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 (

Prediction and monitoring of relapse in stage III melanoma using circulating tumor DNA.

BACKGROUND: The advent of effective adjuvant therapies for patients with resected melanoma has highlighted the need to stratify patients based on risk of relapse given the cost and toxicities associated with treatment. Here we assessed circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) to predict and monitor relapse in resected stage III melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Somatic mutations were identified in 99/133 (74%) patients through tumor tissue sequencing. Personalized droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) assays were used to detect known mutations in 315 prospectively collected plasma samples from mutation-positive patients. External validation was performed in a prospective independent cohort (n = 29). RESULTS: ctDNA was detected in 37 of 99 (37%) individuals. In 81 patients who did not receive adjuvant therapy, 90% of patients with ctDNA detected at baseline and 100% of patients with ctDNA detected at the postoperative timepoint relapsed at a median follow up of 20 months. ctDNA detection predicted patients at high risk of relapse at baseline [relapse-free survival (RFS) hazard ratio (HR) 2.9; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.5-5.6; P = 0.002] and postoperatively (HR 10; 95% CI 4.3-24; P < 0.001). ctDNA detection at baseline [HR 2.9; 95% CI 1.3-5.7; P = 0.003 and postoperatively (HR 11; 95% CI 4.3-27; P < 0.001] was also associated with inferior distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS). These findings were validated in the independent cohort. ctDNA detection remained an independent predictor of RFS and DMFS in multivariate analyses after adjustment for disease stage and BRAF mutation status. CONCLUSION: Baseline and postoperative ctDNA detection in two independent prospective cohorts identified stage III melanoma patients at highest risk of relapse and has potential to inform adjuvant therapy decisions.

Surveillance imaging with FDG-PET/CT in the post-operative follow-up of stage 3 melanoma.

Background: As early detection of recurrent melanoma maximizes treatment options, patients usually undergo post-operative imaging surveillance, increasingly with FDG-PET/CT (PET). To assess this, we evaluated stage 3 melanoma patients who underwent prospectively applied and sub-stage-specific schedules of PET surveillance. Patients and methods: From 2009, patients with stage 3 melanoma routinely underwent PET +/- MRI brain scans via defined schedules based on sub-stage-specific relapse probabilities. Data were collected regarding patient characteristics and outcomes. Contingency analyses were carried out of imaging outcomes. Results: One hundred and seventy patients (stage 3A: 34; 3B: 93; 3C: 43) underwent radiological surveillance. Relapses were identified in 65 (38%) patients, of which 45 (69%) were asymptomatic. False-positive imaging findings occurred in 7%, and 6% had treatable second (non-melanoma) malignancies. Positive predictive values (PPV) of individual scans were 56%-83%. Negative scans had predictive values of 89%-96% for true non-recurrence [negative predictive values (NPV)] until the next scan. A negative PET at 18 months had NPVs of 80%-84% for true non-recurrence at any time in the 47-month (median) follow-up period. Sensitivity and specificity of the overall approach of sub-stage-specific PET surveillance were 70% and 87%, respectively. Of relapsed patients, 33 (52%) underwent potentially curative resection and 10 (16%) remained disease-free after 24 months (median). Conclusions: Application of sub-stage-specific PET in stage 3 melanoma enables asymptomatic detection of most recurrences, has high NPVs that may provide patient reassurance, and is associated with a high rate of detection of resectable and potentially curable disease at relapse.

Real-world treatment patterns and outcomes among metastatic cutaneous melanoma patients treated with ipilimumab.

