Perspectives in Melanoma: meeting report from the Melanoma Bridge (December 1st-3rd, 2022-Naples, Italy).

Outcomes for patients with melanoma have improved over the past decade with the clinical development and approval of immunotherapies targeting immune checkpoint receptors such as programmed death-1 (PD-1), programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) or cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4). Combinations of these checkpoint therapies with other agents are now being explored to improve outcomes and enhance benefit-risk profiles of treatment. Alternative inhibitory receptors have been identified that may be targeted for anti-tumor immune therapy, such as lymphocyte-activation gene-3 (LAG-3), as have several potential target oncogenes for molecularly targeted therapy, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Unfortunately, many patients still progress and acquire resistance to immunotherapy and molecularly targeted therapies. To bypass resistance, combination treatment with immunotherapies and single or multiple TKIs have been shown to improve prognosis compared to monotherapy. The number of new combinations treatment under development for melanoma provides options for the number of patients to achieve a therapeutic benefit. Many diagnostic and prognostic assays have begun to show clinical applicability providing additional tools to optimize and individualize treatments. However, the question on the optimal algorithm of first- and later-line therapies and the search for biomarkers to guide these decisions are still under investigation. This year, the Melanoma Bridge Congress (Dec 1st-3rd, 2022, Naples, Italy) addressed the latest advances in melanoma research, focusing on themes of paramount importance for melanoma prevention, diagnosis and treatment. This included sessions dedicated to systems biology on immunotherapy, immunogenicity and gene expression profiling, biomarkers, and combination treatment strategies.

Perspectives in Melanoma: meeting report from the Melanoma Bridge (December 2nd - 4th, 2021, Italy).

Advances in immune checkpoint and combination therapy have led to improvement in overall survival for patients with advanced melanoma. Improved understanding of the tumor, tumor microenvironment and tumor immune-evasion mechanisms has resulted in new approaches to targeting and harnessing the host immune response. Combination modalities with other immunotherapy agents, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, electrochemotherapy are also being explored to overcome resistance and to potentiate the immune response. In addition, novel approaches such as adoptive cell therapy, oncogenic viruses, vaccines and different strategies of drug administration including sequential, or combination treatment are being tested. Despite the progress in diagnosis of melanocytic lesions, correct classification of patients, selection of appropriate adjuvant and systemic theràapies, and prediction of response to therapy remain real challenges in melanoma. Improved understanding of the tumor microenvironment, tumor immunity and response to therapy has prompted extensive translational and clinical research in melanoma. There is a growing evidence that genomic and immune features of pre-treatment tumor biopsies may correlate with response in patients with melanoma and other cancers, but they have yet to be fully characterized and implemented clinically. Development of novel biomarker platforms may help to improve diagnostics and predictive accuracy for selection of patients for specific treatment. Overall, the future research efforts in melanoma therapeutics and translational research should focus on several aspects including: (a) developing robust biomarkers to predict efficacy of therapeutic modalities to guide clinical decision-making and optimize treatment regimens, (b) identifying mechanisms of therapeutic resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors that are potentially actionable, (c) identifying biomarkers to predict therapy-induced adverse events, and (d) studying mechanism of actions of therapeutic agents and developing algorithms to optimize combination treatments. During the Melanoma Bridge meeting (December 2nd-4th, 2021, Naples, Italy) discussions focused on the currently approved systemic and local therapies for advanced melanoma and discussed novel biomarker strategies and advances in precision medicine as well as the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on management of melanoma patients.

The Great Debate at "Melanoma Bridge", Naples, December 7th, 2019.

The Great Debate session at the 2019 Melanoma Bridge congress (December 5-7, Naples, Italy) featured counterpoint views from experts on five topical issues in melanoma. These were whether to choose local intratumoral treatment or systemic treatment, whether patients with stage IIIA melanoma require adjuvant therapy or not, whether treatment is better changed at disease progression or during stable disease, whether adoptive cell transfer (ACT) therapy is more appropriate used before or in combination with checkpoint inhibition therapy, and whether treatment can be stopped while the patient is still on response. As was the case for previous meetings, the debates were assigned by meeting Chairs. As such, positions taken by each of the melanoma experts during the debates may not have reflected their respective personal approach.

Perspectives in melanoma: meeting report from the "Melanoma Bridge" (December 5th-7th, 2019, Naples, Italy).

