Sequencing of New and Old Therapies for Metastatic Melanoma.

OPINION STATEMENT: Identification of BRAF driver mutations and agents that block their activity combined with development of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies have dramatically changed survival and quality of life for patients with metastatic melanoma. Approximately half of patients with metastatic melanoma do not harbor mutations in the BRAF gene and therefore cannot benefit from currently available agents that target this mutation. Additionally, few patients with metastatic melanoma achieve durable disease control with these targeted therapies alone. Conversely, immune-based therapies have the potential to treat melanomas with or without mutations and produce durable responses following discontinuation of therapy, but responses can be delayed. Defining the goals of therapy (rapid response vs durable disease control), establishing the presence of targetable mutations, and considering the toxicities associated with each therapy can inform a treatment strategy. Incorporating both recent therapeutic modalities and older treatment options can provide the greatest potential for durable response. Overall, we recommend using immunotherapies (anti-CTLA4, anti-PD-1, combined anti-CTLA4/anti-PD-1, or interleukin-2) as the backbone of treatment for metastatic melanoma due to their potential for durable response. The targeted therapies and cytotoxic therapies can then be used intermittently to rescue patients from symptomatic disease progression. Of course, available clinical trials should always be considered, whenever possible.

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).

Cannabis and Cannabinoids in Adults With Cancer: ASCO Guideline.

PURPOSE: To guide clinicians, adults with cancer, caregivers, researchers, and oncology institutions on the medical use of cannabis and cannabinoids, including synthetic cannabinoids and herbal cannabis derivatives; single, purified cannabinoids; combinations of cannabis ingredients; and full-spectrum cannabis. METHODS: A systematic literature review identified systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and cohort studies on the efficacy and safety of cannabis and cannabinoids when used by adults with cancer. Outcomes of interest included antineoplastic effects, cancer treatment toxicity, symptoms, and quality of life. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched from database inception to January 27, 2023. ASCO convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and formulate recommendations. RESULTS: The evidence base consisted of 13 systematic reviews and five additional primary studies (four RCTs and one cohort study). The certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low. RECOMMENDATIONS: Cannabis and/or cannabinoid access and use by adults with cancer has outpaced the science supporting their clinical use. This guideline provides strategies for open, nonjudgmental communication between clinicians and adults with cancer about the use of cannabis and/or cannabinoids. Clinicians should recommend against using cannabis or cannabinoids as a cancer-directed treatment unless within the context of a clinical trial. Cannabis and/or cannabinoids may improve refractory, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting when added to guideline-concordant antiemetic regimens. Whether cannabis and/or cannabinoids can improve other supportive care outcomes remains uncertain. This guideline also highlights the critical need for more cannabis and/or cannabinoid research.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

Characteristics of patients with hematologic malignancies without seroconversion post-COVID-19 third vaccine dosing.

Objectives: The objective of this study is to explore the characteristics of the subset of patients with hematologic malignancies (HMs) who had little to no change in SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody index value levels after a third mRNA vaccine dose (3V) and to compare the cohort of patients who did and did not seroconvert post-3V to get a better understanding of the demographics and potential drivers of serostatus. Study design: This retrospective cohort study analyzed SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG antibody index values pre and post the 3V data on 625 patients diagnosed with HM across a large Midwestern United States healthcare system between 31 October 2019 and 31 January 2022. Methods: To assess the association between individual characteristics and seroconversion status, patients were placed into two groups based on IgG antibody status pre and post the 3V dose, (-/+) and (-/-). Odds ratios were used as measures of association for all categorical variables. Logistic regressions were used to measure the association between HM condition and seroconversion. Results: HM diagnosis was significantly associated with seroconversion status (P = 0.0003) with patients non-Hodgkin lymphoma six times the odds of not seroconverting compared with multiple myeloma patients (P = 0.0010). Among the participants who were seronegative prior to 3V, 149 (55.6%) seroconverted after the 3V dose and 119 (44.4%) did not. Conclusion: This study focuses on an important subset of patients with HM who are not seroconverting after the COVID mRNA 3V. This gain in scientific knowledge is needed for clinicians to target and counsel these vulnerable patients.

Real-World Third COVID-19 Vaccine Dosing and Antibody Response in Patients With Hematologic Malignancies.

Purpose: This study sought to describe the changes in immune response to a third dose of either Pfizer's or Moderna's COVID-19 mRNA vaccine (3V) among patients with hematologic malignancies, as well as associated characteristics. Methods: This retrospective cohort study analyzed pre-3V and post-3V data on 493 patients diagnosed with hematologic malignancies across a large Midwestern health system between August 28, 2021, and November 1, 2021. For antibody testing, S1 spike antigen of the SARS-CoV-2 virus titer was used to determine serostatus. Results: Among 493 participants, 274 (55.6%) were seropositive both pre- and post-3V (+/+) while 115 (23.3%) seroconverted to positive from prior negative following the third dose (-/+). The remaining 104 (21.1%) were seronegative both before and after 3V (-/-). No participant was seropositive pre-3V and seronegative post-3V (+/-). Results showed a statistically significant increase in the proportion of seropositivity after receiving a third COVID-19 vaccine (P<0.00001). Response to 3V was significantly associated with the 3V vaccine type (P=0.0006), previous COVID-19 infection (P=0.0453), and malignancy diagnosis (P<0.0001). Likelihood of seroconversion (-/+) after 3V was higher in the group of patients with multiple myeloma or related disorders compared to patients with lymphoid leukemias (odds ratio: 8.22, 95% CI: 2.12-31.79; P=0.0008). Conclusions: A third COVID-19 vaccination is effective in producing measurable seroconversion in many patients with hematologic malignancies. Oncologists should actively encourage all their patients, especially those with multiple myeloma, to receive a 3V, given the high likelihood of seroconversion.

A Prospective, Longitudinal Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 COVID-19 Exposure, Use of Protective Equipment and Social Distancing in a Group of Community Physicians.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare workers experience a significant risk of exposure to and infection from SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19. Nonetheless, little research has focused on physicians' use of personal protective equipment (PPE), their concerns about becoming infected and their social distancing maneuvers. METHODS: All staff physicians at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital were invited to participate. Their COVID-19 IgG antibody level was measured and an online questionnaire was completed. The questionnaire assessed the risk of COVID-19 exposure, PPE usage, concern for contracting COVID-19, the performance of high-risk procedures, work in high-risk settings, and social distancing practices. Testing was performed in September (T0), and December 2020 (T1) at the height of the global pandemic. RESULTS: A total of 481 (26.7%) of 1800 AGLH physicians were enrolled at T0 and 458 (95% of the original group) at T1. A total of 21 (4.3%) and 39 (8.5%) participants had antibodies at T0 and T1. A total of 63 (13.8%) worked in high-risk settings and 111 (24.2%) performed high-risk procedures. Participants working in high-risk settings had increased exposure to COVID-19 infected patients (OR = 4.464 CI = 2.522-8.459, p < 0.001). Participants were highly adherent to the use of PPE and social distancing practices including mask-wearing in public (86%, 82.1%), avoiding crowds (85.1%, 85.6%), six feet distancing (83.8%, 83.4%), and avoiding public transportation (78%, 83.8%). A total of 251 (55.4%) participants expressed moderate to extreme concern about becoming infected with COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among a group of community physicians, consistent PPE use and social distancing practices were common. These practices were associated with a low level of initial acquisition of COVID-19 infections and a relatively low longitudinal risk of infection.

Intratumoral oncolytic virus V937 plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma: the phase 1b MITCI study.

BACKGROUND: Intratumoral administration of V937, a bioselected, genetically unmodified coxsackievirus A21, has previously demonstrated antitumor activity in patients with advanced melanoma as monotherapy and in combination with the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) antibody pembrolizumab. We report results from an open-label, single-arm, phase 1b study (NCT02307149) evaluating V937 plus the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 inhibitor ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma. METHODS: Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed metastatic or unresectable stage IIIB/C or IV melanoma received intratumoral V937 on days 1, 3, 5, 8, and 22 and every 3 weeks (Q3W) thereafter for up to 19 sets of injections plus intravenous ipilimumab 3 mg/kg Q3W administered for four doses starting on day 22. Imaging was performed at screening, on days 43 and 106 and every 6 weeks thereafter; response was assessed by immune-related response criteria per investigator assessment. Primary endpoints were safety in all treated patients and objective response rate (ORR) in all treated patients and in patients with disease that progressed on prior anti-PD-1 therapy. RESULTS: Fifty patients were enrolled and treated. ORR was 30% (95% CI 18% to 45%) among all treated patients, 47% (95% CI 23% to 72%) among patients who had not received prior anti-PD-1 therapy, and 21% (95% CI 9% to 39%) among patients who had experienced disease progression on prior anti-PD-1 therapy. Tumor regression occurred in injected and non-injected lesions. Median immune-related progression-free survival was 6.2 months (95% CI 3.5 to 9.0 months), and median overall survival was 45.1 months (95% CI 28.3 months to not reached). The most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were pruritus (n=25, 50%), fatigue (n=22, 44%), and diarrhea (n=16, 32%). There were no V937-related dose-limiting toxicities and no treatment-related grade 5 AEs. Treatment-related grade 3 or 4 AEs, all of which were considered related to ipilimumab, occurred in 14% of patients (most commonly dehydration, diarrhea, and hepatotoxicity in 4% each). CONCLUSIONS: Responses associated with intratumoral V937 plus ipilimumab were robust, including in the subgroup of patients who had experienced disease progression on prior anti-PD-1 therapy. Toxicities were manageable and consistent with those of the individual monotherapies.

