Persistent Cancer Cells: The Deadly Survivors.

Persistent cancer cells are the discrete and usually undetected cells that survive cancer drug treatment and constitute a major cause of treatment failure. These cells are characterized by their slow proliferation, highly flexible energy consumption, adaptation to their microenvironment, and phenotypic plasticity. Mechanisms that underlie their persistence offer highly coveted and sought-after therapeutic targets, and include diverse epigenetic, transcriptional, and translational regulatory processes, as well as complex cell-cell interactions. Although the successful clinical targeting of persistent cancer cells remains to be realized, immense progress has been made in understanding their persistence, yielding promising preclinical results.

Boosting Immunity by Targeting Post-translational Prenylation of Small GTPases.

Diseases leading to immune activation and autoinflammatory phenotypes may provide a reservoir of potentially druggable pathways for optimizing immune adjuvants or boosting antitumor immune responses. Now, Xia et al. report that lipophilic statins or biphosphonates, targeting the mevalonate pathway, act as efficient vaccine adjuvants and synergize with anti-PD1 against cancer.

Post-transcriptional polyadenylation site cleavage maintains 3'-end processing upon DNA damage.

The recognition of polyadenylation signals (PAS) in eukaryotic pre-mRNAs is usually coupled to transcription termination, occurring while pre-mRNA is chromatin-bound. However, for some pre-mRNAs, this 3'-end processing occurs post-transcriptionally, i.e., through a co-transcriptional cleavage (CoTC) event downstream of the PAS, leading to chromatin release and subsequent PAS cleavage in the nucleoplasm. While DNA-damaging agents trigger the shutdown of co-transcriptional chromatin-associated 3'-end processing, specific compensatory mechanisms exist to ensure efficient 3'-end processing for certain pre-mRNAs, including those that encode proteins involved in the DNA damage response, such as the tumor suppressor p53. We show that cleavage at the p53 polyadenylation site occurs in part post-transcriptionally following a co-transcriptional cleavage event. Cells with an engineered deletion of the p53 CoTC site exhibit impaired p53 3'-end processing, decreased mRNA and protein levels of p53 and its transcriptional target p21, and altered cell cycle progression upon UV-induced DNA damage. Using a transcriptome-wide analysis of PAS cleavage, we identify additional pre-mRNAs whose PAS cleavage is maintained in response to UV irradiation and occurring post-transcriptionally. These findings indicate that CoTC-type cleavage of pre-mRNAs, followed by PAS cleavage in the nucleoplasm, allows certain pre-mRNAs to escape 3'-end processing inhibition in response to UV-induced DNA damage.

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.).

Neoadjuvant Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Resectable Stage III Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Phase 1-2 trials involving patients with resectable, macroscopic stage III melanoma have shown that neoadjuvant immunotherapy is more efficacious than adjuvant immunotherapy. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with resectable, macroscopic stage III melanoma, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive two cycles of neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab and then undergo surgery or to undergo surgery and then receive 12 cycles of adjuvant nivolumab. Only the patients in the neoadjuvant group who had a partial response or nonresponse received subsequent adjuvant treatment. The primary end point was event-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 423 patients underwent randomization. At a median follow-up of 9.9 months, the estimated 12-month event-free survival was 83.7% (99.9% confidence interval [CI], 73.8 to 94.8) in the neoadjuvant group and 57.2% (99.9% CI, 45.1 to 72.7) in the adjuvant group. The difference in restricted mean survival time was 8.00 months (99.9% CI, 4.94 to 11.05; P<0.001; hazard ratio for progression, recurrence, or death, 0.32; 99.9% CI, 0.15 to 0.66). In the neoadjuvant group, 59.0% of the patients had a major pathological response, 8.0% had a partial response, 26.4% had a nonresponse (>50% residual viable tumor), and 2.4% had progression; in 4.2%, surgery had not yet been performed or was omitted. The estimated 12-month recurrence-free survival was 95.1% among patients in the neoadjuvant group who had a major pathological response, 76.1% among those who had a partial response, and 57.0% among those who had a nonresponse. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher that were related to systemic treatment occurred in 29.7% of the patients in the neoadjuvant group and in 14.7% in the adjuvant group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with resectable, macroscopic stage III melanoma, neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab followed by surgery and response-driven adjuvant therapy resulted in longer event-free survival than surgery followed by adjuvant nivolumab. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and others; NADINA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04949113.).