The melanoma treatment landscape changed in 2011 with the approval of the first anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein (CTLA)-4 checkpoint inhibitor and of the first BRAF-targeted monoclonal antibody, both of which significantly improved overall survival (OS). Since then, improved understanding of the tumor microenvironment (TME) and tumor immune-evasion mechanisms has resulted in new approaches to targeting and harnessing the host immune response. The approval of new immune and targeted therapies has further improved outcomes for patients with advanced melanoma and other combination modalities are also being explored such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, electrochemotherapy and surgery. In addition, different strategies of drugs administration including sequential or combination treatment are being tested. Approaches to overcome resistance and to potentiate the immune response are being developed. Increasing evidence emerges that tissue and blood-based biomarkers can predict the response to a therapy. The latest findings in melanoma research, including insights into the tumor microenvironment and new biomarkers, improved understanding of tumor immune response and resistance, novel approaches for combination strategies and the role of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy, were the focus of discussions at the Melanoma Bridge meeting (5-7 December, 2019, Naples, Italy), which are summarized in this report.

Perspectives in melanoma: meeting report from the Melanoma Bridge (November 29th-1 December 1st, 2018, Naples, Italy).

Diagnosis of melanocytic lesions, correct prognostication of patients, selection of appropriate adjuvant and systemic therapies, and prediction of response to a given therapy remain very real challenges in melanoma. Recent studies have shown that immune checkpoint blockade that represents a forefront in cancer therapy, provide responses but they are not universal. Improved understanding of the tumor microenvironment, tumor immunity and response to therapy has prompted extensive translational and clinical research in melanoma. Development of novel biomarker platforms may help to improve diagnostics and predictive accuracy for selection of patients for specific treatment. There is a growing evidence that genomic and immune features of pre-treatment tumor biopsies may correlate with response in patients with melanoma and other cancers they have yet to be fully characterized and implemented clinically. For example, advancements in sequencing and the understanding of the tumor microenvironment in melanoma have led to the use of genome sequencing and gene expression for development of multi-marker assays that show association with inflammatory state of the tumor and potential to predict response to immunotherapy. As such, melanoma serves as a model system for understanding cancer immunity and patient response to immunotherapy, either alone or in combination with other treatment modalities. Overall, the aim for the translational and clinical studies is to achieve incremental improvements through the development and identification of optimal treatment regimens, which increasingly involve doublet as well as triplet combinations, as well as through development of biomarkers to improve immune response. These and other topics in the management of melanoma were the focus of discussions at the fourth Melanoma Bridge meeting (November 29th-December 1st, 2018, Naples, Italy), which is summarised in this report.

Nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab in untreated melanoma.

BACKGROUND: In a phase 1 dose-escalation study, combined inhibition of T-cell checkpoint pathways by nivolumab and ipilimumab was associated with a high rate of objective response, including complete responses, among patients with advanced melanoma. METHODS: In this double-blind study involving 142 patients with metastatic melanoma who had not previously received treatment, we randomly assigned patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) combined with either nivolumab (1 mg per kilogram) or placebo once every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) or placebo every 2 weeks until the occurrence of disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The primary end point was the rate of investigator-assessed, confirmed objective response among patients with BRAF V600 wild-type tumors. RESULTS: Among patients with BRAF wild-type tumors, the rate of confirmed objective response was 61% (44 of 72 patients) in the group that received both ipilimumab and nivolumab (combination group) versus 11% (4 of 37 patients) in the group that received ipilimumab and placebo (ipilimumab-monotherapy group) (P<0.001), with complete responses reported in 16 patients (22%) in the combination group and no patients in the ipilimumab-monotherapy group. The median duration of response was not reached in either group. The median progression-free survival was not reached with the combination therapy and was 4.4 months with ipilimumab monotherapy (hazard ratio associated with combination therapy as compared with ipilimumab monotherapy for disease progression or death, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.23 to 0.68; P<0.001). Similar results for response rate and progression-free survival were observed in 33 patients with BRAF mutation-positive tumors. Drug-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported in 54% of the patients who received the combination therapy as compared with 24% of the patients who received ipilimumab monotherapy. Select adverse events with potential immunologic causes were consistent with those in a phase 1 study, and most of these events resolved with immune-modulating medication. CONCLUSIONS: The objective-response rate and the progression-free survival among patients with advanced melanoma who had not previously received treatment were significantly greater with nivolumab combined with ipilimumab than with ipilimumab monotherapy. Combination therapy had an acceptable safety profile. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01927419.).

Perspectives in melanoma: Meeting report from the Melanoma Bridge (30 November-2 December, 2017, Naples, Italy).