BACKGROUND: There is a scarcity of real-world data on treatment patterns and outcomes among advanced melanoma patients treated with immunotherapies including ipilimumab, an anti-CTLA-4 antibody approved since 2011. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate ipilimumab and postipilimumab treatment patterns and outcomes among patients with advanced melanoma in Australia, Germany, Italy and Spain, following regulatory approval. METHODS: Retrospective multicentre, multinational, observational chart review study. Data were extracted from the start of ipilimumab therapy until the end of at least 40 weeks of follow-up, or death. RESULTS: Data from 371 patients (Australia, 103; Germany, 152; Italy, 76; Spain, 40) were analysed. Mean age was 65 years; 62% were male. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) was 0 or 1 for 94%. In 67%, ipilimumab was initially received as second-line or later therapy. Patients received on average 3.4 ipilimumab doses. The ipilimumab-refractory cohort comprised of 226 patients. Of these, 17% in Australia, 47% in Germany, 29% in Italy and 14% in Spain received another antimelanoma treatment after ipilimumab including chemotherapy in 26% and BRAF/other kinase inhibitors in 11%. Ipilimumab-refractory patients who received postipilimumab treatment showed a 40% reduced hazard of dying than those not receiving treatment after ipilimumab (HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.43-0.83), after adjustment for potential confounders. CONCLUSION: During the time observed, ipilimumab was mainly used as second-line or later therapy. A significant proportion of patients received postipilimumab therapy, most of which was chemotherapy. Nevertheless, overall survival following progression on ipilimumab treatment remained poor, highlighting the need for research to develop more effective end-of-life treatment options.

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.

Vemurafenib in metastatic melanoma patients with brain metastases: an open-label, single-arm, phase 2, multicentre study.

Background: Vemurafenib has shown activity in patients with BRAFV600 mutated melanoma with brain metastases (BM). This phase 2 study evaluated vemurafenib in patients with/without prior treatment for BM. Methods: Patients with BRAFV600 mutated melanoma with BM were enrolled into cohort 1 (previously untreated BM) and cohort 2 (previously treated BM) and received vemurafenib (960 mg BID) until disease progression (PD) or intolerance. Primary endpoint was best overall response rate (BORR) in the brain in cohort 1 that was evaluated using modified RECIST 1.1 criteria using lesions ≥0.5 cm to assess response. Results: 146 patients were treated (cohort 1 n = 90; cohort 2 n = 56), 62% of whom were male. Median (range) time since diagnosis of BM: 1.0 (0-9) month in cohort 1 and 4.2 (1-68) months in cohort 2. Median duration of treatment was 4.1 months (range 0.3-34.5) in cohort 1 and 4.1 months (range 0.2-27.6) in cohort 2. Intracranial BORR in cohort 1 by an independent review committee (IRC) was 18% (2 CRs, 14 PRs). Extracranial BORR by IRC was 33% in cohort 1 and 23% in cohort 2. Median PFS (brain only, investigator-assessed) was 3.7 months (range 0.03-33.4; IQR 1.9-5.6) in cohort 1 and 4.0 months (range 0.3-27.4; IQR 2.2-7.4) in cohort 2. Median OS was 8.9 months (range 0.6-34.5; IQR 4.9-17.0) in cohort 1 and 9.6 months (range 0.7-34.3; IQR 4.5-18.4) in cohort 2. Adverse events (AEs) were similar in type, grade and frequency to other studies of single-agent vemurafenib. Grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 59 (66%) patients in cohort 1 and 36 (64%) in cohort 2. Overall, 84% of patients died during the study (86% in cohort 1 and 80% in cohort 2), mainly due to disease progression. Conclusions: The study demonstrates clinically meaningful response rates of melanoma BM to vemurafenib, which was well tolerated and without significant CNS toxicity.

Efficacy and toxicity of treatment with the anti-CTLA-4 antibody ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma after prior anti-PD-1 therapy.

