Final Results for Adjuvant Dabrafenib plus Trametinib in Stage III Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: The 5-year results of this trial showed that adjuvant therapy with dabrafenib plus trametinib resulted in longer relapse-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival than placebo among patients with BRAF V600-mutated stage III melanoma. Longer-term data were needed, including data regarding overall survival. METHODS: We randomly assigned 870 patients with resected stage III melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations to receive 12 months of dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) plus trametinib (2 mg once daily) or two matched placebos. Here, we report the final results of this trial, including results for overall survival, melanoma-specific survival, relapse-free survival, and distant metastasis-free survival. RESULTS: The median duration of follow-up was 8.33 years for dabrafenib plus trametinib and 6.87 years for placebo. Kaplan-Meier estimates for overall survival favored dabrafenib plus trametinib over placebo, although the benefit was not significant (hazard ratio for death, 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 to 1.01; P = 0.06 by stratified log-rank test). A consistent survival benefit was seen across several prespecified subgroups, including the 792 patients with melanoma with a BRAF V600E mutation (hazard ratio for death, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.96). Relapse-free survival favored dabrafenib plus trametinib over placebo (hazard ratio for relapse or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.63), as did distant metastasis-free survival (hazard ratio for distant metastasis or death, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.71). No new safety signals were reported, a finding consistent with previous trial reports. CONCLUSIONS: After nearly 10 years of follow-up, adjuvant therapy with dabrafenib plus trametinib was associated with better relapse-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival than placebo among patients with resected stage III melanoma. The analysis of overall survival showed that the risk of death was 20% lower with combination therapy than with placebo, but the benefit was not significant. Among patients with melanoma with a BRAF V600E mutation, the results suggest that the risk of death was 25% lower with combination therapy. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; COMBI-AD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01682083; EudraCT number, 2012-001266-15.).

Adjuvant pembrolizumab versus placebo in resected stage III melanoma (EORTC 1325-MG/KEYNOTE-054): long-term, health-related quality-of-life results from a double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 1325-MG/KEYNOTE-054 study, adjuvant pembrolizumab improved recurrence-free survival and distant-metastasis-free survival in patients with resected stage III melanoma. Earlier results showed no effect of pembrolizumab on health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Little is known about HRQOL after completion of treatment with pembrolizumab, an important research area concerning patients who are likely to become long-term survivors. This study reports long-term HRQOL results. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial compared adjuvant pembrolizumab with placebo in patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC resected cutaneous melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 1 or 0, recruited from 123 academic centres and community hospitals in 23 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a minimisation technique stratified for stage and geographical region to receive 200 mg of intravenous pembrolizumab or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 18 doses. Investigators, patients, and those collecting or analysing data were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint of the trial was recurrence-free survival (reported elsewhere). HRQOL was a prespecified exploratory endpoint, measured with the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30. All patients with a baseline HRQOL evaluation available who were alive 108 weeks from randomisation were included in this analysis of long-term HRQOL. Long-term HRQOL included assessments measured every 6 months between 108 weeks and 48 months after randomisation. The threshold of clinical relevance for all HRQOL scales used was an average change of 5 points. The trial is ongoing, recruitment is completed, and HRQOL data collection is finalised. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02362594, and EudraCT, 2014-004944-37. FINDINGS: Between Aug 26, 2015, and Nov 14, 2016, 1019 patients were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab (n=514) or placebo (n=505). Completion of the HRQOL evaluation at baseline exceeded 90% (481 [94%] patients in the pembrolizumab group and 467 [92%] in the placebo group), and ranged between 60% and 90% for post-baseline timepoints. Among patients with a baseline HRQOL evaluation, 365 (39%) were female and 583 (61%) were male. The mean change from baseline to long-term HRQOL was -0·56 (95% CI -2·33 to 1·22) in the pembrolizumab group and 1·63 (-0·12 to 3·38) in the placebo group. The difference between the two groups was -2·19 (-4·65 to 0·27, p=0·081). Differences for all other scales were smaller than 5 and not statistically significant. INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant pembrolizumab did not have a significant impact on long-term HRQOL compared with placebo in patients with resected stage III melanoma. These findings, together with earlier results on efficacy and HRQOL, support the use of pembrolizumab in this setting. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocyte Recognition in Primary Melanoma by Deep Learning Convolutional Neural Network.