Metastatic melanoma represents a challenging clinical situation and, until relatively recently, there was an absence of effective treatment options. However, in 2011, the advanced melanoma treatment landscape was revolutionised with the approval of the anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein-4 checkpoint inhibitor ipilimumab and the selective BRAF kinase inhibitor vemurafenib, both of which significantly improved overall survival. Since then, availability of new immunotherapies, especially the anti-programmed death-1 checkpoint inhibitors, as well as other targeted therapies, have further improved outcomes for patients with advanced melanoma. Seven years on from the first approval of these novel therapies, evidence for the use of various immune-based and targeted approaches is continuing to increase at a rapid rate. Improved understanding of the tumour microenvironment and tumour immuno-evasion strategies has resulted in different approaches to target and harness the immune response. These new immune-based approaches offer the opportunity for various approaches with distinct modes of action being used in combination with one another, as well as combined with other treatment modalities such as targeted therapy, electrochemotherapy and surgery. The increasing number of treatment options that are now available has resulted in a growing need to identify which patients will derive most benefit from which treatments. Much research is now focused on the identification of biomarkers that can be utilised to help select patients for treatment. These and other recent advances in the management of melanoma were the focus of discussions at the third Melanoma Bridge meeting (30 November-2 December, 2017, Naples, Italy), which is summarised in this report.

Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy and Management of Regional Lymph Nodes in Melanoma: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Society of Surgical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)-Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) guideline for sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy in melanoma. METHODS: An ASCO-SSO panel was formed, and a systematic review of the literature was conducted regarding SLN biopsy and completion lymph node dissection (CLND) after a positive sentinel node in patients with melanoma. RESULTS: Nine new observational studies, two systematic reviews and an updated randomized controlled trial (RCT) of SLN biopsy, as well as two randomized controlled trials of CLND after positive SLN biopsy, were included. RECOMMENDATIONS: Routine SLN biopsy is not recommended for patients with thin melanomas that are T1a (non-ulcerated lesions < 0.8 mm in Breslow thickness). SLN biopsy may be considered for thin melanomas that are T1b (0.8 to 1.0 mm Breslow thickness or <0.8 mm Breslow thickness with ulceration) after a thorough discussion with the patient of the potential benefits and risk of harms associated with the procedure. SLN biopsy is recommended for patients with intermediate-thickness melanomas (T2 or T3; Breslow thickness of >1.0 to 4.0 mm). SLN biopsy may be recommended for patients with thick melanomas (T4; > 4.0 mm in Breslow thickness), after a discussion of the potential benefits and risks of harm. In the case of a positive SLN biopsy, CLND or careful observation are options for patients with low-risk micrometastatic disease, with due consideration of clinicopathological factors. For higher risk patients, careful observation may be considered only after a thorough discussion with patients about the potential risks and benefits of foregoing CLND. Important qualifying statements outlining relevant clinicopathological factors, and details of the reference patient populations are included within the guideline.

The need for a network to establish and validate predictive biomarkers in cancer immunotherapy.

Immunotherapies have emerged as one of the most promising approaches to treat patients with cancer. Recently, the entire medical oncology field has been revolutionized by the introduction of immune checkpoints inhibitors. Despite success in a variety of malignancies, responses typically only occur in a small percentage of patients for any given histology or treatment regimen. There are also concerns that immunotherapies are associated with immune-related toxicity as well as high costs. As such, identifying biomarkers to determine which patients are likely to derive clinical benefit from which immunotherapy and/or be susceptible to adverse side effects is a compelling clinical and social need. In addition, with several new immunotherapy agents in different phases of development, and approved therapeutics being tested in combination with a variety of different standard of care treatments, there is a requirement to stratify patients and select the most appropriate population in which to assess clinical efficacy. The opportunity to design parallel biomarkers studies that are integrated within key randomized clinical trials could be the ideal solution. Sample collection (fresh and/or archival tissue, PBMC, serum, plasma, stool, etc.) at specific points of treatment is important for evaluating possible biomarkers and studying the mechanisms of responsiveness, resistance, toxicity and relapse. This white paper proposes the creation of a network to facilitate the sharing and coordinating of samples from clinical trials to enable more in-depth analyses of correlative biomarkers than is currently possible and to assess the feasibilities, logistics, and collated interests. We propose a high standard of sample collection and storage as well as exchange of samples and knowledge through collaboration, and envisage how this could move forward using banked samples from completed studies together with prospective planning for ongoing and future clinical trials.

Future perspectives in melanoma research "Melanoma Bridge", Napoli, November 30th-3rd December 2016.

