Operational classification of cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas based on unsupervised clustering of real cases by experts.

BACKGROUND: There is currently no staging system for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) that is adapted to decision-making and universally used. Experts have unconscious ability to simplify the heterogeneity of clinical situations into a few relevant groups to drive their therapeutic decisions. Therefore, we have used unsupervised clustering of real cases by experts to generate an operational classification of cSCCs, an approach that was successful for basal cell carcinomas. OBJECTIVE: To generate a consensual and operational classification of cSCCs. METHOD: Unsupervised independent clustering of 248 cases of cSCCs considered difficult-to-treat. Eighteen international experts from different specialties classified these cases into what they considered homogeneous clusters useful for management, each with freedom regarding clustering criteria. Convergences and divergences between clustering were analysed using a similarity matrix, the K-mean approach and the average silhouette method. Mathematical modelling was used to look for the best consensual clustering. The operability of the derived classification was validated on 23 new practitioners. RESULTS: Despite the high heterogeneity of the clinical cases, a mathematical consensus was observed. It was best represented by a partition into five clusters, which appeared a posteriori to describe different clinical scenarios. Applicability of this classification was shown by a good concordance (94%) in the allocation of cases between the new practitioners and the 18 experts. An additional group of easy-to-treat cSCC was included, resulting in a six-group final classification: easy-to-treat/complex to treat due to tumour and/or patient characteristics/multiple/locally advanced/regional disease/visceral metastases. CONCLUSION: Given the methodology based on the convergence of unguided intuitive clustering of cases by experts, this new classification is relevant for clinical practice. It does not compete with staging systems, but they may complement each other, whether the objective is to select the best therapeutic approach in tumour boards or to design homogeneous groups for trials.

Antitumor activity of ipilimumab or BRAF ± MEK inhibition after pembrolizumab treatment in patients with advanced melanoma: analysis from KEYNOTE-006.

BACKGROUND: Antitumor activity of ipilimumab or BRAF ± MEK inhibitors (BRAFi ± MEKi) following pembrolizumab administration in melanoma is poorly characterized. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the phase III KEYNOTE-006 study, patients with unresectable stage III/IV melanoma received pembrolizumab (10 mg/kg) once every 2 or 3 weeks (Q3W) or ipilimumab (3 mg/kg) Q3W. The current post hoc analysis evaluates outcomes with ipilimumab or BRAFi ± MEKi as first subsequent systemic therapy after pembrolizumab administration and includes patients who completed or discontinued pembrolizumab after one or more dose. Pembrolizumab arms were pooled. RESULTS: At data cut-off (4 December 2017), median follow-up was 46.9 months. Of 555 pembrolizumab-treated patients, first subsequent therapy was ipilimumab for 103 (18.6%) and BRAFi ± MEKi for 59 (10.6%) [33 received BRAFi + MEKi, 26 BRAFi alone; 37 (62.7%) were BRAFi ± MEKi naïve]. In the subsequent ipilimumab group, ORR with previous pembrolizumab was 17.5% [1 complete response (CR); 17 partial response (PR)]; 79.6% had discontinued pembrolizumab due to progressive disease (PD); median overall survival (OS) was 21.5 months. ORR with subsequent ipilimumab was 15.5%; 11/16 responses (8 CRs; 3 PRs) were ongoing. ORR with subsequent ipilimumab was 9.7% for patients with PD as best response to pembrolizumab. Median OS from ipilimumab initiation was 9.8 months. In the subsequent BRAFi ± MEKi group, ORR with previous pembrolizumab was 13.5% (8 PR); 76.3% had discontinued pembrolizumab due to PD; median OS was 17.9 months. ORR with subsequent BRAFi ± MEKi was 30.5%, 7/18 responses (4 CR, 3 PR) were ongoing. Median OS from BRAFi ± MEKi initiation was 12.9 months. ORR for BRAFi ± MEKi-naïve patients who received subsequent BRAFi ± MEKi was 43.2%; 6/16 were ongoing (3 CR, 3 PR). CONCLUSIONS: Ipilimumab and BRAFi ± MEKi have antitumor activity as first subsequent therapy after pembrolizumab in patients with advanced melanoma.

