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

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

Pembrolizumab in microsatellite instability high or mismatch repair deficient cancers: updated analysis from the phase II KEYNOTE-158 study.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab demonstrated durable antitumor activity in 233 patients with previously treated advanced microsatellite instability high (MSI-H) or mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) advanced solid tumors in the phase II multicohort KEYNOTE-158 (NCT02628067) study. Herein, we report safety and efficacy outcomes with longer follow-up for more patients with previously treated advanced MSI-H/dMMR noncolorectal cancers who were included in cohort K of the KEYNOTE-158 (NCT02628067) study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with previously treated advanced noncolorectal MSI-H/dMMR solid tumors, measurable disease as per RECIST v1.1, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 received pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W for 35 cycles or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) as per RECIST v1.1 by independent central radiologic review. RESULTS: Three hundred and fifty-one patients with various tumor types were enrolled in KEYNOTE-158 cohort K. The most common tumor types were endometrial (22.5%), gastric (14.5%), and small intestine (7.4%). Median time from first dose to database cut-off (5 October 2020) was 37.5 months (range, 0.2-55.6 months). ORR among 321 patients in the efficacy population (patients who received ≥1 dose of pembrolizumab enrolled ≥6 months before the data cut-off date) was 30.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 25.8% to 36.2%]. Median duration of response was 47.5 months (range, 2.1+ to 51.1+ months; '+' indicates no progressive disease by the time of last disease assessment). Median progression-free survival was 3.5 months (95% CI 2.3-4.2 months) and median overall survival was 20.1 months (95% CI 14.1-27.1 months). Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 227 patients (64.7%). Grade 3-4 treatment-related AEs occurred in 39 patients (11.1%); 3 (0.9%) had grade 5 treatment-related AEs (myocarditis, pneumonia, and Guillain-Barre syndrome, n = 1 each). CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab demonstrated clinically meaningful and durable benefit, with a high ORR of 30.8%, long median duration of response of 47.5 months, and manageable safety across a range of heavily pretreated, advanced MSI-H/dMMR noncolorectal cancers, providing support for use of pembrolizumab in this setting.

Biomarkers of treatment benefit with atezolizumab plus vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma.

BACKGROUND: The phase III IMspire150 study (NCT02908672) demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) with atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (atezolizumab group) versus placebo, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (control group) in patients with BRAFV600-mutated advanced melanoma. We report exploratory biomarker analyses to optimize targeting of patients who are more likely to benefit from triplet combination therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Five hundred fourteen patients were randomized to atezolizumab (n = 256) or control (n = 258). Outcomes were evaluated in subgroups defined by key biomarkers, including programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level, tumor mutational burden (TMB), and interferon-γ (IFN-γ) gene signature. Exploratory recursive partitioning analysis was then used to model associations between PFS and baseline covariates, including key biomarkers. RESULTS: PFS benefit for atezolizumab versus control was greater in patients with high TMB [≥10 mutations/Mb; hazard ratio (HR) 0.73; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-1.02; P = 0.067] versus low TMB (<10 mutations/Mb; HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.65-1.30; P = 0.64) and similar between patients with strong IFN-γ (≥median; HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.54-1.06) versus weak IFN-γ (