Major advances have been made in the treatment of cancer with targeted therapy and immunotherapy; several FDA-approved agents with associated improvement of 1-year survival rates became available for stage IV melanoma patients. Before 2010, the 1-year survival were quite low, at 30%; in 2011, the rise to nearly 50% in the setting of treatment with Ipilimumab, and rise to 70% with BRAF inhibitor monotherapy in 2013 was observed. Even more impressive are 1-year survival rates considering combination strategies with both targeted therapy and immunotherapy, now exceeding 80%. Can we improve response rates even further, and bring these therapies to more patients? In fact, despite these advances, responses are heterogeneous and are not always durable. There is a critical need to better understand who will benefit from therapy, as well as proper timing, sequence and combination of different therapeutic agents. How can we better understand responses to therapy and optimize treatment regimens? The key to better understanding therapy and to optimizing responses is with insights gained from responses to targeted therapy and immunotherapy through translational research in human samples. Combination therapies including chemotherapy, radiotherapy, targeted therapy, electrochemotherapy with immunotherapy agents such as Immune Checkpoint Blockers are under investigation but there is much room for improvement. Adoptive T cell therapy including tumor infiltrating lymphocytes and chimeric antigen receptor modified T cells therapy is also efficacious in metastatic melanoma and outcome enhancement seem likely by improved homing capacity of chemokine receptor transduced T cells. Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes therapy is also efficacious in metastatic melanoma and outcome enhancement seem likely by improved homing capacity of chemokine receptor transduced T cells. Understanding the mechanisms behind the development of acquired resistance and tests for biomarkers for treatment decisions are also under study and will offer new opportunities for more efficient combination therapies. Knowledge of immunologic features of the tumor microenvironment associated with response and resistance will improve the identification of patients who will derive the most benefit from monotherapy and might reveal additional immunologic determinants that could be targeted in combination with checkpoint blockade. The future of advanced melanoma needs to involve education and trials, biobanks with a focus on primary tumors, bioinformatics and empowerment of patients and clinicians.

Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma: 2-year overall survival outcomes in a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Results from phase 2 and 3 trials in patients with advanced melanoma have shown significant improvements in the proportion of patients achieving an objective response and prolonged progression-free survival with the combination of nivolumab (an anti-PD-1 antibody) plus ipilimumab (an anti-CTLA-4 antibody) compared with ipilimumab alone. We report 2-year overall survival data from a randomised controlled trial assessing this treatment in previously untreated advanced melanoma. METHODS: In this multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial (CheckMate 069) we recruited patients from 19 specialist cancer centres in two countries (France and the USA). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with previously untreated, unresectable stage III or IV melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive an intravenous infusion of nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg plus placebo, every 3 weeks for four doses. Subsequently, patients assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab received nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, whereas patients allocated to ipilimumab alone received placebo every 2 weeks during this phase. Randomisation was done via an interactive voice response system with a permuted block schedule (block size of six) and stratification by BRAF mutation status. The study funder, patients, investigators, and study site staff were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint, which has been reported previously, was the proportion of patients with BRAFV600 wild-type melanoma achieving an investigator-assessed objective response. Overall survival was an exploratory endpoint and is reported in this Article. Efficacy analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population, whereas safety was assessed in all treated patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01927419, and is ongoing but no longer enrolling patients. FINDINGS: Between Sept 16, 2013, and Feb 6, 2014, we screened 179 patients and enrolled 142, randomly assigning 95 patients to nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 47 to ipilimumab alone. In each treatment group, one patient no longer met the study criteria following randomisation and thus did not receive study drug. At a median follow-up of 24·5 months (IQR 9·1-25·7), 2-year overall survival was 63·8% (95% CI 53·3-72·6) for those assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 53·6% (95% CI 38·1-66·8) for those assigned to ipilimumab alone; median overall survival had not been reached in either group (hazard ratio 0·74, 95% CI 0·43-1·26; p=0·26). Treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were reported in 51 (54%) of 94 patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab compared with nine (20%) of 46 patients who received ipilimumab alone. The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were colitis (12 [13%] of 94 patients) and increased alanine aminotransferase (ten [11%]) in the combination group and diarrhoea (five [11%] of 46 patients) and hypophysitis (two [4%]) in the ipilimumab alone group. Serious grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 34 (36%) of 94 patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab (including colitis in ten [11%] of 94 patients, and diarrhoea in five [5%]) compared with four (9%) of 46 patients who received ipilimumab alone (including diarrhoea in two [4%] of 46 patients, colitis in one [2%], and hypophysitis in one [2%]). No new types of treatment-related adverse events or treatment-related deaths occurred in this updated analysis. INTERPRETATION: Although follow-up of the patients in this study is ongoing, the results of this analysis suggest that the combination of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab might lead to improved outcomes compared with first-line ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma. The results suggest encouraging survival outcomes with immunotherapy in this population of patients. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Contemporary experience with high-dose interleukin-2 therapy and impact on survival in patients with metastatic melanoma and metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