The presence of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) is associated with a favorable prognosis of primary melanoma (PM). Recently, artificial intelligence (AI)-based approach in digital pathology was proposed for the standardized assessment of TILs on hematoxylin and eosin-stained whole slide images (WSIs). Herein, the study applied a new convolution neural network (CNN) analysis of PM WSIs to automatically assess the infiltration of TILs and extract a TIL score. A CNN was trained and validated in a retrospective cohort of 307 PMs including a training set (237 WSIs, 57,758 patches) and an independent testing set (70 WSIs, 29,533 patches). An AI-based TIL density index (AI-TIL) was identified after the classification of tumor patches by the presence or absence of TILs. The proposed CNN showed high performance in recognizing TILs in PM WSIs, showing 100% specificity and sensitivity on the testing set. The AI-based TIL index correlated with conventional TIL evaluation and clinical outcome. The AI-TIL index was an independent prognostic marker associated directly with a favorable prognosis. A fully automated and standardized AI-TIL appeared to be superior to conventional methods at differentiating the PM clinical outcome. Further studies are required to develop an easy-to-use tool to assist pathologists to assess TILs in the clinical evaluation of solid tumors.

Targeting inflamed and non-inflamed melanomas: biological background and clinical challenges.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have demonstrated impressive antitumor activity in patients with advanced and early stage melanoma, thus improving long-term survival outcomes. However, most patients derive limited benefit from immunotherapy, due to the development of primary, adaptive, or acquired resistance mechanisms. Immunotherapy resistance is a complex phenomenon that depends on genetic and epigenetic mechanisms which, in turn, drive the interplay between cancer cells and the tumor microenvironment (TME). Immunologically "cold" (i.e. non-inflamed) tumors lack or have few tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) as a result of low tumor mutational burden (TMB), defective antigen presentation, or physical barriers to lymphocyte migration, resulting in a minimal benefit from immunotherapy. In contrast, in most cases immunologically "hot" (i.e. inflamed) tumors display high TMB, implying a higher load of neoantigens and increased programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, with a consequently higher rate of TILs. However, the presence of TILs does not necessarily denote the tumor as immunologically "hot", since the presence of tumor-specific CD8+ T cells persistently exposed to antigenic stimulation induces a dysfunctional state called "exhaustion", which leads to a reduced response to immunotherapy. In recent years, efforts have been made to characterize mechanisms of resistance to immunotherapy, and to investigate strategies to overcome treatment resistance. Indeed, predictors of response and toxicity to immunotherapy are still lacking and, to date, there are no reliable predictive biomarkers to select patients according to baseline clinical, histological, or genomic characteristics. In this review, we will focus on the morphologic and immunohistochemical characteristics of the TME, and on the molecular determinants of resistance to immunotherapy, differentiating between inflamed and non-inflamed melanomas. Then, we will provide a thorough overview of preclinical data on genetic and epigenetic mechanisms with a potential impact on the immune response and patient outcome. Finally, we will focus our attention on the role of potential biomarkers in determining disease response to immunotherapy, in the adjuvant and metastatic setting, providing an insight into current and future research in this field.

Acquired Resistance to Clinical Cancer Therapy: A Twist in Physiological Signaling.

Although modern therapeutic strategies have brought significant progress to cancer care in the last 30 years, drug resistance to targeted monotherapies has emerged as a major challenge. Aberrant regulation of multiple physiological signaling pathways indispensable for developmental and metabolic homeostasis, such as hyperactivation of pro-survival signaling axes, loss of suppressive regulations, and impaired functionalities of the immune system, have been extensively investigated aiming to understand the diversity of molecular mechanisms that underlie cancer development and progression. In this review, we intend to discuss the molecular mechanisms of how conventional physiological signal transduction confers to acquired drug resistance in cancer patients. We will particularly focus on protooncogenic receptor kinase inhibition-elicited tumor cell adaptation through two major core downstream signaling cascades, the PI3K/Akt and MAPK pathways. These pathways are crucial for cell growth and differentiation and are frequently hyperactivated during tumorigenesis. In addition, we also emphasize the emerging roles of the deregulated host immune system that may actively promote cancer progression and attenuate immunosurveillance in cancer therapies. Understanding these mechanisms may help to develop more effective therapeutic strategies that are able to keep the tumor in check and even possibly turn cancer into a chronic disease.

Spatial Proximity and Relative Distribution of Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes and Macrophages Predict Survival in Melanoma.