Single-agent anti-PD-1 or combined with ipilimumab in patients with mucosal melanoma: an international, retrospective, cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Mucosal melanoma (MM) is a rare melanoma subtype with distinct biology and poor prognosis. Data on the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are limited. We determined the efficacy of ICIs in MM, analyzed by primary site and ethnicity/race. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study from 25 cancer centers in Australia, Europe, USA and Asia was carried out. Patients with histologically confirmed MM were treated with anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) ± ipilimumab. Primary endpoints were response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) by primary site (naso-oral, urogenital, anorectal, other), ethnicity/race (Caucasian, Asian, Other) and treatment. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards model analyses were conducted. RESULTS: In total, 545 patients were included: 331 (63%) Caucasian, 176 (33%) Asian and 20 (4%) Other. Primary sites included 113 (21%) anorectal, 178 (32%) urogenital, 206 (38%) naso-oral and 45 (8%) other. Three hundred and forty-eight (64%) patients received anti-PD-1 and 197 (36%) anti-PD-1/ipilimumab. RR, PFS and OS did not differ by primary site, ethnicity/race or treatment. RR for naso-oral was numerically higher for anti-PD-1/ipilimumab [40%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 29% to 54%] compared with anti-PD-1 (29%, 95% CI 21% to 37%). Thirty-five percent of patients who initially responded progressed. The median duration of response (mDoR) was 26 months (95% CI 18 months-not reached). Factors associated with short PFS were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) ≥3 (P < 0.01), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) more than the upper limit of normal (ULN) (P = 0.01), lung metastases (P < 0.01) and ≥1 previous treatments (P < 0.01). Factors associated with short OS were ECOG PS ≥1 (P < 0.01), LDH >ULN (P = 0.03), lung metastases (P < 0.01) and ≥1 previous treatments (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: MM has poor prognosis. Treatment efficacy of anti-PD-1 ± ipilimumab was similar and did not differ by ethnicity/race. Naso-oral primaries had numerically higher response to anti-PD-1/ipilimumab, without difference in survival. The addition of ipilimumab did not show greater benefit over anti-PD-1 for other primary sites. In responders, mDoR was short and acquired resistance was common. Other factors, including site and number of metastases, were associated with survival.

Delayed immune-related adverse events with anti-PD-1-based immunotherapy in melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) typically occur within 4 months of starting anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)-based therapy [anti-PD-1 ± anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA4)], but delayed irAEs (onset >12 months after commencement) can also occur. This study describes the incidence, nature and management of delayed irAEs in patients receiving anti-PD-1-based immunotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with delayed irAEs from 20 centres were studied. The incidence of delayed irAEs was estimated as a proportion of melanoma patients treated with anti-PD-1-based therapy and surviving >1 year. Onset, clinical features, management and outcomes of irAEs were examined. RESULTS: One hundred and eighteen patients developed a total of 140 delayed irAEs (20 after initial combination with anti-CTLA4), with an estimated incidence of 5.3% (95% confidence interval 4.0-6.9, 53/999 patients at sites with available data). The median onset of delayed irAE was 16 months (range 12-53 months). Eighty-seven patients (74%) were on anti-PD-1 at irAE onset, 15 patients (12%) were <3 months from the last dose and 16 patients (14%) were >3 months from the last dose of anti-PD-1. The most common delayed irAEs were colitis, rash and pneumonitis; 55 of all irAEs (39%) were ≥grade 3. Steroids were required in 80 patients (68%), as well as an additional immunosuppressive agent in 27 patients (23%). There were two irAE-related deaths: encephalitis with onset during anti-PD-1 and a multiple-organ irAE with onset 11 months after ceasing anti-PD-1. Early irAEs (<12 months) had also occurred in 69 patients (58%), affecting a different organ from the delayed irAE in 59 patients (86%). CONCLUSIONS: Delayed irAEs occur in a small but relevant subset of patients. Delayed irAEs are often different from previous irAEs, may be high grade and can lead to death. They mostly occur in patients still receiving anti-PD-1. The risk of delayed irAE should be considered when deciding the duration of treatment in responding patients. However, patients who stop treatment may also rarely develop delayed irAE.