High-dose interleukin-2 (HD IL-2) was approved for treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in 1992 and for metastatic melanoma (mM) in 1998, in an era predating targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors. The PROCLAIMSM registry was established to collect and analyze data for patients treated with HD IL-2 in the current era. This analysis includes 170 patients with mM and 192 patients with mRCC treated between 2005 and 2012 with survival data current as of July 27, 2015. For patients with mM, complete response (CR) was observed in 5 %, partial response (PR) in 10 %, stable disease (SD) in 22 %, and 63 % had progressive disease (PD). The median overall survival (mOS) for these patients was 19.6 months, with a median follow-up of 43.1 months. The mOS was not reached for patients achieving CR or PR, and was 33.4 months for patients with SD. For patients with mRCC, 6 % achieved CR, 9 % had PR, 22 % had SD, and 62 % had PD. The mOS was 41 months, with a median follow-up of 46.6 months. The mOS for patients who had CR and PR was not reached and was 49.6 months for patients with SD. There were no treatment-related deaths among 362 patients. The duration of mOS for patients with mM and mRCC is longer than historically reported. These data support a continued role for IL-2 in the treatment of eligible patients with mM or mRCC and warrant further evaluation of HD IL-2 in combination or sequence with other therapeutic agents.

Future perspectives in melanoma research : Meeting report from the "Melanoma Bridge". Napoli, December 1st-4th 2015.

The sixth "Melanoma Bridge Meeting" took place in Naples, Italy, December 1st-4th, 2015. The four sessions at this meeting were focused on: (1) molecular and immune advances; (2) combination therapies; (3) news in immunotherapy; and 4) tumor microenvironment and biomarkers. Recent advances in tumor biology and immunology has led to the development of new targeted and immunotherapeutic agents that prolong progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of cancer patients. Immunotherapies in particular have emerged as highly successful approaches to treat patients with cancer including melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), renal cell carcinoma (RCC), bladder cancer, and Hodgkin's disease. Specifically, many clinical successes have been using checkpoint receptor blockade, including T cell inhibitory receptors such as cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) and the programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) and its ligand PD-L1. Despite demonstrated successes, responses to immunotherapy interventions occur only in a minority of patients. Attempts are being made to improve responses to immunotherapy by developing biomarkers. Optimizing biomarkers for immunotherapy could help properly select patients for treatment and help to monitor response, progression and resistance that are critical challenges for the immuno-oncology (IO) field. Importantly, biomarkers could help to design rational combination therapies. In addition, biomarkers may help to define mechanism of action of different agents, dose selection and to sequence drug combinations. However, biomarkers and assays development to guide cancer immunotherapy is highly challenging for several reasons: (i) multiplicity of immunotherapy agents with different mechanisms of action including immunotherapies that target activating and inhibitory T cell receptors (e.g., CTLA-4, PD-1, etc.); adoptive T cell therapies that include tissue infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), chimeric antigen receptors (CARs), and T cell receptor (TCR) modified T cells; (ii) tumor heterogeneity including changes in antigenic profiles over time and location in individual patient; and (iii) a variety of immune-suppressive mechanisms in the tumor microenvironment (TME) including T regulatory cells (Treg), myeloid derived suppressor cells (MDSC) and immunosuppressive cytokines. In addition, complex interaction of tumor-immune system further increases the level of difficulties in the process of biomarkers development and their validation for clinical use. Recent clinical trial results have highlighted the potential for combination therapies that include immunomodulating agents such as anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4. Agents targeting other immune inhibitory (e.g., Tim-3) or immune stimulating (e.g., CD137) receptors on T cells and other approaches such as adoptive cell transfer are tested for clinical efficacy in melanoma as well. These agents are also being tested in combination with targeted therapies to improve upon shorter-term responses thus far seen with targeted therapy. Various locoregional interventions that demonstrate promising results in treatment of advanced melanoma are also integrated with immunotherapy agents and the combinations with cytotoxic chemotherapy and inhibitors of angiogenesis are changing the evolving landscape of therapeutic options and are being evaluated to prevent or delay resistance and to further improve survival rates for melanoma patients' population. This meeting's specific focus was on advances in immunotherapy and combination therapy for melanoma. The importance of understanding of melanoma genomic background for development of novel therapies and biomarkers for clinical application to predict the treatment response was an integral part of the meeting. The overall emphasis on biomarkers supports novel concepts toward integrating biomarkers into personalized-medicine approach for treatment of patients with melanoma across the entire spectrum of disease stage. Translation of the knowledge gained from the biology of tumor microenvironment across different tumors represents a bridge to impact on prognosis and response to therapy in melanoma. We also discussed the requirements for pre-analytical and analytical as well as clinical validation process as applied to biomarkers for cancer immunotherapy. The concept of the fit-for-purpose marker validation has been introduced to address the challenges and strategies for analytical and clinical validation design for specific assays.