Tumor microenvironment plays a crucial role in primary cutaneous melanoma (CM) progression. Although the role of tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) density has been known for a long time, its spatial distribution and impact with or without tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) remain controversial. Herein, we investigated spatial proximity between tumor cells and immune cells in 113 primary CM and its correlation with disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS). The study cohort included clinical stage II (n = 79) and stage III (n = 34) primary CM with a Breslow thickness of >2 mm (with a median age of 64 years, including 72 men and 41 women). In univariate models, patients with SOX10+ melanoma cells with high proximity to CD8+ TILs in a 20 µm radius showed longer DFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.36-0.93; P = .025) and OS (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32-0.92; P = .023). Furthermore, at multivariate combined analysis, patients with SOX10+ melanoma cells with high proximity to CD8+ TILs or low proximity to CD163+ TAMs in a 20 µm radius showed an increased OS (aHR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.14-0.96; P = .04) compared with melanoma patients with low proximity to CD8+ TILs or high proximity to CD163+ TAMs. In a subgroup analysis including 92 patients, a significant negative impact on DFS (aHR, 4.49; 95% CI, 1.73-11.64; P = .002) and OS (aHR, 3.97; 95% CI, 1.37-11.49; P = .01) was observed in sentinel lymph node (SLN)-negative patients with a high proximity of CD163+ TAMs to CD8+ TILs. These findings could help identify high-risk patients in the context of thick melanoma and a negative SLN. Our study suggests the importance of quantifying not only the density of immune cells but also the individual and combined relative spatial distributions of tumor cells and immune cells for clinical outcomes in SLN-negative primary CM patients.

The prognostic role of mitotic rate in cutaneous malignant melanoma: Evidence from a multicenter study on behalf of the Italian Melanoma Intergroup.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to improve the understanding of the prognostic value of tumor mitotic rate (TMR) in cutaneous melanoma and assessed its significance as a predictor for overall, melanoma-specific, and recurrence-free survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective multicenter Italian cohort study of 13,016 patients diagnosed with and treated for invasive primary melanoma between 2005 and 2020 with median follow-up of 5.5 years. The survival probability was assessed by Kaplan-Meier method, hazard ratios (HRs), and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) of all-cause mortality and recurrence/death by multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Higher dermal mitoses number was associated with decreased overall survival. Among patients with TMR 0/mm2 , 1/mm2 , 2/mm2 -3/mm2 , 4/mm2 -10/mm2 , and >10/mm2 , 5-year overall survival (OS) was 97.3%, 93.6%, 88.3%, 73.0%, and 60.9%, respectively. In multivariate analyses, compared to TMR of 0/mm2 , HRs for all-cause mortality were 1.35 (95% CI, 1.08-1.68), 1.70 (95% CI, 1.40-2.07), 2.04 (95% CI, 1.67-2.49), and 2.39 (95% CI, 1.90-3.00) for 1 mitoses/mm2 , 2 mitoses/mm2 -3 mitoses/mm2 , 4 mitoses/mm2 -10 mitoses/mm2 , and >10 mitoses/mm2 , respectively. A similar increase in risks was observed in melanoma-specific survival (MSS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). The HRs for MSS and RFS for the highest compared to the lowest TMR category were 3.01 (95% CI, 2.20-4.11) and 2.26 (95% CI, 1.88-2.73), respectively. Sentinel lymph-node biopsy positivity was significantly associated with TMR increase even with adjustment for several potential confounders. CONCLUSIONS: A clear association was demonstrated between an increasing TMR and decreased OS, MSS, and RFS, suggesting a reconsideration of TMR prognostic role for future inclusion in the melanoma staging system. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: The 8th American Joint Committee on Cancer for melanoma staging removed tumor mitotic rate (TMR) from the staging criteria for T1 melanomas, giving way to ulceration and tumor thickness as stronger prognostic predictors. However, it is still recommended that TMR should be assessed and recorded in all primary invasive melanomas. In a large retrospective multicenter study on primary invasive melanomas, we investigated the prognostic value of TMR to assess its significance as survival predictor. Our results showed a clear association between increasing TMR and decreased patients' survival, suggesting that TMR should be considered for inclusion in the melanoma staging system.

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.