Prognostic impact of baseline tumour immune infiltrate on disease-free survival in patients with completely resected, BRAFv600 mutation-positive melanoma receiving adjuvant vemurafenib.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a retrospective exploratory analysis to evaluate the effects of baseline tumour immune infiltrate on disease-free survival (DFS) outcomes in patients with fully resected stage IIC-IIIC melanoma receiving adjuvant vemurafenib monotherapy or placebo in the BRIM8 study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: BRIM8 was a phase III, international, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study. Eligible patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive, completely resected melanoma were randomly assigned to oral vemurafenib (960 mg twice daily) or matching placebo for 52 weeks. The primary end point was DFS. The association of CD8+ T-cell infiltration and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression with DFS, as measured by immunohistochemistry, was explored retrospectively. RESULTS: Four hundred ninety-eight patients were randomly assigned to receive adjuvant vemurafenib (n = 250) or placebo (n = 248); tumour samples were available for biomarker analysis for approximately 60% of patients. In the pooled biomarker population, placebo-treated patients with <1% CD8+ T cells in the tumour centre had shorter median DFS than those with ≥1% CD8+ T cells (7.7 versus 47.8 months). DFS benefit from vemurafenib versus placebo was greater in patients with <1% CD8+ T cells [hazard ratio (HR) 0.56; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-0.92) than in patients with ≥1% CD8+ T cells (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.48-1.22). Likewise, median DFS was shorter among placebo-treated patients with <5% versus ≥5% PD-L1+ immune cells (IC) in the tumour (7.2 versus 47.8 months). A greater DFS benefit with vemurafenib versus placebo was observed in patients with <5% PD-L1+IC (HR 0.36; 95% CI 0.24-0.56) than in patients with ≥5% PD-L1+IC (HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.58-1.69). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of CD8+ T cells and PD-L1+IC are favourable prognostic factors for DFS. Treatment with adjuvant vemurafenib may overcome the poor DFS prognosis associated with low CD8+ T-cell count or PD-L1 expression. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01667419.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Starting the fight in the tumor: expert recommendations for the development of human intratumoral immunotherapy (HIT-IT).

A European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)-sponsored expert meeting was held in Paris on 8 March 2018 which comprised 11 experts from academia, 11 experts from the pharmaceutical industry and 2 clinicians who were representatives of ESMO. The focus of the meeting was exclusively on the intratumoral injection/delivery of immunostimulatory agents with the aim of harmonizing the standard terms and methodologies used in the reporting of human intratumoral immunotherapy (HIT-IT) clinical trials to ensure quality assurance and avoid a blurring of the data reported from different studies. The goal was to provide a reference document, endorsed by the panel members that could provide guidance to clinical investigators, pharmaceutical companies, ethics committees, independent review boards, patient advocates and the regulatory authorities and promote an increase in the number and quality of HIT-IT clinical trials in the future. Particular emphasis was placed not only on the development of precise definitions to facilitate a better understanding between investigators but also on the importance of systematic serial biopsies as a driver for translational research and the need for the recording and reporting of data, to facilitate a better understanding of the key processes involved.

Vemurafenib in patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive metastatic melanoma: final overall survival results of the randomized BRIM-3 study.

BACKGROUND: The BRIM-3 trial showed improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for vemurafenib compared with dacarbazine in treatment-naive patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive metastatic melanoma. We present final OS data from BRIM-3. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned in a 1 : 1 ratio to receive vemurafenib (960 mg twice daily) or dacarbazine (1000 mg/m2 every 3 weeks). OS and PFS were co-primary end points. OS was assessed in the intention-to-treat population, with and without censoring of data for dacarbazine patients who crossed over to vemurafenib. RESULTS: Between 4 January 2010 and 16 December 2010, a total of 675 patients were randomized to vemurafenib (n = 337) or dacarbazine (n = 338, of whom 84 crossed over to vemurafenib). At the time of database lock (14 August 2015), median OS, censored at crossover, was significantly longer for vemurafenib than for dacarbazine {13.6 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 12.0-15.4] versus 9.7 months [95% CI 7.9-12.8; hazard ratio (HR) 0.81 [95% CI 0.67-0.98]; P = 0.03}, as was median OS without censoring at crossover [13.6 months (95% CI 12.0-15.4) versus 10.3 months (95% CI 9.1-12.8); HR 0.81 (95% CI 0.68-0.96); P = 0.01]. Kaplan-Meier estimates of OS rates for vemurafenib versus dacarbazine were 56% versus 46%, 30% versus 24%, 21% versus 19% and 17% versus 16% at 1, 2, 3 and 4 years, respectively. Overall, 173 of the 338 patients (51%) in the dacarbazine arm and 175 of the 337 (52%) of those in the vemurafenib arm received subsequent anticancer therapies, most commonly ipilimumab. Safety data were consistent with the primary analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Vemurafenib continues to be associated with improved median OS in the BRIM-3 trial after extended follow-up. OS curves converged after ≈3 years, likely as a result of crossover from dacarbazine to vemurafenib and receipt of subsequent anticancer therapies. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT01006980.