BACKGROUND: Recent phase III clinical trials have established the superiority of the anti-PD-1 antibodies pembrolizumab and nivolumab over the anti-CTLA-4 antibody ipilimumab in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced melanoma. Ipilimumab will be considered for second-line treatment after the failure of anti-PD-1 therapy. METHODS: We retrospectively identified a cohort of 40 patients with metastatic melanoma who received single-agent anti-PD-1 therapy with pembrolizumab or nivolumab and were treated on progression with ipilimumab at a dose of 3 mg kg(-1) for a maximum of four doses. RESULTS: Ten percent of patients achieved an objective response to ipilimumab, and an additional 8% experienced prolonged (>6 months) stable disease. Thirty-five percent of patients developed grade 3-5 immune-related toxicity associated with ipilimumab therapy. The most common high-grade immune-related toxicity was diarrhoea. Three patients (7%) developed grade 3-5 pneumonitis leading to death in one patient. CONCLUSIONS: Ipilimumab therapy can induce responses in patients who fail the anti-PD-1 therapy with response rates comparable to previous reports. There appears to be an increased frequency of high-grade immune-related adverse events including pneumonitis that warrants close surveillance.

Prolonged disease control with MEK inhibitor in neurofibromatosis type I-associated glioblastoma.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Neurofibromatosis is associated with overactivation of the RAS-MAPK pathway. MEK inhibitors have been shown to be an effective treatment modality in other malignancies. CASE SUMMARY: We present a 24-year-old male with treatment-refractory neurofibromatosis-associated glioblastoma, who experienced clinical and radiological benefit from the MEK inhibitor, trametinib. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: This case highlights the therapeutic success of a MEK inhibitor in neurofibromatosis-associated glioblastoma. As a corollary, this should prompt evaluation of MEK inhibitors in tumours associated with neurofibromatosis. It remains to be elucidated if tumours with somatic NF1 mutations may also benefit from therapy targeting the RAS-MAPK pathway.

Randomized phase II study evaluating veliparib (ABT-888) with temozolomide in patients with metastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Veliparib (ABT-888) is a potent, orally bioavailable, small-molecule inhibitor of the DNA repair enzymes poly ADP-ribose polymerase-1 and -2. Veliparib enhances the efficacy of temozolomide (TMZ) and other cytotoxic agents in preclinical tumor models. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind trial, adults with unresectable stage III or IV metastatic melanoma were randomized 1:1:1 to TMZ plus veliparib 20 or 40 mg, or placebo twice daily. Efficacy end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Patients (N = 346) were randomized between February 2009 and January 2010. Median [95% confidence interval (CI)] PFS was 3.7 (3.0-5.5), 3.6 (1.9-4.1), and 2 (1.9-3.7) months in the 20-mg, 40-mg, and placebo arms, respectively. Median (95% CI) OS was 10.8 (9.0-13.1), 13.6 (11.4-15.9), and 12.9 (9.8-14.3) months, respectively; ORR was 10.3%, 8.7%, and 7.0%. Exploratory analyses showed patients with low ERCC1 expression had longer PFS when TMZ was combined with veliparib. Toxicities were as expected for TMZ. The frequencies of thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and leukopenia were significantly increased in the veliparib groups. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events, mainly hematologic toxicities, were seen in 55%, 63%, and 41% of patients in the 20-mg, 40-mg, and placebo arms, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Median PFS with 20 and 40 mg veliparib almost doubled numerically compared with placebo, but the improvements did not reach statistical significance. OS was not increased with veliparib. Toxicities were similar to TMZ monotherapy, but with increased frequency.

The role of BRAF mutations in primary melanoma growth rate and survival.

BACKGROUND: The clinical behaviour and prognosis of primary melanomas harbouring BRAF mutations is not fully understood. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of mutation status on primary melanoma growth rate and melanoma-specific survival (MSS). METHODS: A prospective cohort of 196 patients with stage I-III primary cutaneous melanoma were followed for a median of 92 months, pre-dating the institution of BRAF inhibitor therapy. Clinicopathological variables were correlated with mutation status and hazard ratios (HRs) estimated for MSS. RESULTS: Of 196 tumours, 77 (39.2%) were BRAF V600E, 10 (5.1%) BRAF V600K and 33 (16.8%) were NRAS mutant. BRAF V600E mutant melanomas were associated with favourable clinical characteristics and tended to be slower growing compared with BRAF V600K, NRAS mutant or BRAF/NRAS wild-type tumours (0.12 mm per month, 0.61 mm per month, 0.36 mm per month and 0.23 mm per month, respectively; P = 0.05). There were 39 melanoma deaths, and BRAF mutant melanomas were associated with poorer MSS in stage I-III disease [HR 2.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20-5.63; P = 0.02] and stage I-II disease (HR 3.39, 95% CI 1.12-10.22; P = 0.03) after adjusting for other prognostic variables. Considered separately, BRAF V600E mutant melanomas were strongly associated with MSS independently of thickness and nodal status (HR 3.89, 95% CI 1.67-9.09; P < 0.01) but BRAF V600K mutant tumours were not (HR 1.19, 95% CI 0.36-3.92; P = 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of a BRAF mutation does not necessarily 'drive' more rapid tumour growth but is associated with poorer MSS in patients with early-stage disease.