Five-Year Analysis of Adjuvant Dabrafenib plus Trametinib in Stage III Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: In the previously reported primary analysis of this phase 3 trial, 12 months of adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib resulted in significantly longer relapse-free survival than placebo in patients with resected stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations. To confirm the stability of the relapse-free survival benefit, longer-term data were needed. METHODS: We randomly assigned 870 patients who had resected stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations to receive 12 months of oral dabrafenib (at a dose of 150 mg twice daily) plus trametinib (2 mg once daily) or two matched placebos. The primary end point was relapse-free survival. Here, we report 5-year results for relapse-free survival and survival without distant metastasis as the site of the first relapse. Overall survival was not analyzed, since the required number of events to trigger the final overall survival analysis had not been reached. RESULTS: The minimum duration of follow-up was 59 months (median patient follow-up, 60 months for dabrafenib plus trametinib and 58 months for placebo). At 5 years, the percentage of patients who were alive without relapse was 52% (95% confidence interval [CI], 48 to 58) with dabrafenib plus trametinib and 36% (95% CI, 32 to 41) with placebo (hazard ratio for relapse or death, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.61). The percentage of patients who were alive without distant metastasis was 65% (95% CI, 61 to 71) with dabrafenib plus trametinib and 54% (95% CI, 49 to 60) with placebo (hazard ratio for distant metastasis or death, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.70). No clinically meaningful between-group difference in the incidence or severity of serious adverse events was reported during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: In the 5-year follow-up of a phase 3 trial involving patients who had resected stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations, 12 months of adjuvant therapy with dabrafenib plus trametinib resulted in a longer duration of survival without relapse or distant metastasis than placebo with no apparent long-term toxic effects. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; COMBI-AD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01682083; EudraCT number, 2012-001266-15.).

The "Great Debate" at Melanoma Bridge 2022, Naples, December 1st-3rd, 2022.

The Great Debate session at the 2022 Melanoma Bridge congress (December 1-3) featured counterpoint views from leading experts on five contemporary topics of debate in the management of melanoma. The debates considered the choice of anti-lymphocyte-activation gene (LAG)-3 therapy or ipilimumab in combination with anti-programmed death (PD)-1 therapy, whether anti-PD-1 monotherapy is still acceptable as a comparator arm in clinical trials, whether adjuvant treatment of melanoma is still a useful treatment option, the role of adjuvant therapy in stage II melanoma, what role surgery will continue to have in the treatment of melanoma. As is customary in the Melanoma Bridge Great Debates, the speakers are invited by the meeting Chairs to express one side of the assigned debate and the opinions given may not fully reflect personal views. Audiences voted in favour of either side of the argument both before and after each debate.

European e-Delphi process to define expert consensus on electrochemotherapy treatment indications, procedural aspects, and quality indicators in melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Skin metastases are an important co-morbidity in melanoma. Despite broad adoption, electrochemotherapy implementation is hindered by a lack of treatment indications, uncertainty regarding procedural aspects, and the absence of quality indicators. An expert consensus may harmonize the approach among centres and facilitate comparison with other therapies. METHODS: An interdisciplinary panel was recruited for a three-round e-Delphi survey. A literature-based 113-item questionnaire was proposed to 160 professionals from 53 European centres. Participants rated each item for relevance and degree of agreement on a five-point Likert scale, and received anonymous controlled feedback to allow revision. The items that reached concordant agreement in two successive iterations were included in the final consensus list. In the third round, quality indicator benchmarks were defined using a real-time Delphi method. RESULTS: The initial working group included 122 respondents, of whom 100 (82 per cent) completed the first round, thus qualifying for inclusion in the expert panel (49 surgeons, 29 dermatologists, 15 medical oncologists, three radiotherapists, two nurse specialists, two clinician scientists). The completion rate was 97 per cent (97 of 100) and 93 per cent (90 of 97) in the second and third rounds respectively. The final consensus list included 54 statements with benchmarks (treatment indications, (37); procedural aspects, (1); quality indicators, (16)). CONCLUSION: An expert panel achieved consensus on the use of electrochemotherapy in melanoma, with a core set of statements providing general direction to electrochemotherapy users to refine indications, align clinical practices, and promote quality assurance programmes and local audits. The residual controversial topics set future research priorities to improve patient care.

Electrochemotherapy is an effective locoregional therapy for skin metastases from melanoma, a problem faced by almost half of patients with metastatic disease. The lack of comparative studies and the heterogeneity of its clinical application among centres make it challenging to support consistent, evidence-based recommendations. To address this unmet need, a three-round online survey was conducted to establish a consensus on treatment indications, standard operating procedures, and quality indicators. In the survey, a panel of 100 European melanoma experts agreed on 56 statements that can be used to improve patient selection, homogenize treatment application, and monitor outcomes.

Pathology of Immunotherapy-induced Responses in Cutaneous Melanoma: Current Evidences and Future Perspectives.