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

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

Effect of nivolumab on health-related quality of life in patients with treatment-naïve advanced melanoma: results from the phase III CheckMate 066 study.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab has shown significant survival benefit and a favorable safety profile compared with dacarbazine chemotherapy among treatment-naïve patients with metastatic melanoma in the CheckMate 066 phase III study. Results from the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) analyses from CheckMate 066 are presented. PATIENTS AND METHODS: HRQoL was evaluated at baseline and every 6 weeks while on treatment using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Care (EORTC) Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and the EuroQoL Five Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D). Via a multi-step statistical plan, data were analyzed descriptively, cross-sectionally, and longitudinally, adjusting for baseline covariates, in patients having baseline plus ≥1 post-baseline assessment. RESULTS: Baseline-adjusted completion rates for all HRQoL questionnaires across treatment arms were 65% and 70% for dacarbazine and nivolumab, respectively, and remained similar throughout treatment. The mean baseline HRQoL scores were similar for patients treated with nivolumab and dacarbazine. Baseline HRQoL levels with nivolumab were maintained over time. This exploratory analysis showed a between-arm difference in favor of nivolumab on the EQ-5D utility index and clinically meaningful EQ-5D improvements from baseline at several time points for patients receiving nivolumab. Patients treated with nivolumab did not show increased symptom burden as assessed by the EORTC QLQ-C30. No HRQoL change was noted with dacarbazine patients up to week 43, although the high attrition rate after week 13 did not allow any meaningful analyses. Patients receiving nivolumab deteriorated significantly later than those receiving dacarbazine on several EORTC QLQ-C30 scales and the EQ-5D utility index. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to prolonged survival, these exploratory HRQoL results show that nivolumab maintains baseline HRQoL levels to provide long-term quality of survival benefit, compared with dacarbazine in patients with advanced melanoma.

Baseline neutrophils and derived neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio: prognostic relevance in metastatic melanoma patients receiving ipilimumab.

BACKGROUND: Clinical responses to ipilimumab are variable in terms of onset, magnitude and duration. Upfront identification of patients who are more likely or unlikely to benefit from treatment is a major need. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospectively collected data from 720 advanced melanoma patients treated with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg within the Italian expanded access program were analyzed. The derived neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (dNLR) was calculated from baseline peripheral blood cell counts, and receiver operating characteristic curve was used to evaluate the best cutoff for this marker. Patients were stratified according to dichotomized baseline absolute neutrophil counts (ANC), dNLR and their combination. The prognostic values of ANC and dNLR for survival were assessed using multivariate Cox proportional hazard models. A subgroup analysis including LDH in the models was also carried out. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 16.5 months. The optimal cutoff for dNLR was 3. Baseline ANC and dNLR were significantly associated with the outcome of ipilimumab-treated melanoma patients, in terms of disease progression and death (P < 0.0001 for all). Furthermore, for each elevated variable, prognosis worsened. Patients with both ANC ≥ 7500 and dNLR ≥ 3 had a significantly and independently increased risk of death [hazard ratio(HR) = 5.76; 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.29-7.75] and of progression (HR = 4.10; 95% CI 3.08-5.46) compared with patients with both lower ANC and dNLR. Patients with one of the two factors elevated displayed an intermediate risk of progression and death. The 1- and 2-year survival rates were 2% and 0%, respectively, for patients with ANC ≥ 7500 and dNLR ≥ 3, and 43% and 24%, respectively, for patients with both lower ANC and dNLR. CONCLUSIONS: Although these findings need to be confirmed and validated, we suggest that a neutrophil-based index may help risk-group stratification and assist disease-management strategies. Furthermore, the potential predictive value of this index for response to ipilimumab should be investigated in randomized clinical trials.

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

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

Immunoscore and Immunoprofiling in cancer: an update from the melanoma and immunotherapy bridge 2015.