Phase III study of nilotinib versus best supportive care with or without a TKI in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors resistant to or intolerant of imatinib and sunitinib.

BACKGROUND: This phase III open-label trial investigated the efficacy of nilotinib in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors following prior imatinib and sunitinib failure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 2:1 to nilotinib 400 mg b.i.d. or best supportive care (BSC; BSC without tyrosine kinase inhibitor, BSC+imatinib, or BSC+sunitinib). Primary efficacy end point was progression-free survival (PFS) based on blinded central radiology review (CRR). Patients progressing on BSC could cross over to nilotinib. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-eight patients enrolled. Median PFS was similar between arms (nilotinib 109 days, BSC 111 days; P=0.56). Local investigator-based intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed a significantly longer median PFS with nilotinib (119 versus 70 days; P=0.0007). A trend in longer median overall survival (OS) was noted with nilotinib (332 versus 280 days; P=0.29). Post hoc subset analyses in patients with progression and only one prior regimen each of imatinib and sunitinib revealed a significant difference in median OS of >4 months in favor of nilotinib (405 versus 280 days; P=0.02). Nilotinib was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: In the ITT analysis, no significant difference in PFS was observed between treatment arms based on CRR. In the post hoc subset analyses, nilotinib provided significantly longer median OS.

A phase I study to determine the safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a dual VEGFR and FGFR inhibitor, brivanib, in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to determine the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of brivanib in patients with advanced/metastatic solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety patients enrolled in this two-part, phase I open-label study of oral brivanib alaninate. The primary objectives of this study were (in part A) dose-limiting toxicity, maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and the lowest biologically active dose level and (in part B) the optimal dose/dose range. The secondary objectives of this study were preliminary evidence of antitumor activity, PK and PD. RESULTS: Across part A (open-label dose escalation and MTD) and part B (open-label dose optimization), 68 patients received brivanib alaninate. Brivanib demonstrated a manageable toxicity profile at doses of 180-800 mg. Most toxic effects were mild. Systemic exposure of the active moiety brivanib increased linearly ≤1000 mg/day. The MTD was 800 mg/day. Forty-four patients were treated at the MTD: 20 with 800 mg continuously, 11 with 800 mg intermittently and 13 with 400 mg b.i.d. doses. Partial responses were confirmed in two patients receiving brivanib ≥600 mg. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated statistically significant decreases in parameters reflecting tumor vascularity and permeability after multiple doses in the 800-mg continuous q.d. and 400-mg b.i.d. dose cohorts. CONCLUSION: In patients with advanced/metastatic cancer, brivanib demonstrates promising antiangiogenic and antitumor activity and manageable toxicity at doses ≤800 mg orally q.d., the recommended phase II study dose.

Clinical responses observed with imatinib or sorafenib in melanoma patients expressing mutations in KIT.

BACKGROUND: Mutations in KIT are more frequent in specific melanoma subtypes, and response to KIT inhibition is likely to depend on the identified mutation. METHODS: A total of 32 patients with metastatic acral or mucosal melanoma were screened for mutations in KIT exons 11, 13 and 17. RESULTS: KIT mutations were found in 38% of mucosal and in 6% of acral melanomas. Three patients were treated with imatinib and one with sorafenib. All four patients responded to treatment, but three have since progressed within the brain. CONCLUSION: The observed clinical responses support further investigation of KIT inhibitors in metastatic melanoma, selected according to KIT mutation status.