Over the last years, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have demonstrated remarkable anti-tumor activity and beneficial effects in patients with early and advanced melanoma. However, ICIs provide clinical benefit only in a minority of patients due to primary and/or acquired resistance mechanisms. Immunotherapy resistance is a complex phenomenon relying on genetic and epigenetic factors, which ultimately influence the interplay between cancer cells and the tumor microenvironment. Information is accumulating on the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying the production of resistance and the resulting diminished therapeutic efficacy. In addition, current knowledge on predictors of response and toxicity to immunotherapy and on biomarkers that reliably identify resistant patients is in progress. In this review, we will focus on the tumor microenvironment changes induced by ICIs in melanoma, summarizing the available evidence of clinical trials in the neoadjuvant and metastatic setting. We will also overview the role of potential biomarkers in predicting disease response to ICIs, providing insight into current and future research in this field.

COLUMBUS-AD: phase III study of adjuvant encorafenib + binimetinib in resected stage IIB/IIC BRAF V600-mutated melanoma.

Stage IIB/IIC melanoma has a high risk of recurrence after surgical resection. While, for decades, surgery was the only option for high-risk stage II disease in most countries, adjuvant therapies now exist. Anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) antibodies significantly improve recurrence-free survival versus placebo in patients with fully resected stage IIB/IIC melanoma. Combined BRAF MEK inhibitor therapy showed benefits in high-risk stage III and advanced disease; however, its role in patients with fully resected stage BRAF-mutated IIB/IIC melanoma is still unknown. Here we describe the rationale and design of the ongoing randomized, placebo-controlled COLUMBUS-AD trial, the first study of a BRAF-MEK inhibitor combination therapy (encorafenib + binimetinib) in patients with BRAF V600-mutated stage IIB/IIC melanoma.

Melanoma is a type of skin cancer. Although most stage II melanomas (cancer affecting the first two layers of skin) can be cured with surgery, the risk of the cancer returning and spreading to other areas of the body is high in some patients with stage IIB/IIC melanoma. Furthermore, once the melanoma has spread, it is much more difficult to treat successfully and remove all the cancer cells from the body. Some melanomas have a DNA alteration (or mutation) in what is known as the BRAF gene. This mutation can be identified by testing a sample of the tumor tissue removed during a biopsy or surgery. Testing for BRAF mutations at diagnosis can help ensure that patients receive the most appropriate treatment for their cancer. In some countries, surgery is the only option for patients with stage II melanoma, while in other countries, patients may be offered additional (adjuvant) anticancer treatment with immunotherapy (agents that work with the immune system to kill cancer cells). While immunotherapy can reduce the risk of melanoma recurrence, persistent, long-term toxicities are common and the use of this treatment in all stage IIB/IIC melanoma patients is not always possible. Here, we describe the rationale and design of an ongoing clinical trial (COLUMBUS-AD), which will be the first study (to our knowledge) to investigate the efficacy and safety of a treatment that specifically targets cancers with BRAF mutations (i.e., the BRAF-MEK inhibitor combination of the drugs encorafenib and binimetinib) in patients with BRAF-mutated stage IIB/IIC melanoma. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05270044 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

COLUMBUS 5-year update: a randomized, open-label, phase III trial of encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib in patients with BRAF.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: Here, we summarize the 5-year results from part 1 of the COLUMBUS clinical study, which looked at the combination treatment of encorafenib plus binimetinib in people with a specific type of skin cancer called melanoma. Encorafenib (BRAFTOVI®) and binimetinib (MEKTOVI®) are medicines used to treat a type of melanoma that has a change in the BRAF gene, called advanced or metastatic BRAF V600-mutant melanoma. Participants with advanced or metastatic BRAF V600-mutant melanoma took either encorafenib plus binimetinib together (COMBO group), compared with encorafenib alone (ENCO group) or vemurafenib (ZELBORAF®) alone (VEMU group). WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: In this 5-year update, more participants in the COMBO group were alive for longer without their disease getting worse after 5 years than those in the VEMU and ENCO groups. Patients in the COMBO group were alive for longer without their disease getting worse when they: Had less advanced cancer Were able to do more daily activities Had normal lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels Had fewer organs with tumors before treatment After treatment, fewer participants in the COMBO group received additional anticancer treatment than participants in the VEMU and ENCO groups. The number of participants who reported severe side effects was similar for each treatment. The side effects caused by the drugs in the COMBO group decreased over time. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: Overall, this 5-year update confirmed that people with BRAF V600-mutant melanoma that has spread to other parts of the body and who took encorafenib plus binimetinib were alive for longer without their disease getting worse than those who took vemurafenib or encorafenib alone. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01909453 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