Use of Adjuvant Bisphosphonates and Other Bone-Modifying Agents in Breast Cancer: ASCO-OH (CCO) Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: To update recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)-Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario [CCO]) adjuvant bone-modifying agents in breast cancer guideline. METHODS: An Expert Panel conducted a systematic review to identify new, potentially practice-changing data. RESULTS: Four articles met eligibility criteria and form the evidentiary basis for revision of the previous recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS: Adjuvant bisphosphonate therapy should be discussed with all postmenopausal patients (natural or therapy-induced) with primary breast cancer, irrespective of hormone receptor status and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status, who are candidates to receive adjuvant systemic therapy. Adjuvant bisphosphonates, if used, are not substitutes for standard anticancer modalities. The benefit of adjuvant bisphosphonate therapy will vary depending on the underlying risk of recurrence and is associated with a modest improvement in overall survival. The NHS PREDICT tool provides estimates of the benefit of adjuvant bisphosphonate therapy and may aid in decision making. Factors influencing the decision to recommend adjuvant bisphosphonate use should include patients' risk of recurrence, risk of side effects, financial toxicity, drug availability, patient preferences, comorbidities, and life expectancy. When an adjuvant bisphosphonate is used to prevent breast cancer recurrence, the therapeutic options recommended by the Panel include oral clodronate, oral ibandronate, and intravenous zoledronic acid. The Panel supports starting bisphosphonate therapy early, consistent with the points outlined in the parent CCO-ASCO guideline; this is a consensus recommendation. The Panel does not recommend adjuvant denosumab to prevent breast cancer recurrence, because studies did not show a consistent reduction of breast cancer recurrence in any subset of those with early-stage breast cancer.Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guideline.

Clinical Responses of Oncolytic Coxsackievirus A21 (V937) in Patients With Unresectable Melanoma.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the activity of intratumoral Coxsackievirus A21 (V937) in 57 patients with unresectable stage IIIC or IV melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label, phase II study, patients received up to a total V937 dose of 3 × 108 TCID50 (50% tissue culture infectious dose) in a maximum 4.0-mL volume by intratumoral injection. Ten sets of V937 injections were administered between days 1 and 127 (NCT01227551). Patients who had stable disease or were responding could continue treatment in an extension study (NCT01636882). Response and progression status were based on contrast-enhanced computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, or caliper measurement and were categorized using immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (irRECIST). Other evaluations included monitoring of adverse events and serum levels of V937 and anti-V937 antibody titers. The primary efficacy end point was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate per irRECIST. RESULTS: The primary efficacy end point, 6-month PFS rate per irRECIST, was 38.6% (95% CI, 26.0 to 52.4). Durable response rate (partial or complete response for ≥ 6 months) was 21.1% per irRECIST. Best overall response rate (complete plus partial response) was 38.6% (unconfirmed) and 28.1% (confirmed) per irRECIST. Regression of melanoma was observed in noninjected lesions. Based on Kaplan-Meier estimation, 12-month PFS was 32.9% (95% CI, 19.5 to 46.9) per irRECIST and 12-month overall survival was 75.4% (95% CI, 62.1 to 84.7). No treatment-related grade ≥ 3 adverse events occurred. Viral RNA was detected in serum within 30 minutes of administration. Neutralizing antibody titers increased to > 1:16 in all patients after day 22, without effect on clinical or immunologic response. CONCLUSION: V937 was well tolerated and warrants further investigation for treatment of patients with unresectable melanoma. Studies of combination approaches with V937 and immune checkpoint inhibitors are ongoing.

An Open-Label, Randomized, Multi-Center Study Comparing the Sequence of High Dose Aldesleukin (Interleukin-2) and Ipilimumab (Yervoy) in Patients with Metastatic Melanoma.

Combination immunotherapy with sequential administration may enhance metastatic melanoma (MM) patients with long-term disease control. High Dose Aldesleukin/Recombinant Interleukin-2 (HD rIL-2) and ipilimumab (IPI) offer complementary mechanisms against MM. This phase IV study assessed the sequenced use of HD rIL-2 and IPI in MM patients. Eligible Stage IV MM patients were randomized to treatment with either two courses of HD rIL-2(600,000 IU/kg) followed by four doses of IPI 3 mg/kg or vice-versa. The primary objective was to compare one-year overall survival (OS) with historical control (46%, Hodi et al., NEJM 2010). Secondary objectives were 1-year progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs) profile. Evaluable Population (EP) included patients who received at least 50% of planned treatment with each drug. Thirteen and 16 patients were randomized to receive HD rIL-2 first, and IPI first, respectively. One-year OS rate was 75% for intention to treat population. Eighteen patients were included in EP, 8 in HD rIL-2, 10 in IPI first arm. In EP, 1-year OS, PFS and ORR rates were 87%, 68%, and 50%, respectively. The frequency of AEs was similar in both arms with 13 patients experiencing Grade 3 or higher AEs, 3 resulting in the end of study participation. There was one HD rIL-2-related death, from cerebral hemorrhage due to thrombocytopenia. In this study with small sample size, HD rIL-2 and IPI were safe to administer sequentially in MM patients and showed more than additive effects. 1-year OS was superior to that of IPI alone from historical studies.