Results of a Randomized Controlled Multicenter Phase III Trial of Percutaneous Hepatic Perfusion Compared with Best Available Care for Patients with Melanoma Liver Metastases.

PURPOSE: There is no consensus for the treatment of melanoma metastatic to the liver. Percutaneous hepatic perfusion with melphalan (PHP-Mel) is a method of delivering regional chemotherapy selectively to the liver. In this study, we report the results of a multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing PHP-Mel with best alternative care (BAC) for patients with ocular or cutaneous melanoma metastatic to the liver. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 93 patients were randomized to PHP-Mel (n = 44) or BAC (n = 49). On the PHP-Mel arm, melphalan was delivered via the hepatic artery, and the hepatic effluent captured and filtered extracorporeally prior to return to the systemic circulation via a venovenous bypass circuit. PHP-Mel was repeatable every 4-8 weeks. The primary endpoint was hepatic progression-free survival (hPFS), and secondary endpoints included overall PFS (oPFS), overall survival (OS), hepatic objective response (hOR), and safety. RESULTS: hPFS was 7.0 months for PHP-Mel and 1.6 months for BAC (p < 0.0001), while oPFS was 5.4 months for PHP-Mel and 1.6 months for BAC (p < 0.0001). Median OS was not significantly different (PHP-Mel 10.6 months vs. BAC 10.0 months), likely due to crossover to PHP-Mel treatment (57.1 %) from the BAC arm, and the hOR was 36.4 % for PHP-Mel and 2.0 % for BAC (p < 0.001). The majority of adverse events were related to bone marrow suppression. Four deaths were attributed to PHP-Mel, three in the primary PHP-Mel group, and one post-crossover to PHP-Mel from BAC. CONCLUSION: This randomized, phase III study demonstrated the efficacy of the PHP-Mel procedure. hPFS, oPFS, and hOR were significantly improved with PHP-Mel. PHP with melphalan should provide a new treatment option for unresectable metastatic melanoma in the liver.

The Role of Intralesional Therapies in Melanoma.

The US Food and Drug Administration has been rapidly approving new checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies for melanoma and other tumors. Recently, it approved the first intralesional therapy, talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC), for the treatment of metastatic melanoma lesions in the skin and lymph nodes. Several other intralesional therapies (PV-10, interleukin-12 electroporation, coxsackievirus A21 [CVA21]) are entering later-stage testing. Locally injected agents have clearly shown their ability to produce local responses that can be durable. The possibility that they also stimulate a regional and even systemic immune response is exciting, as this potential effect may have utility in combination regimens; such regimens are an area of active research. Favorable responses with minimal toxicities in monotherapy trials have led to the first melanoma studies of T-VEC in combination with the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 inhibitor ipilimumab and, separately, with the programmed death 1-blocking antibody pembrolizumab. Studies of PV-10 with pembrolizumab and of CVA21 with pembrolizumab are also being initiated. Preliminary analyses of the results of the first combination trials, which show higher response rates than with either agent alone, offer some optimism that these locoregional therapies will find application--as treatment for patients who cannot tolerate systemic immunotherapies, to alleviate locoregional morbidity, and perhaps even to "prime" the immune system.