BRAFV600 variant allele frequency predicts outcome in metastatic melanoma patients treated with BRAF and MEK inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic impact of variant allele frequency (VAF) on clinical outcome in BRAFV600 mutated metastatic melanoma patients (MMPs) receiving BRAF (BRAFi) and MEK inhibitors (MEKi) is unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of MMPs receiving first line BRAFi and MEKi was identified by inspecting dedicated databases of three Italian Melanoma Intergroup centres. VAF was determined by next generation sequencing in pre-treatment baseline tissue samples. Correlation between VAF and BRAF copy number variation was analysed in an ancillary study by using a training and a validation cohort of melanoma tissue samples and cell lines. RESULTS: Overall, 107 MMPs were included in the study. The VAF cut-off determined by ROC curve was 41.3%. At multivariate analysis, progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly shorter in patients with M1c/M1d [HR 2.25 (95% CI 1.41-3.6, p < 0.01)], in those with VAF >41.3% [HR 1.62 (95% CI 1.04-2.54, p < 0.05)] and in those with ECOG PS ≥1 [HR 1.82 (95% CI 1.15-2.88, p < 0.05)]. Overall survival (OS) was significantly shorter in patients with M1c/M1d [HR 2.01 (95% CI 1.25-3.25, p < 0.01)]. Furthermore, OS was shorter in patients with VAF >41.3% [HR 1.46 (95% CI 0.93-2.29, p = 0.06)] and in patients with ECOG PS ≥1 [HR 1.52 (95% CI 0.94-2.87, p = 0.14)]. BRAF gene amplification was found in 11% and 7% of samples in the training and validation cohort, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: High VAF is an independent poor prognostic factor in MMP receiving BRAFi and MEKi. High VAF and BRAF amplification coexist in 7%-11% of patients.

Five-Year Outcomes with Dabrafenib plus Trametinib in Metastatic Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Patients who have unresectable or metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600E or V600K mutation have prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival when receiving treatment with BRAF inhibitors plus MEK inhibitors. However, long-term clinical outcomes in these patients remain undefined. To determine 5-year survival rates and clinical characteristics of the patients with durable benefit, we sought to review long-term data from randomized trials of combination therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors. METHODS: We analyzed pooled extended-survival data from two trials involving previously untreated patients who had received BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib (at a dose of 150 mg twice daily) plus MEK inhibitor trametinib (2 mg once daily) in the COMBI-d and COMBI-v trials. The median duration of follow-up was 22 months (range, 0 to 76). The primary end points in the COMBI-d and COMBI-v trials were progression-free survival and overall survival, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 563 patients were randomly assigned to receive dabrafenib plus trametinib (211 in the COMBI-d trial and 352 in the COMBI-v trial). The progression-free survival rates were 21% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17 to 24) at 4 years and 19% (95% CI, 15 to 22) at 5 years. The overall survival rates were 37% (95% CI, 33 to 42) at 4 years and 34% (95% CI, 30 to 38) at 5 years. In multivariate analysis, several baseline factors (e.g., performance status, age, sex, number of organ sites with metastasis, and lactate dehydrogenase level) were significantly associated with both progression-free survival and overall survival. A complete response occurred in 109 patients (19%) and was associated with an improved long-term outcome, with an overall survival rate of 71% (95% CI, 62 to 79) at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: First-line treatment with dabrafenib plus trametinib led to long-term benefit in approximately one third of the patients who had unresectable or metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600E or V600K mutation. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; COMBI-d ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01584648; COMBI-v ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01597908.).