The fifth "Melanoma Bridge Meeting" took place in Naples, December 1-5th, 2015. The main topics discussed at this meeting were: Molecular and Immuno advances, Immunotherapies and Combination Therapies, Tumor Microenvironment and Biomarkers and Immunoscore. The natural history of cancer involves interactions between the tumor and the immune system of the host. The immune infiltration at the tumor site may be indicative of host response. Significant correlations were shown between the levels of immune cell infiltration in tumors and patient's clinical outcome. Moreover, incredible progress comes from the discovery of mutation-encoded tumor neoantigens. In fact, as tumors grow, they acquire mutations that are able to influence the response of patients to immune checkpoint inhibitors. It has been demonstrated that sensitivity to PD-1 and CTLA-4 blockade in patients with advanced NSCLC and melanoma was enhanced in tumors enriched for clonal neoantigens. The road ahead is still very long, but the knowledge of the mechanisms of immune escape, the study of tumor neo-antigens as well as of tumor microenvironment and the development of new immunotherapy strategies, will make cancer a more and more treatable disease.

Metronomic temozolomide as second line treatment for metastatic poorly differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma.

Neuroendocrine Neoplasms (NEN) are a group of heterogeneous malignancies derived from neuroendocrine cell compartment, with different roles in both endocrine and nervous system. Most NETs have gastroentero-pancreatic (GEP) origin, arising in the foregut, midgut, or hindgut. The 2010 WHO classification divides GEP-NETs into two main subgroups, neuroendocrine tumors (NET) and neuroendocrine carcinomas (NEC), according with Ki-67 levels. NET are tumors with low (<20 %) Ki-67 value, and NECs, including small cell lung carcinomas and Merkel Cell carcinomas, are all NETs with high Ki-67 levels (>20 %-G3). Poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (NEC) are usually treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy regimens. Here we present a case of a patient with pancreatic NEC progressing after cisplatin and etoposide, treated with temozolomide as palliative, second line treatment. According with the poor Performance Status (PS = 2) and to reduce the toxicity of the treatment was chosen an intermittent dosing regimen of metronomic temozolomide (75 mg/m(2)/day-one-week-on/on-week-off). MGMT resulted methylated. On July 2014 the patient started the treatment. On August 2014 the patient obtained a significant clinical benefit (PS = 0) and the total body CT scan performed on October 2014 showed a RECIST partial response on all the sites of disease. No drug-related side effects were reported by the patient. After 18 months of therapy the treatment continues without significant toxicity, and with further remission of the metastases. Treatment with metronomic "one-week-on/on-week-off" Temozolomide can be considered a good treatment option in patients with poor performance status, affected by pNEC with MGMT methylation.

Three-year follow-up of advanced melanoma patients who received ipilimumab plus fotemustine in the Italian Network for Tumor Biotherapy (NIBIT)-M1 phase II study.

BACKGROUND: In the NIBIT-M1 study, we reported a promising activity of ipilimumab combined with fotemustine in metastatic melanoma (MM) patients with or without brain metastases. To corroborate these initial findings, we now investigated the long-term efficacy of this combination. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This analysis captured the 3-year outcome of MM patients who received ipilimumab combined with fotemustine as first- or second-line treatment. Median overall survival (OS), 3-year survival rates, immune-related (ir) progression-free survival (irPFS), brain PFS, and ir duration of response (irDOR) for the entire population and for patients with brain metastases were assessed. Clinical results were correlated with circulating CD3(+)CD4(+)ICOS(+)CD45RO(+) or CD45RA(+) T cells, neutrophil/lymphocyte (N/L) ratios, and tumorBRAF-V600 mutational status. RESULTS: Eighty-six MM patients, including 20 with asymptomatic brain metastases that had been pre-treated with radiotherapy in 7 subjects, were enrolled in the study. With a median follow-up of 39.9 months, median OS and 3-year survival rates were 12.9 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.1-18.7 months] and 28.5% for the whole study population, and 12.7 months (95% CI 2.7-22.7 months) and 27.8% for patients with brain metastases, respectively. Long-term ir adverse events consisting of G1 rush and pruritus occurred in 21% of patients. The absolute increase from baseline to week 12 in 'memory' but not in 'naïve' T cells identified patients with a better survival (P = 0.002). The N/L ratio correlated with a significantly better survival at early time points. BRAF status did not correlate with clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term analysis of the NIBIT-M1 trial continues to demonstrate efficacy of ipilimumab combined with fotemustine in MM patients. Fotemustine does not seem to impair the immunologic activity of ipilimumab. EUDRACT NUMBER: 2010-019356-50. CINICALTRIALSGOV: NCT01654692.