Pembrolizumab versus investigator-choice chemotherapy for ipilimumab-refractory melanoma (KEYNOTE-002): a randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with melanoma that progresses on ipilimumab and, if BRAF(V600) mutant-positive, a BRAF or MEK inhibitor or both, have few treatment options. We assessed the efficacy and safety of two pembrolizumab doses versus investigator-choice chemotherapy in patients with ipilimumab-refractory melanoma. METHODS: We carried out a randomised phase 2 trial of patients aged 18 years or older from 73 hospitals, clinics, and academic medical centres in 12 countries who had confirmed progressive disease within 24 weeks after two or more ipilimumab doses and, if BRAF(V600) mutant-positive, previous treatment with a BRAF or MEK inhibitor or both. Patients had to have resolution of all ipilimumab-related adverse events to grade 0-1 and prednisone 10 mg/day or less for at least 2 weeks, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and at least one measurable lesion to be eligible. Using a centralised interactive voice response system, we randomly assigned (1:1:1) patients in a block size of six to receive intravenous pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks or investigator-choice chemotherapy (paclitaxel plus carboplatin, paclitaxel, carboplatin, dacarbazine, or oral temozolomide). Randomisation was stratified by ECOG performance status, lactate dehydrogenase concentration, and BRAF(V600) mutation status. Individual treatment assignment between pembrolizumab and chemotherapy was open label, but investigators and patients were masked to assignment of the dose of pembrolizumab. We present the primary endpoint at the prespecified second interim analysis of progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01704287. The study is closed to enrolment but continues to follow up and treat patients. FINDINGS: Between Nov 30, 2012, and Nov 13, 2013, we enrolled 540 patients: 180 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg, 181 to receive pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg, and 179 to receive chemotherapy. Based on 410 progression-free survival events, progression-free survival was improved in patients assigned to pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg (HR 0·57, 95% CI 0·45-0·73; p<0·0001) and those assigned to pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg (0·50, 0·39-0·64; p<0·0001) compared with those assigned to chemotherapy. 6-month progression-free survival was 34% (95% CI 27-41) in the pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg group, 38% (31-45) in the 10 mg/kg group, and 16% (10-22) in the chemotherapy group. Treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 20 (11%) patients in the pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg group, 25 (14%) in the pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg group, and 45 (26%) in the chemotherapy group. The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse event in the pembrolizumab groups was fatigue (two [1%] of 178 patients in the 2 mg/kg group and one [<1%] of 179 patients in the 10 mg/kg group, compared with eight [5%] of 171 in the chemotherapy group). Other treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events include generalised oedema and myalgia (each in two [1%] patients) in those given pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg; hypopituitarism, colitis, diarrhoea, decreased appetite, hyponatremia, and pneumonitis (each in two [1%]) in those given pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg; and anaemia (nine [5%]), fatigue (eight [5%]), neutropenia (six [4%]), and leucopenia (six [4%]) in those assigned to chemotherapy. INTERPRETATION: These findings establish pembrolizumab as a new standard of care for the treatment of ipilimumab-refractory melanoma. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Intralesional therapy for advanced melanoma: promise and limitation.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Patients with unresectable, multiple or advanced locally/regionally metastatic stage IIIB/C or stage IV M1a melanoma have a high risk for recurrence, progression and metastasis. The article reviews treatment advances for this population. RECENT FINDINGS: After promising phase 2 results with Allovectin-7 (velimogene aliplasmid), overall survival in a phase 3 study was shorter for Allovectin-7 than for dacarbazine/temozolomide (median 18.8 versus 24.1 months).In a phase 2 trial of intratumoral electroporation of plasmid interleukin-12 among 28 patients with advanced melanoma, the primary endpoint of best overall response rate within 24 weeks of first treatment was 32.2% for objective response and 10.7% for complete response.In the phase 3 OPTiM trial of talimogene laherparepvec, the intralesional agent that is furthest along in clinical testing, the primary endpoint of durable response rate was 16% for talimogene laherparepvec and 2% for granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor.In the PV-10 phase 2 trial among 80 patients with stage III-IV melanoma, the overall response rate was 51%, with a 26% complete response rate. SUMMARY: Despite advances, many patients will need several lines of therapy. Some will not be eligible for systemic therapy. Their low toxicity, easy administration and likely systemic immune effects make intralesional therapies an attractive option.

Phase 2 Study of Intralesional PV-10 in Refractory Metastatic Melanoma.

PURPOSE: This international, multicenter, single-arm trial assessed efficacy and safety of intralesional rose bengal (PV-10) in 80 patients with refractory cutaneous or subcutaneous metastatic melanoma. METHODS: Sixty-two stage III and 18 stage IV melanoma patients with disease refractory to a median of six prior interventions received intralesional PV-10 into up to 20 cutaneous and subcutaneous lesions up to four times over a 16-week period and were followed for 52 weeks. Objectives were to determine best overall response rate in injected target lesions and uninjected bystander lesions, assess durability of response, and characterize adverse events. RESULTS: For target lesions, the best overall response rate was 51 %, and the complete response rate was 26 %. Median time to response was 1.9 months, and median duration of response was 4.0 months, with 8 % of patients having no evidence of disease after 52 weeks. Response was dependent on untreated disease burden, with complete response achieved in 50 % of patients receiving PV-10 to all of their disease. Response of target lesions correlated with bystander lesion regression and the occurrence of locoregional blistering. Adverse events were predominantly mild to moderate and locoregional to the treatment site, with no treatment-associated grade 4 or 5 adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Intralesional PV-10 yielded durable local control with high rates of complete response. Toxicity was confined predominantly to the injection site. Cutaneous bystander tumor regression is consistent with an immunologic response secondary to ablation. This intralesional approach for local disease control could be complementary to current and investigational treatments for melanoma.