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.

A phase 2 open-label study of cemiplimab in patients with advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (EMPOWER-CSCC-1): Final long-term analysis of groups 1, 2, and 3, and primary analysis of fixed-dose treatment group 6.

BACKGROUND: In the phase 2 EMPOWER-CSCC-1 study (NCT02760498), cemiplimab demonstrated antitumor activity against metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (mCSCC) and locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (laCSCC). OBJECTIVES: To report final analysis of weight-based cemiplimab in mCSCC and laCSCC (groups 1 and 2), fixed-dose cemiplimab in mCSCC (group 3), and primary analysis of fixed-dose cemiplimab in mCSCC/laCSCC (group 6). METHODS: Patients received cemiplimab (3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks [groups 1 and 2]) or cemiplimab (350 mg intravenously [groups 3 and 6]) every 3 weeks. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR). Duration of response (DOR) and progression-free survival (PFS) are presented per protocol, according to post-hoc sensitivity analyses that only include the period of protocol-mandated imaging assessments. RESULTS: At 42.5 months, ORR for groups 1-3 (n = 193) was 47.2%, estimated 12-month DOR was 88.3%, and median PFS was 26.0 months. At 8.7 months, ORR for group 6 (n = 165 patients) was 44.8%; median DOR and median PFS were not reached. Serious treatment-emergent adverse event rates (grade ≥3) were groups 1-3: 31.1% and group 6: 34.5%. LIMITATIONS: Nonrandomized study, nonsurvival primary end point. CONCLUSION: EMPOWER-CSCC-1 provides the largest prospective data on long-term efficacy and safety for anti-programmed cell death-1 therapy in advanced CSCC.

Cerebral Hemodynamics and Levosimendan Use in Patients with Cerebral Vasospasm and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: An Observational Perfusion CT-Based Imaging Study.

BACKGROUND: Delayed cerebral ischemia associated with cerebral vasospasm (CVS) in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage significantly affects patient prognosis. Levosimendan has emerged as a potential treatment, but clinical data are lacking. The aim of this study is to decipher levosimendan's effect on cerebral hemodynamics by automated quantitative measurements of brain computed tomography perfusion (CTP). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of a database of a neurosurgical intensive care unit. All patients admitted from January 2018 to July 2022 for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage and treated with levosimendan for CVS who did not respond to other therapies were included. Quantitative measurements of time to maximum (Tmax), relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV), and relative cerebral blood flow (rCBF) were automatically compared with coregistered CTP before and after levosimendan administration in oligemic regions. RESULTS: Of 21 patients included, CTP analysis could be performed in 16. Levosimendan improved Tmax from 14.4 s (interquartile range [IQR] 9.1-21) before treatment to 7.1 s (IQR 5.5-8.1) after treatment (p < 0.001). rCBV (94% [IQR 79-103] before treatment and 89% [IQR 72-103] after treatment, p = 0.63) and rCBF (85% [IQR 77-90] before treatment and 87% [IQR 73-98] after treatment, p = 0.98) remained stable. The subgroup of six patients who did not develop cerebral infarction attributed to delayed cerebral ischemia showed an approximately 10% increase (rCBV 85% [IQR 79-99] before treatment vs. 95% [IQR 88-112] after treatment, p = 0.21; rCBF 81% [IQR 76-87] before treatment vs. 89% [IQR 84-99] after treatment, p = 0.4). CONCLUSIONS: In refractory CVS, levosimendan use was associated with a significant reduction in Tmax in oligemic regions. However, this value remained at an abnormal level, indicating the presence of a persistent CVS. Further analysis raised the hypothesis that levosimendan causes cerebral vasodilation, but other studies are needed because our design does not allow us to quantify the effect of levosimendan from that of the natural evolution of CVS.

Atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib in patients with melanoma with CNS metastases (TRICOTEL): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Targeted therapy and immunotherapy have shown intracranial activity in melanoma with CNS metastases, but there remains an unmet need, particularly for patients with symptomatic CNS metastases. We aimed to evaluate atezolizumab in combination with cobimetinib or vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in patients with melanoma with CNS metastases. METHODS: TRICOTEL was a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study done in two cohorts: a BRAFV600 wild-type cohort and a BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort, recruited at 21 hospitals and oncology centres in Brazil, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with previously untreated metastatic melanoma, brain metastases of 5 mm or larger in at least one dimension, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less. Patients in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort received intravenous atezolizumab (840 mg, days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle) plus oral cobimetinib (60 mg once daily, days 1-21). Patients in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort received intravenous atezolizumab (840 mg, days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle) plus oral vemurafenib (720 mg twice daily) plus oral cobimetinib (60 mg once daily, days 1-21); atezolizumab was withheld in cycle 1. Treatment was continued until progression, toxicity, or death. The primary outcome was intracranial objective response rate confirmed by assessments at least 4 weeks apart, as assessed by independent review committee (IRC) using modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1. Because of early closure of the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort, the primary endpoint of intracranial objective response rate by IRC assessment was not done in this cohort; intracranial objective response rate by investigator assessment was reported instead. Efficacy and safety were analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is closed to enrolment and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03625141. FINDINGS: Between Dec 13, 2018, and Dec 7, 2020, 65 patients were enrolled in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort; the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort was closed early after enrolment of 15 patients. Median follow-up was 9·7 months (IQR 6·3-15·0) for the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort and 6·2 months (3·5-23·0) for the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort. Intracranial objective response rate was 42% (95% CI 29-54) by IRC assessment in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort and 27% (95% CI 8-55) by investigator assessment in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort. Treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 41 (68%) of 60 patients who received atezolizumab plus vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort, the most common of which were lipase increased (15 [25%] of 60 patients) and blood creatine phosphokinase increased (11 [18%]). Eight (53%) of 15 patients treated with atezolizumab plus cobimetinib in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort had treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events, most commonly anaemia (two [13%]) and dermatitis acneiform (two [13%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 14 (23%) of 60 patients who received triplet therapy in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort and two (13%) of 15 in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort. No treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Atezolizumab plus vemurafenib and cobimetinib provided intracranial activity in patients with BRAFV600-mutated melanoma with CNS metastases. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Overall survival with first-line atezolizumab in combination with vemurafenib and cobimetinib in BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma (IMspire150): second interim analysis of a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Primary analysis of the phase 3 IMspire150 study showed improved investigator-assessed progression-free survival with first-line atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (atezolizumab group) versus placebo, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (control group) in patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma. With a median follow-up of 18·9 months (IQR 10·4-23·8) at the primary analysis, overall survival data were immature. Here, we report the results from the second, prespecified, interim overall survival analysis. METHODS: The multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 IMspire150 study was done at 108 academic and community hospitals in 20 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated unresectable stage IIIc or stage IV melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either atezolizumab (840 mg intravenously on day 1 and 15) or placebo plus vemurafenib (960 mg or 720 mg twice daily orally) and cobimetinib (60 mg once daily orally; 21 days on and 7 days off) in 28-day cycles. Atezolizumab and placebo were added to treatment regimens from cycle two onwards. Randomisation was done centrally (Durham, NC, USA) based on a permuted block randomisation scheme (block size of 4) using an interactive web-based response system and was stratified by geographical region and baseline lactate dehydrogenase concentration. Overall survival was analysed in the intention-to-treat population and safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug according to actual treatment received. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, which was previously reported. Here, we report the second, prespecified, interim overall survival analysis, which was planned after about 270 overall survival events had occurred. The trial is ongoing, but is no longer enrolling patients, and it is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02908672. FINDINGS: Between Jan 13, 2017, and April 26, 2018, 514 patients (median age 54 years [IQR 43-63]; 299 [58%] men and 215 [42%] women) were enrolled in the trial and randomly assigned to the atezolizumab group (256 [50%] patients) or the control group (258 [50%] patients). At the data cutoff (Sept 8, 2021), 273 patients had died (126 in the atezolizumab group and 147 in the control group). Median follow-up was 29·1 months (IQR 10·1-45·4) for the atezolizumab group versus 22·8 months (10·6-44·1) for the control group. Median overall survival was 39·0 months (95% CI 29·9-not estimable) in the atezolizumab group versus 25·8 months (22·0-34·6) in the control group (HR 0·84 [95% CI 0·66-1·06]; p=0·14). The most common adverse events of any grade in the atezolizumab group were blood creatine phosphokinase increased (123 [53%] of 231 patients), diarrhoea (116 [50%]), and pyrexia (115 [50%]). The most common adverse events of any grade in the control group were diarrhoea (157 [56%] of 280 patients), blood creatine phosphokinase increased (135 [48%]), and rash (119 [43%]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were increased lipase (54 [23%] of 231 patients in the atezolizumab group vs 62 [22%] of 280 patients in the control group), increased blood creatine phosphokinase (51 [22%] vs 50 [18%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase (32 [14%] vs 26 [9%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 112 (48%) patients in the atezolizumab group and 117 (42%) patients in the control group. Grade 5 adverse events were reported in eight (3%) patients in the atezolizumab group versus six (2%) patients in the control group. Two grade 5 adverse events (hepatitis fulminant and hepatic failure) in the atezolizumab group were considered to be associated with the triplet combination, and one event in the control group (pulmonary haemorrhage) was considered to be associated with cobimetinib. INTERPRETATION: Additional follow-up of the IMspire150 trial showed that overall survival was not significantly improved with atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib compared with placebo, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib in patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma. Results of the final analysis are awaited to establish whether a significant improvement in overall survival can be achieved with long-term treatment with this triplet combination versus vemurafenib plus cobimetinib. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

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.).

Redox activation of ATM enhances GSNOR translation to sustain mitophagy and tolerance to oxidative stress.

The denitrosylase S-nitrosoglutathione reductase (GSNOR) has been suggested to sustain mitochondrial removal by autophagy (mitophagy), functionally linking S-nitrosylation to cell senescence and aging. In this study, we provide evidence that GSNOR is induced at the translational level in response to hydrogen peroxide and mitochondrial ROS. The use of selective pharmacological inhibitors and siRNA demonstrates that GSNOR induction is an event downstream of the redox-mediated activation of ATM, which in turn phosphorylates and activates CHK2 and p53 as intermediate players of this signaling cascade. The modulation of ATM/GSNOR axis, or the expression of a redox-insensitive ATM mutant influences cell sensitivity to nitrosative and oxidative stress, impairs mitophagy and affects cell survival. Remarkably, this interplay modulates T-cell activation, supporting the conclusion that GSNOR is a key molecular effector of the antioxidant function of ATM and providing new clues to comprehend the pleiotropic effects of ATM in the context of immune function.

Cured or Not? Long-term Outcomes of Immunotherapy Responders. Focus on Melanoma.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) demonstrated robust antitumor activity and tolerable safety in advanced melanoma. Data on long-term outcome of patients who benefited from this therapy and who are still free of progression despite ICI discontinuation is now available. We review here the characteristics of long-term ICI responders and address the critical question of cure. RECENT FINDINGS: Long-term outcome of patients with metastatic melanoma enrolled in large phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials evaluating ICI in metastatic melanoma is now available. Durable responses, with more than 6 years of median follow-up, may persist after discontinuation. They occur more frequently in patients who achieved a complete response rather than in patients who had partial response or stable disease. Although long-term clinical benefit is more frequent in patients with high PDL-1 expression and smaller tumor burden, durable response may also be observed regardless of baseline characteristics. In patients with asymptomatic brain metastasis, combined immunotherapy (ipilimumab plus nivolumab) may also lead to long-term remission. Clinical trials confirm the durable antitumor activity of ICI. Although the hope for cure seems reasonable for many patients in this situation, late relapses may occur and no relapse-predictive biomarkers have been identified yet. Long-term responders who relapse can respond to a rechallenge of ICI although data are limited concerning the rate and the duration of this new response.

Serious immune-related upper gastrointestinal toxicity of immune checkpoint inhibitors: a multicenter case series.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) improve the prognosis of many cancers but cause immune-related adverse events (IrAEs). Limited data are available on upper gastrointestinal (UGI) IrAEs. We describe the clinical characteristics, prognosis, and efficacy of medical therapy in patients with UGI IrAEs. METHODS: This is a retrospective, multicenter cohort study of patients with UGI symptoms and moderate to severe endoscopic UGI lesions, occurring after ICI. Efficacy of induction medical therapy and at the most recent follow-up was assessed. RESULTS: Forty patients were included; of these, 34 (85%) received anti-PD(L)1, either alone (n = 24) or combined with anti CTLA-4 (n = 10). Eighteen patients (45%) had concomitant enterocolitis. All patients had severe endoscopic lesions (erosions, ulcerations, hemorrhage, or necrotic lesions). Three patients who received an inefficient initial medical treatment had a complicated course: One patient died of enterocolitis, one had a pneumomediastinum, and one developed an ulcerated stricture of the pylorus. Thirty-five patients (88%) were treated with corticosteroids; 28 patients (80%) responded, and 20 (57%) reached clinical remission. Eight patients were treated with infliximab, and six responded (75%). After a median follow-up of 11 months, 36 patients (90%) were in corticosteroid-free clinical remission for their UGI symptoms. Endoscopic lesions persisted in 68% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: ICI cause severe UGI IrAEs, which are associated with enterocolitis in approximately half of the patients. Most patients with UGI IrAEs respond to corticosteroids or infliximab. These data support the recommendation to treat these patients without delay and in the same way as those with enterocolitis.

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).

Atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib in patients with melanoma with CNS metastases (TRICOTEL): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Targeted therapy and immunotherapy have shown intracranial activity in melanoma with CNS metastases, but there remains an unmet need, particularly for patients with symptomatic CNS metastases. We aimed to evaluate atezolizumab in combination with cobimetinib or vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in patients with melanoma with CNS metastases. METHODS: TRICOTEL was a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study done in two cohorts: a BRAFV600 wild-type cohort and a BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort, recruited at 21 hospitals and oncology centres in Brazil, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with previously untreated metastatic melanoma, CNS metastases of 5 mm or larger in at least one dimension, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less. Patients in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort received intravenous atezolizumab (840 mg, days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle) plus oral cobimetinib (60 mg once daily, days 1-21). Patients in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort received intravenous atezolizumab (840 mg, days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle) plus oral vemurafenib (720 mg twice daily) plus oral cobimetinib (60 mg once daily, days 1-21); atezolizumab was withheld in cycle 1. Treatment was continued until progression, toxicity, or death. The primary outcome was intracranial objective response rate confirmed by assessments at least 4 weeks apart, as assessed by independent review committee (IRC) using modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1. Because of early closure of the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort, the primary endpoint of intracranial objective response rate by IRC assessment was not done in this cohort; intracranial objective response rate by investigator assessment was reported instead. Efficacy and safety were analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is closed to enrolment and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03625141. FINDINGS: Between Dec 13, 2018, and Dec 7, 2020, 65 patients were enrolled in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort; the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort was closed early after enrolment of 15 patients. Median follow-up was 9·7 months (IQR 6·3-15·0) for the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort and 6·2 months (3·5-23·0) for the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort. Intracranial objective response rate was 42% (95% CI 29-54) by IRC assessment in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort and 27% (95% CI 8-55) by investigator assessment in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort. Treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 41 (68%) of 60 patients who received atezolizumab plus vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort, the most common of which were lipase increased (15 [25%] of 60 patients) and blood creatine phosphokinase increased (ten [17%]). Eight (53%) of 15 patients treated with atezolizumab plus cobimetinib in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort had treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events, most commonly anaemia (two [13%]) and dermatitis acneiform (two [13%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 14 (23%) of 60 patients in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort and two (13%) of 15 in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort. One death in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort (limbic encephalitis) was considered to be related to atezolizumab treatment. INTERPRETATION: Adding atezolizumab to vemurafenib plus cobimetinib provided promising intracranial activity in patients with BRAFV600-mutated melanoma with CNS metastases. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

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

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

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.).

The "Great Debate" at Melanoma Bridge 2021, December 2nd-4th, 2021.

The Great Debate session at the 2021 Melanoma Bridge virtual congress (December 2-4) featured counterpoint views from experts on seven important issues in melanoma. The debates considered the use of adoptive cell therapy versus use of bispecific antibodies, mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) inhibitors versus immunotherapy in the adjuvant setting, whether the use of corticosteroids for the management of side effects have an impact on outcomes, the choice of programmed death (PD)-1 combination therapy with cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen (CTLA)-4 or lymphocyte-activation gene (LAG)-3, whether radiation is needed for brain metastases, when lymphadenectomy should be integrated into the treatment plan and then the last debate, telemedicine versus face-to-face. As with previous Bridge congresses, the debates were assigned by meeting Chairs and positions taken by experts during the debates may not have necessarily reflected their respective personal view. Audiences voted both before and after each debate.