Pembrolizumab for locally advanced and recurrent/metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (KEYNOTE-629 study): an open-label, nonrandomized, multicenter, phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab demonstrated clinically meaningful and durable antitumor activity with a manageable safety profile in recurrent/metastatic (R/M) cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: KEYNOTE-629 was a global, open-label, nonrandomized, phase II trial of patients with locally advanced (LA) or R/M cSCC conducted at 59 centers. Eligible patients received intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles. Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR), defined as the percentage of patients with a complete (CR) or partial response (PR), by blinded independent central review as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1. Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), disease control rate, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety and tolerability. Efficacy and safety were analyzed in patients who were treated with at least one dose of pembrolizumab. RESULTS: Between 29 November 2017 and 25 September 2019, 159 patients were enrolled and treated with pembrolizumab (LA cohort, n = 54; R/M cohort, n = 105). The median time from the first dose to data cut-off date (29 July 2020) was 14.9 [interquartile range (IQR), 12.6-17.2] months for the LA cohort and 27.2 (IQR, 25.6-29.2) months for the R/M cohort. In the LA cohort, ORR was 50.0% [95% confidence interval (CI), 36.1% to 63.9%], including 16.7% of patients with a CR and 33.3% with a PR. In the R/M cohort, ORR was 35.2% (95% CI, 26.2% to 45.2%), including 10.5% of patients with a CR and 24.8% with a PR. Median DOR was not reached in either cohort. Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 11.9% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The robust antitumor activity of pembrolizumab in both LA and R/M cSCC was confirmed and demonstrated to be durable without unexpected safety signals. Our findings establish pembrolizumab as a promising treatment option for cSCC.

Relevance of body mass index as a predictor of systemic therapy outcomes in metastatic melanoma: analysis of the MelBase French cohort data☆.

BACKGROUND: The 'obesity paradox' suggests that higher body mass index (BMI) is associated with better survival values in metastatic melanoma patients, especially those receiving targeted and immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Higher BMI is also associated with higher incidences of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). This study assesses whether BMI is associated with survival outcomes and adverse events in metastatic melanoma patients with systemic therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicentric retrospective study, conducted from 1 March 2013 to 29 April 2019, enrolled adults with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma from the French multicentric prospective cohort-MelBase (NCT02828202). Patients with first-line chemotherapy and targeted and immune therapy were included. Underweight people and those with metastatic mucosal or ocular melanoma were excluded. BMI was categorized using the World Health Organization criteria. Co-primary outcomes included the association between BMI and progression-free survival and overall survival, stratified by treatment type, sex, and age. Secondary endpoints were the association of BMI with overall response and TRAEs. Multivariate analyses were carried out. RESULTS: A total of 1214 patients were analyzed. Their median age was 66.0 years (range, 53-75). Male predominance was observed [n = 738 (61%)]. Most patients received immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy (63%), followed by targeted therapy (32%), and had stage M1c disease (60.5%). Obese patients represented 22% of the cohort. The median follow-up duration was 13.5 months (range, 6.0-27.5). In the pooled analysis, no positive or negative association between BMI and progression-free survival (P = 0.88)/overall survival (P = 0.25) was observed, regardless of treatment type, sex, and age. These results were nonsignificant in the univariate and multivariate analyses. The objective response rate, according to BMI category, did not differ significantly regardless of age. TRAEs were not associated with BMI. CONCLUSION: The observed lack of an association between BMI and survival demonstrates that BMI is not a valuable marker of systemic treatment-related outcomes in metastatic melanoma. Future approaches might focus on the whole-body distribution.

Not all melanomas are created equal: a review and call for more research into nodular melanoma.

Among the histogenic subtypes of melanoma, nodular melanoma (NM) is the major contributor for thicker and fatal melanomas and it has been associated with melanoma-specific death in thin tumours, highlighting an important subgroup of 'aggressive thin' melanomas. This review provides a synthesis of the distinct characteristics of NM, with respect to epidemiology and risk factors, clinical presentation, histopathology, molecular and dermoscopic aspects, and screening practices. The real challenges are to find better biomarkers of aggressiveness and to know whether the control of such aggressive melanomas can be influenced by targeted interventions such as early detection, drug interventions and preventive strategies.

Position statement on classification of basal cell carcinomas. Part 2: EADO proposal for new operational staging system adapted to basal cell carcinomas.

BACKGROUND: No simple staging system has emerged for basal cell carcinomas (BCCs), since they do not follow the TNM process, and practitioners failed to agree on simple clinical or pathological criteria as a basis for a classification. Operational classification of BCCs is required for decision-making, trials and guidelines. Unsupervised clustering of real cases of difficult-to-treat BCCs (DTT-BCCs; part 1) has demonstrated that experts could blindly agree on a five groups classification of DTT-BCCs based on five patterns of clinical situations. OBJECTIVE: Using this five patterns to generate an operational and comprehensive classification of BCCs. METHOD: Testing practitioner's agreement, when using the five patterns classification to ensure that it is robust enough to be used in the practice. Generating the first version of a staging system of BCCs based on pattern recognition. RESULTS: Sixty-two physicians, including 48 practitioners and the 14 experts who participated in the generation of the five different patterns of DTT-BCCs, agreed on 90% of cases when classifying 199 DTT-BCCs cases using the five patterns classification (part 1) attesting that this classification is understandable and usable in practice. In order to cover the whole field of BCCs, these five groups of DTT-BCCs were added a group representing the huge number of easy-to-treat BCCs, for which sub-classification has little interest, and a group of very rare metastatic cases, resulting in a four-stage and seven-substage staging system of BCCs. CONCLUSION: A practical classification adapted to the specificities of BCCs is proposed. It is the first tumour classification based on pattern recognition of clinical situations, which proves to be consistent and usable. This EADO staging system version 1 will be improved step by step and tested as a decision tool and a prognostic instrument.

Position statement on classification of basal cell carcinomas. Part 1: unsupervised clustering of experts as a way to build an operational classification of advanced basal cell carcinoma based on pattern recognition.

BACKGROUND: No simple classification system has emerged for 'advanced basal cell carcinomas', and more generally for all difficult-to-treat BCCs (DTT-BCCs), due to the heterogeneity of situations, TNM inappropriateness to BCCs, and different approaches of different specialists. OBJECTIVE: To generate an operational classification, using the unconscious ability of experts to simplify the great heterogeneity of the clinical situations into a few relevant groups, which drive their treatment decisions. METHOD: Non-supervised independent and blinded clustering of real clinical cases of DTT-BCCs was used. Fourteen international experts from different specialties independently partitioned 199 patient cases considered 'difficult to treat' into as many clusters they want (≤10), choosing their own criteria for partitioning. Convergences and divergences between the individual partitions were analyzed using the similarity matrix, K-mean approach, and average silhouette method. RESULTS: There was a rather consensual clustering of cases, regardless of the specialty and nationality of the experts. Mathematical analysis showed that consensus between experts was best represented by a partition of DTT-BCCs into five clusters, easily recognized a posteriori as five clear-cut patterns of clinical situations. The concept of 'locally advanced' did not appear consistent between experts. CONCLUSION: Although convergence between experts was not granted, this experiment shows that clinicians dealing with BCCs all tend to work by a similar pattern recognition based on the overall analysis of the situation. This study thus provides the first consensual classification of DTT-BCCs. This experimental approach using mathematical analysis of independent and blinded clustering of cases by experts can probably be applied to many other situations in dermatology and oncology.

Which medical disciplines diagnose and treat melanoma in Europe in 2019? A survey of experts from melanoma centres in 27 European countries.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The incidence of melanoma is increasing. This places significant burden on societies to provide efficient cancer care. The European Cancer Organisation recently published the essential requirements for quality melanoma care. The present study is aimed for the first time to roughly estimate the extent to which these requirements have been met in Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A web-based survey of experts from melanoma centres in 27 European countries was conducted from 1 February to 1 August 2019. Data on diagnostic techniques, surgical and medical treatment, organization of cancer care and education were collected and correlated with national health and economic indicators and mortality-to-incidence ratio (MIR) as a surrogate for survival. Univariate linear regression analysis was performed to evaluate the correlations. SPSS software was used. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: The MIR was lower in countries with a high health expenditure per capita and with a higher numbers of general practitioners (GPs) and surgeons (SURG) per million inhabitants. In these countries, GPs and dermatologists (DER) were involved in melanoma detection; high percentage of DER used dermatoscopy and were involved in the follow-up of all melanoma stages; both medical oncologists (ONC) and dermato-oncologists administered systemic treatments; and patients had better access to sentinel lymph node biopsy and were treated within multidisciplinary tumour boards. CONCLUSION: Based on these first estimates, the greater involvement of GPs in melanoma detection; the greater involvement of highly trained DER in dermatoscopy, dermatosurgery, follow-up and the systemic treatment of melanoma; and the provision of ongoing dermato-oncology training for pathologists, SURG, DER and ONC are necessary to provide an optimal melanoma care pathway. A comprehensive analysis of the melanoma care pathway based on clinical melanoma registries will be needed to more accurately evaluate these first insights.

Which adjuvant treatment for patients with BRAFV600-mutant cutaneous melanoma?

Treatment of patients with melanoma has considerably improved over the past decade and more recently with adjuvant therapies for patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage III (loco-regional metastases) or IV (distant metastases) totally resected melanoma, in order to prevent recurrence. In the adjuvant setting, two options are available to patients with BRAFV600-mutant AJCC stage III totally resected melanoma: anti-PD-1 blockers (nivolumab or pembrolizumab) or BRAF plus MEK inhibitors (dabrafenib plus trametinib). In the absence of comparative studies, it is difficult to determine which of these options is best. Our aim was to review published studies focusing on the management of patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma in the adjuvant setting. We also reviewed the main clinical trials of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors and immunotherapy in advanced (i.e. unresectable metastatic) BRAF-mutant melanoma in an attempt to identify results potentially affecting the management of patients on adjuvants. More adverse events are observed with targeted therapy, but all resolve rapidly upon drug discontinuation, whereas with immune checkpoint blockers some adverse events may persist. New therapeutic strategies are emerging, notably neoadjuvant therapies for stage III patients and adjuvant therapies for stage II patients; the place of the adjuvant strategy amidst all these options will soon be re-evaluated. The choice of adjuvant treatment could influence the choice of subsequent treatments in neo-adjuvant or metastatic settings. This review will lead clinicians to a better understanding of the different adjuvant treatments available for patients with totally resected AJCC stage III and IV BRAFV600-mutant melanoma before considering subsequent treatment strategies.

ESMO consensus conference recommendations on the management of locoregional melanoma: under the auspices of the ESMO Guidelines Committee.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) held a consensus conference on melanoma on 5-7 September 2019 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The conference included a multidisciplinary panel of 32 leading experts in the management of melanoma. The aim of the conference was to develop recommendations on topics that are not covered in detail in the current ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline and where available evidence is either limited or conflicting. The main topics identified for discussion were: (i) the management of locoregional disease; (ii) targeted versus immunotherapies in the adjuvant setting; (iii) targeted versus immunotherapies for the first-line treatment of metastatic melanoma; (iv) when to stop immunotherapy or targeted therapy in the metastatic setting; and (v) systemic versus local treatment of brain metastases. The expert panel was divided into five working groups in order to each address questions relating to one of the five topics outlined above. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the working groups and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This manuscript presents the results relating to the management of locoregional melanoma, including findings from the expert panel discussions, consensus recommendations and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation. All participants approved the final manuscript.

ESMO consensus conference recommendations on the management of metastatic melanoma: under the auspices of the ESMO Guidelines Committee.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) held a consensus conference on melanoma on 5-7 September 2019 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The conference included a multidisciplinary panel of 32 leading experts in the management of melanoma. The aim of the conference was to develop recommendations on topics that are not covered in detail in the current ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline and where available evidence is either limited or conflicting. The main topics identified for discussion were (i) the management of locoregional disease; (ii) targeted versus immunotherapies in the adjuvant setting; (iii) targeted versus immunotherapies for the first-line treatment of metastatic melanoma; (iv) when to stop immunotherapy or targeted therapy in the metastatic setting; and (v) systemic versus local treatment for brain metastases. The expert panel was divided into five working groups to each address questions relating to one of the five topics outlined above. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the working groups and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This manuscript presents the results relating to the management of metastatic melanoma, including findings from the expert panel discussions, consensus recommendations and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation. All participants approved the final manuscript.

Sonidegib and vismodegib in the treatment of patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma: a joint expert opinion.

Sonidegib and vismodegib are hedgehog pathway inhibitors (HhIs) approved for the treatment of advanced basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Until recently, vismodegib was the only targeted treatment available for patients with locally advanced BCC (laBCC) in cases where surgery and radiotherapy are inappropriate. Sonidegib has recently been approved and now presents an alternative treatment option. The clinical differences between the two HhIs in patients with laBCC are unclear, as no head-to-head randomized controlled trials are or will be initiated. Moreover, there were important differences in the designs of their pivotal studies, BOLT (sonidegib) and ERIVANCE (vismodegib), and these differences complicate evidence-based analysis of their relative efficacy and safety profiles. In this paper, a group of clinical experts in the management of laBCC summarizes the clinical and pharmacological profiles of sonidegib and vismodegib based on published data and their own clinical experience. One key difference between the two pivotal studies was the criteria used to assess BCC severity. ERIVANCE (a single-arm phase II trial) used the conventional Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), while the more recent double-blind randomized BOLT trial used the stringent modified RECIST. A preplanned analysis adjusted the outcomes from BOLT with RECIST-like criteria, and this enabled the experts to discuss relative efficacy outcomes for the two treatments. Centrally reviewed objective response rate (ORR) for vismodegib was 47.6% (95% CI: 35.5-60.6) at 21-month follow-up using RECIST. After adjusting with RECIST-like criteria, the ORR for sonidegib according to central review at 18-month follow-up was 60.6% (95% CI: 47.8-72.4). Both treatments were associated with similar patterns of adverse events. Sonidegib and vismodegib share the same efficacy and tolerability profiles, but their pharmacokinetic profiles show several differences, such as volume of distribution and half-life. Further studies are needed to understand how these differences may impact clinical practice.

The evolving field of Dermato-oncology and the role of dermatologists: Position Paper of the EADO, EADV and Task Forces, EDF, IDS, EBDV-UEMS and EORTC Cutaneous Lymphoma Task Force.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of skin cancers has been increasing steadily over the last decades. Although there have been significant breakthroughs in the management of skin cancers with the introduction of novel diagnostic tools and innovative therapies, skin cancer mortality, morbidity and costs heavily burden the society. OBJECTIVE: Members of the European Association of Dermato-Oncology, European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, International Dermoscopy Society, European Dermatology Forum, European Board of Dermatovenereology of the European Union of Medical Specialists and EORTC Cutaneous Lymphoma Task Force have joined this effort to emphasize the fundamental role that the specialist in Dermatology-Venereology has in the diagnosis and management of different types of skin cancer. We review the role of dermatologists in the prevention, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with melanoma, non-melanoma skin cancers and cutaneous lymphomas, and discuss approaches to optimize their involvement in effectively addressing the current needs and priorities of dermato-oncology. DISCUSSION: Dermatologists play a crucial role in virtually all aspects of skin cancer management including the implementation of primary and secondary prevention, the formation of standardized pathways of care for patients, the establishment of specialized skin cancer treatment centres, the coordination of an efficient multidisciplinary team and the setting up of specific follow-up plans for patients. CONCLUSION: Skin cancers represent an important health issue for modern societies. The role of dermatologists is central to improving patient care and outcomes. In view of the emerging diagnostic methods and treatments for early and advanced skin cancer, and considering the increasingly diverse skills, knowledge and expertise needed for managing this heterogeneous group of diseases, dermato-oncology should be considered as a specific subspecialty of Dermatology-Venereology.

[Five years' experience of cosmetic camouflage of disfiguring skin disorders: Patient satisfaction]. / Cinq ans d'expérience d'un atelier de maquillage médical correcteur des dermatoses affichantes : évaluation par la satisfaction des patients.

INTRODUCTION: Living with disfiguring disorders can impair the emotional well-being and relationships of patients as well as their social and professional life. Since 2010, courses in medical cosmetic correction for disfiguring diseases have been conducted at the dermatology department of the Timone University Hospital in Marseille and they form part of an educational program. The aim of this study was to assess the satisfaction of patients taking part in this program. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective study of 55 patients taking part in make-up sessions from January 2010 to December 2014 and subsequently completing a questionnaire. RESULTS: The median patient age was 46 years with most being women (n=49, 89 %). They presented pigmentary disorders (54.5 %), inflammatory diseases (27.3 %) and scars (18.2 %). 75 % of patients stated that they had improved their knowledge and 82 % remarked that the technique was personalized to their needs. The technique was considered as easy by 62 % and reproducible by 87 % of patients. 55 % of patients considered that cosmetic camouflage improved their quality of life and 56 % stated that it helped them accept the gaze of others. CONCLUSION: In our study skin camouflage appears easy to use and meets patient expectations.

Incidence, course, and management of toxicities associated with cobimetinib in combination with vemurafenib in the coBRIM study.

Background: In the coBRIM phase III trial, the addition of cobimetinib, an MEK inhibitor, to vemurafenib, a BRAF inhibitor, significantly improved progression-free survival [hazard ratio (HR), 0.58; P < 0.0001] and overall survival (HR, 0.70; P = 0.005) in advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma. Here, we report on the incidence, course, and management of key adverse events (AEs) in the coBRIM study. Patients and methods: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive vemurafenib (960 mg twice a day) and either cobimetinib (60 mg once a day, 21 days on/7 days off) or placebo. In addition to standard safety evaluations, patients underwent regular ophthalmic, cardiac, and dermatologic surveillance examinations. Results: Of 495 patients recruited to the study, 493 patients received treatment and constituted the safety population (cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib, 247; vemurafenib, 246). At data cut-off (30 September 2015), median follow-up was 18.5 months. Nearly every patient experienced an AE. In patients who received cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib, the frequency of grade ≥3 AEs was higher than in patients who received vemurafenib alone (75% versus 61%). Most AEs, including grade ≥3 AEs, occurred within the first treatment cycle. After the first cycle (28 days), the incidence of common AEs (rash, diarrhoea, photosensitivity, elevated creatine phosphokinase, serous retinopathy, pyrexia, and liver laboratory abnormalities) decreased substantially over time. Most AEs were managed conservatively by supportive care measures, dose modifications of study treatment, and, occasionally, permanent treatment discontinuation. Conclusions: These data indicate that most AEs arising from treatment with cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib generally occur early in the treatment course, are mild or moderate and are manageable by patient monitoring, dose modification and supportive care. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01689519.

Dabrafenib plus trametinib versus dabrafenib monotherapy in patients with metastatic BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma: long-term survival and safety analysis of a phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Previous analysis of COMBI-d (NCT01584648) demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with combination dabrafenib and trametinib versus dabrafenib monotherapy in BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. This study was continued to assess 3-year landmark efficacy and safety after ≥36-month follow-up for all living patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This double-blind, phase 3 study enrolled previously untreated patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma. Patients were randomized to receive dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) plus trametinib (2 mg once daily) or dabrafenib plus placebo. The primary endpoint was PFS; secondary endpoints were OS, overall response, duration of response, safety, and pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: Between 4 May and 30 November 2012, a total of 423 of 947 screened patients were randomly assigned to receive dabrafenib plus trametinib (n = 211) or dabrafenib monotherapy (n = 212). At data cut-off (15 February 2016), outcomes remained superior with the combination: 3-year PFS was 22% with dabrafenib plus trametinib versus 12% with monotherapy, and 3-year OS was 44% versus 32%, respectively. Twenty-five patients receiving monotherapy crossed over to combination therapy, with continued follow-up under the monotherapy arm (per intent-to-treat principle). Of combination-arm patients alive at 3 years, 58% remained on dabrafenib plus trametinib. Three-year OS with the combination reached 62% in the most favourable subgroup (normal lactate dehydrogenase and <3 organ sites with metastasis) versus only 25% in the unfavourable subgroup (elevated lactate dehydrogenase). The dabrafenib plus trametinib safety profile was consistent with previous clinical trial observations, and no new safety signals were detected with long-term use. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that durable (≥3 years) survival is achievable with dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma and support long-term first-line use of the combination in this setting.

[Evaluation of practices in the management of scabies in children]. / Évaluation des pratiques dans la prise en charge de la gale chez les enfants.