Metastatic melanoma to the liver: a contemporary and comprehensive review of surgical, systemic, and regional therapeutic options.

Effective management of hepatic metastases from ocular and cutaneous melanoma remains a major therapeutic challenge. Treatment options include hepatic resection, hepatic intra-arterial (HIA) chemotherapy, chemoembolization, and hepatic perfusions. Evaluating the efficacy of these interventions is limited by the retrospective nature of most of the data, although controlled phase 3 studies are starting to emerge. Studies of hepatic resection are strongly suggestive of a survival benefit following surgery in selected patients. Effective systemic agents for metastatic cutaneous melanoma are available and supported by randomized controlled phase 3 trials. In contrast, no active systemic treatment has yet been identified for metastatic ocular melanoma. HIA and intravenous delivery of fotemustine have been compared in a randomized phase 3 trial in patients with unresectable metastases from melanoma, but no differences between the 2 approaches were observed. Hepatic arterial chemoembolization appears only to be moderately effective according to uncontrolled studies; targeting patients with less liver involvement may improve outcomes. A recent phase 3 study showed a significant improvement in hepatic progression-free survival with percutaneous hepatic perfusion compared with best alternative care in patients with metastatic melanoma; however, the overall survival analysis was confounded by crossover of control patients to active treatment. In conclusion, hepatic resection offers the possibility of long-term survival in carefully selected patients with liver-limited metastases from melanoma. In patients with unresectable cutaneous melanoma, effective systemic therapy is the best treatment option. For patients with unresectable ocular melanoma, regional treatments are likely to assume a greater role until effective systemic treatments are identified.

MEK162 for patients with advanced melanoma harbouring NRAS or Val600 BRAF mutations: a non-randomised, open-label phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with melanoma harbouring Val600 BRAF mutations benefit from treatment with BRAF inhibitors. However, no targeted treatments exist for patients with BRAF wild-type tumours, including those with NRAS mutations. We aimed to assess the use of MEK162, a small-molecule MEK1/2 inhibitor, in patients with NRAS-mutated or Val600 BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma. METHODS: In our open-label, non-randomised, phase 2 study, we assigned patients with NRAS-mutated or BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma to one of three treatment arms on the basis of mutation status. Patients were enrolled at university hospitals or private cancer centres in Europe and the USA. The three arms were: twice-daily MEK162 45 mg for NRAS-mutated melanoma, twice-daily MEK162 45 mg for BRAF-mutated melanoma, and twice-daily MEK162 60 mg for BRAF-mutated melanoma. Previous treatment with BRAF inhibitors was permitted, but previous MEK inhibitor therapy was not allowed. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who had an objective response (ie, a complete response or confirmed partial response). We report data for the 45 mg groups. We assessed clinical activity in all patients who received at least one dose of MEK162 and in patients assessable for response (with two available CT scans). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01320085, and is currently recruiting additional patients with NRAS mutations (based on a protocol amendment). FINDINGS: Between March 31, 2011, and Jan 17, 2012, we enrolled 71 patients who received at least one dose of MEK162 45 mg. By Feb 29, 2012 (data cutoff), median follow-up was 3·3 months (range 0·6-8·7; IQR 2·2-5·0). No patients had a complete response. Six (20%) of 30 patients with NRAS-mutated melanoma had a partial response (three confirmed) as did eight (20%) of 41 patients with BRAF-mutated melanoma (two confirmed). The most frequent adverse events were acneiform dermatitis (18 [60%] patients with NRAS -mutated melanoma and 15 [37%] patients with the BRAF-mutated melanoma), rash (six [20%] and 16 [39%]), peripheral oedema (ten [33%] and 14 [34%]), facial oedema (nine [30%] and seven [17%]), diarrhoea (eight [27%] and 15 [37%]), and creatine phosphokinase increases (11 [37%] and nine [22%]). Increased creatine phosphokinase was the most common grade 3-4 adverse event (seven [23%] and seven [17%]). Four patients had serious adverse events (two per arm), which included diarrhoea, dehydration, acneiform dermatitis, general physical deterioration, irregular heart rate, malaise, and small intestinal perforation. No deaths occurred from treatment-related causes. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, MEK162 is the first targeted therapy to show activity in patients with NRAS -mutated melanoma and might offer a new option for a cancer with few effective treatments. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals.