-beta (IFN-ß) and Tyrosinase Related Protein 1 (TYRP1) (VSV-IFNß-TYRP1), and conducted a Phase 1 clinical trial with a 3 + 3 design in patients with MUM. VSV-IFNß-TYRP1 was injected into a liver metastasis, then administered on the same day as a single intravenous (IV) infusion. The primary objective was safety. Efficacy was a secondary objective. Results: 12 patients with previously treated MUM were enrolled. Median follow up was 19.1 months. 4 dose levels (DLs) were evaluated. One patient at DL4 experienced dose limiting toxicities (DLTs), including decreased platelet count (grade 3), increased aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and cytokine release syndrome (CRS). 4 patients had stable disease (SD) and 8 patients had progressive disease (PD). Interferon gamma (IFNγ) ELIspot data showed that more patients developed a T cell response to virus encoded TYRP1 at higher DLs, and a subset of patients also had a response to other melanoma antigens, including gp100, suggesting epitope spreading. 3 of the patients who responded to additional melanoma antigens were next treated with ICIs, and 2 of these patients experienced durable responses. Discussion: Our study found that VSV-IFNß -TYRP1 can be safely administered via intratumoral (IT) and IV routes in a previously treated population of patients with MUM. Although there were no clear objective radiographic responses to VSV-IFNß-TYRP1, dose-dependent immunogenicity to TYRP1 and other melanoma antigens was seen.

In-transit melanoma: an individualized approach.

The majority of locoregional recurrences in melanoma occur in the form of intradermal or subcutaneous local or in-transit metastasis. In-transit melanoma represents contamination of the lymphatic space that, if treated, can result in long-term cure in a subset of patients. The management of in-transit metastases is challenging, since the treatments and extent of disease vary greatly based on the number, depth, location, and distribution of lesions, and on their biological behavior. A number of different treatment options exist, but there is no level 1 evidence to guide clinical decision-making. Herein we present our institutional treatment algorithm, which allows for individualization based on the patient's presentation.

A phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of pilocarpine for vaginal dryness: North Central Cancer Treatment group study N04CA.

Vaginal dryness is a common problem for which effective and safe nonestrogenic treatments are needed. Based on preliminary promising data that pilocarpine attenuated vaginal dryness, the current trial was conducted. A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial design was used to compare pilocarpine, at target doses of 5 mg twice daily and 5 mg four times daily, with a placebo. Vaginal dryness was recorded by patient-completed questionnaires at baseline and weekly for 6 weeks after study initiation. The primary endpoint for this study was the area under the curve summary statistic composed of the longitudinal responses obtained at baseline and through the 6 weeks of treatment to a numerical analogue scale asking patients to rate their perceived amount of vaginal dryness. The primary analysis was carried out by a single t test using a two-side alternative to compare the collective pilocarpine treatment arms with the collective placebo arms. A total of 201 patients enrolled in this trial. The primary analysis, comparing vaginal dryness symptoms in the collective pilocarpine arms against the placebo arm, did not reveal any benefit for the pilocarpine treatment. This finding was confirmed by other secondary analyses. Toxicity evaluation revealed more nausea, sweating, rigors, and urinary frequency with the pilocarpine arms compared with the placebo arm.