Pembrolizumab versus paclitaxel for previously treated PD-L1-positive advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer: 2-year update of the randomized phase 3 KEYNOTE-061 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the phase 3 KEYNOTE-061 study (cutoff: 10/26/2017), pembrolizumab did not significantly prolong OS vs paclitaxel as second-line (2L) therapy in PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 1 gastric/GEJ cancer. We present results in CPS ≥ 1, ≥ 5, and ≥ 10 populations after two additional years of follow-up (cutoff: 10/07/2019). METHODS: Patients were randomly allocated 1:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W for ≤ 35 cycles or standard-dose paclitaxel. Primary endpoints: OS and PFS (CPS ≥ 1 population). HRs were calculated using stratified Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: 366/395 patients (92.7%) with CPS ≥ 1 died. Pembrolizumab demonstrated a trend toward improved OS vs paclitaxel in the CPS ≥ 1 population (HR, 0.81); 24-month OS rates: 19.9% vs 8.5%. Pembrolizumab incrementally increased the OS benefit with PD-L1 enrichment (CPS ≥ 5: HR, 0.72, 24-month rate, 24.2% vs 8.8%; CPS ≥ 10: 0.69, 24-month rate, 32.1% vs 10.9%). There was no difference in median PFS among treatment groups (CPS ≥ 1: HR, 1.25; CPS ≥ 5: 0.98; CPS ≥ 10: 0.79). ORR (pembrolizumab vs paclitaxel) was 16.3% vs 13.6% (CPS ≥ 1), 20.0% vs 14.3% (CPS ≥ 5), and 24.5% vs 9.1% (CPS ≥ 10); median DOR was 19.1 months vs 5.2, 32.7 vs 4.8, and NR vs 6.9, respectively. Fewer treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) occurred with pembrolizumab than paclitaxel (53% vs 84%). CONCLUSION: In this long-term analysis, 2L pembrolizumab did not significantly improve OS but was associated with higher 24-month OS rates than paclitaxel. Pembrolizumab also increased OS benefit with PD-L1 enrichment among patients with PD-L1-positive gastric/GEJ cancer and led to fewer TRAEs than paclitaxel. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02370498.

Adjuvant pembrolizumab versus placebo in resected stage III melanoma (EORTC 1325-MG/KEYNOTE-054): distant metastasis-free survival results from a double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 1325/KEYNOTE-054 trial assessed pembrolizumab versus placebo in patients with resected high-risk stage III melanoma. At 15-month median follow-up, pembrolizumab improved recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·57 [98·4% CI 0·43-0·74], p<0·0001) compared with placebo, leading to its approval in the USA and Europe. This report provides the final results for the secondary efficacy endpoint, distant metastasis-free survival and an update of the recurrence-free survival results. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial was done at 123 academic centres and community hospitals across 23 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with complete resection of cutaneous melanoma metastatic to lymph node, classified as American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system, seventh edition (AJCC-7) stage IIIA (at least one lymph node metastasis >1 mm), IIIB, or IIIC (without in-transit metastasis), and with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a central interactive voice response system to receive intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 18 doses or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was stratified according to disease stage and region, using a minimisation technique, and clinical investigators, patients, and those collecting or analysing the data were masked to treatment assignment. The two coprimary endpoints were recurrence-free survival in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and in patients with PD-L1-positive tumours. The secondary endpoint reported here was distant metastasis-free survival in the ITT and PD-L1-positive populations. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02362594, and EudraCT, 2014-004944-37. FINDINGS: Between Aug 26, 2015, and Nov 14, 2016, 1019 patients were assigned to receive either pembrolizumab (n=514) or placebo (n=505). At an overall median follow-up of 42·3 months (IQR 40·5-45·9), 3·5-year distant metastasis-free survival was higher in the pembrolizumab group than in the placebo group in the ITT population (65·3% [95% CI 60·9-69·5] in the pembrolizumab group vs 49·4% [44·8-53·8] in the placebo group; HR 0·60 [95% CI 0·49-0·73]; p<0·0001). In the 853 patients with PD-L1-positive tumours, 3·5-year distant metastasis-free survival was 66·7% (95% CI 61·8-71·2) in the pembrolizumab group and 51·6% (46·6-56·4) in the placebo group (HR 0·61 [95% CI 0·49-0·76]; p<0·0001). Recurrence-free survival remained longer in the pembrolizumab group 59·8% (95% CI 55·3-64·1) than the placebo group 41·4% (37·0-45·8) at this 3·5-year follow-up in the ITT population (HR 0·59 [95% CI 0·49-0·70]) and in those with PD-L1-positive tumours 61·4% (56·3-66·1) in the pembrolizumab group and 44·1% (39·2-48·8) in the placebo group (HR 0·59 [95% CI 0·49-0·73]). INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab adjuvant therapy provided a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in distant metastasis-free survival at a 3·5-year median follow-up, which was consistent with the improvement in recurrence-free survival. Therefore, the results of this trial support the indication to use adjuvant pembrolizumab therapy in patients with resected high risk stage III cutaneous melanoma. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Adjuvant pembrolizumab versus placebo in resected stage III melanoma (EORTC 1325-MG/KEYNOTE-054): health-related quality-of-life results from a double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 1325-MG/KEYNOTE-054 trial in patients with resected, high-risk stage III melanoma demonstrated improved recurrence-free survival with adjuvant pembrolizumab compared with placebo (hazard ratio 0·57 [98·4% CI 0·43-0·74]; p<0·0001). This study reports the results from the health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) exploratory endpoint. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial was done at 123 academic centres and community hospitals across 23 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated histologically confirmed stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC resected cutaneous melanoma, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 1 or 0 were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a central interactive voice-response system on the basis of a minimisation technique stratified for stage and geographic region to receive intravenously 200 mg pembrolizumab or placebo. Treatment was administered every 3 weeks for 1 year, or until disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or death. The primary endpoint of the trial was recurrence-free survival (reported elsewhere). HRQOL was a prespecified exploratory endpoint, with global health/quality of life (GHQ) over 2 years measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30 as the primary analysis. Analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02362594, and EudraCT, 2014-004944-37, and long-term follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Aug 26, 2015, and Nov 14, 2016, 1019 patients were assigned to pembrolizumab (n=514) or placebo (n=505). Median follow-up was 15·1 months (IQR 12·8-16·9) at the time of this analysis. HRQOL compliance was greater than 90% at baseline, greater than 70% during the first year, and greater than 60% thereafter for both groups. Because of low absolute compliance numbers at later follow-up, the analysis was truncated to week 84. Baseline GHQ scores were similar between groups (77·55 [SD 18·20] in the pembrolizumab group and 76·54 [17·81] in the placebo group) and remained stable over time. The difference in average GHQ score between the two groups over the 2 years was -2·2 points (95% CI -4·3 to -0·2). The difference in average score during treatment was -1·1 points (95% CI -3·2 to 0·9) and the difference in average score after treatment was -2·2 points (-4·8 to 0·4). These differences are within the 5-point clinical relevance threshold for the QLQ-C30 and are therefore clinically non-significant. INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab does not result in a clinically significant decrease in HRQOL compared with placebo when given as adjuvant therapy for patients with resected, high-risk stage III melanoma. These results support the use of adjuvant pembrolizumab in this setting. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Prevalence and Clinical Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Silent Carriers Among Actively Treated Patients with Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: In Europe, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic had its first epicenter in Italy. Despite a significant mortality rate, the severity of most cases of COVID-19 infection ranges from asymptomatic to mildly symptomatic, and silent infection affects a still-unknown proportion of the general population. No information is available on the prevalence and clinical impact of SARS-CoV-2 silent infection among patients with cancer receiving anticancer treatment during the pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From April 1, 2020, to the end of the same month, 560 consecutive patients with cancer, asymptomatic for COVID-19 and on anticancer treatment at Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital in Bergamo, were evaluated and tested for SARS-CoV-2. We implemented a two-step diagnostics, including the rapid serological immunoassay for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin (Ig) G/IgM and the nasopharyngeal swab reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test in case of seropositivity to identify SARS-CoV-2 silent carriers. RESULTS: In 560 patients, 172 (31%) resulted positive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG antibodies, regardless of different type of cancer, stage, and treatment. The Ig-seropositive patients were then tested with RT-PCR nasopharyngeal swabs, and 38% proved to be SARS-CoV-2 silent carriers. At an early follow-up, in the 97 SARS-CoV-2-seropositive/RT-PCR-negative patients who continued their anticancer therapies, only one developed symptomatic COVID-19 illness. CONCLUSION: Among patients with cancer, the two-step diagnostics is feasible and effective for SARS-CoV-2 silent carriers detection and might support optimal cancer treatment strategies at both the individual and the population level. The early safety profile of the different anticancer therapies, in patients previously exposed to SARS-CoV-2, supports the recommendation to continue the active treatment, at least in cases of RT-PCR-negative patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This is the first study evaluating the prevalence and clinical impact of SARS-CoV-2 silent infection in actively treated patients with cancer, during the epidemic peak in one of the worst areas of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lacking national and international recommendations for the detection of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, a pragmatic and effective two-step diagnostics was implemented to ascertain SARS-CoV-2 silent carriers. In this series, consisting of consecutive and unselected patients with cancer, the prevalence of both SARS-CoV-2-seropositive patients and silent carriers is substantial (31% and 10%, respectively). The early safety profile of the different anticancer therapies, in patients previously exposed to SARS-CoV-2, supports the recommendation to continue the active treatment, at least in case of RT-PCR-negative patients.