BACKGROUND: Scabies has been on the rise in France in recent years and has posed therapeutic problems, mainly due to the withdrawal of benzyl benzoate. The objective of this study was to describe prescribing practices for scabies in children. METHODS: A national survey was conducted by means of a standardized questionnaire covering various clinical situations of scabies and the drugs used preferentially according to age, which was sent out between December 2014 and March 2015 to members of the clinical research group of the French Society of Paediatric Dermatology. RESULTS: Of the 38 experts contacted, 20 replied. For a typical case of scabies, 55% of the experts initially prescribed oral ivermectin for children aged 6 years, 15% prescribed ivermectin in children aged 2 years, and 5% in infants aged 3 months. Ivermectin was more widely prescribed after failure of prior treatment or recurrence of scabies, on skin lesions or impetigo, if precarious, especially for profuse hyperkeratotic scabies. A total of 35% of the experts reported no prescribing restrictions with regard to patient age or weight. Discrepancies were observed concerning the mode of administration and the time between consecutive doses. Esdepallethrin remained the preferred local treatment among the experts (38% of all topical prescriptions) except in asthmatic children, while permethrin was the least-prescribed topical agent. DISCUSSION: This study confirms the heterogeneity of our practices. Formal expert recommendations are awaited, particularly concerning the use of ivermectin in infants.

First-in-human phase I study of the DNA-repair inhibitor DT01 in combination with radiotherapy in patients with skin metastases from melanoma.

BACKGROUND: DT01 is a DNA-repair inhibitor preventing recruitment of DNA-repair enzymes at damage sites. Safety, pharmacokinetics and preliminary efficacy through intratumoural and peritumoural injections of DT01 were evaluated in combination with radiotherapy in a first-in-human phase I trial in patients with unresectable skin metastases from melanoma. METHODS: Twenty-three patients were included and received radiotherapy (30 Gy in 10 sessions) on all selected tumour lesions, comprising of two lesions injected with DT01 three times a week during the 2 weeks of radiotherapy. DT01 dose levels of 16, 32, 48, 64 and 96 mg were used, in a 3+3 dose escalation design, with an expansion cohort at 96 mg. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 180 days. All patients were evaluable for safety and pharmacokinetics. No dose-limiting toxicity was observed and the maximum-tolerated dose was not reached. Most frequent adverse events were reversible grades 1 and 2 injection site reactions. Pharmacokinetic analyses demonstrated a systemic passage of DT01. Twenty-one patients were evaluable for efficacy on 76 lesions. Objective response was observed in 45 lesions (59%), including 23 complete responses (30%). CONCLUSIONS: Intratumoural and peritumoural DT01 in combination with radiotherapy is safe and pharmacokinetic analyses suggest a systemic passage of DT01.

Prospective assessment of a gene signature potentially predictive of clinical benefit in metastatic melanoma patients following MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic (PREDICT).

BACKGROUND: Genomic profiling of tumor tissue may aid in identifying predictive or prognostic gene signatures (GS) in some cancers. Retrospective gene expression profiling of melanoma and non-small-cell lung cancer led to the characterization of a GS associated with clinical benefit, including improved overall survival (OS), following immunization with the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic. The goal of the present study was to prospectively evaluate the predictive value of the previously characterized GS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An open-label prospective phase II trial ('PREDICT') in patients with MAGE-A3-positive unresectable stage IIIB-C/IV-M1a melanoma. RESULTS: Of 123 subjects who received the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic, 71 (58.7%) displayed the predictive GS (GS+). The 1-year OS rate was 83.1%/83.3% in the GS+/GS- populations. The rate of progression-free survival at 12 months was 5.8%/4.1% in GS+/GS- patients. The median time-to-treatment failure was 2.7/2.4 months (GS+/GS-). There was one complete response (GS-) and two partial responses (GS+). The MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic was similarly immunogenic in both populations and had a clinically acceptable safety profile. CONCLUSION: Treatment of patients with MAGE-A3-positive unresectable stage IIIB-C/IV-M1a melanoma with the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic demonstrated an overall 1-year OS rate of 83.5%. GS- and GS+ patients had similar 1-year OS rates, indicating that in this study, GS was not predictive of outcome. Unexpectedly, the objective response rate was lower in this study than in other studies carried out in the same setting with the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic. Investigation of a GS to predict clinical benefit to adjuvant MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic treatment is ongoing in another melanoma study.This study is registered at www.clinicatrials.gov NCT00942162.