O(6)-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase depletion and DNA damage in patients with melanoma treated with temozolomide alone or with lomeguatrib.

We evaluated the pharmacodynamic effects of the O(6)-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) inactivator lomeguatrib (LM) on patients with melanoma in two clinical trials. Patients received temozolomide (TMZ) for 5 days either alone or with LM for 5, 10 or 14 days. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were isolated before treatment and during cycle 1. Where available, tumour biopsies were obtained after the last drug dose in cycle 1. Samples were assayed for MGMT activity, total MGMT protein, and O(6)-methylguanine (O(6)-meG) and N7-methylguanine levels in DNA. MGMT was completely inactivated in PBMC from patients receiving LM, but detectable in those on TMZ alone. Tumours biopsied on the last day of treatment showed complete inactivation of MGMT but there was recovery of activity in tumours sampled later. Significantly more O(6)-meG was present in the PBMC DNA of LM/TMZ patients than those on TMZ alone. LM/TMZ leads to greater MGMT inactivation, and higher levels of O(6)-meG than TMZ alone. Early recovery of MGMT activity in tumours suggested that more protracted dosing with LM is required. Extended dosing of LM completely inactivated PBMC MGMT, and resulted in persistent levels of O(6)-meG in PBMC DNA during treatment.

Auditory processing deficits in children with reading and language impairments: can they (and should they) be treated?

Sixty-five children with specific reading disability (SRD), 25 children with specific language impairment (SLI), and 37 age-matched controls were tested for their frequency discrimination, rapid auditory processing, vowel discrimination, and consonant-vowel discrimination. Subgroups of children with SRD or SLI produced abnormal frequency discrimination (42%), rapid auditory processing (12%), vowel discrimination (23%), or consonant-vowel discrimination (18%) thresholds for their age. Twenty-eight of these children trained on a programme that targeted their specific auditory processing deficit for 6 weeks. Twenty-five of these 28 trainees produced normal thresholds for their targeted processing skill after training. These gains were not explained by gains in auditory attention, in the ability to do psychophysical tasks in general, or by test-retest effects. The 25 successful trainees also produced significantly higher scores on spoken language and spelling tests after training. However, an untrained control group showed test-retest effects on the same tests. These results suggest that auditory processing deficits can be treated successfully in children with SRD and SLI but that this does not help them acquire new reading, spelling, or spoken language skills.

No meditation-related changes in the auditory N1 during first-time meditation.

Recent studies link meditation expertise with enhanced low-level attention, measured through auditory event-related potentials (ERPs). In this study, we tested the reliability and validity of a recent finding that the N1 ERP in first-time meditators is smaller during meditation than non-meditation - an effect not present in long-term meditators. In the first experiment, we replicated the finding in first-time meditators. In two subsequent experiments, we discovered that this finding was not due to stimulus-related instructions, but was explained by an effect of the order of conditions. Extended exposure to the same tones has been linked with N1 decrement in other studies, and may explain N1 decrement across our two conditions. We give examples of existing meditation and ERP studies that may include similar condition order effects. The role of condition order among first-time meditators in this study indicates the importance of counterbalancing meditation and non-mediation conditions in meditation studies that use event-related potentials.

Multiplex immunohistochemistry accurately defines the immune context of metastatic melanoma.

A prospective study explored the heterogeneous nature of metastatic melanoma using Multiplex immunohistochemistry (IHC) and flow cytometry (FACS). Multiplex IHC data quantitated immune subset number present intra-tumoral (IT) vs the tumor stroma, plus distance of immune subsets from the tumor margin (TM). In addition, mIHC showed a close association between the presence of IT CD8+ T cells and PDL1 expression in melanoma, which was more prevalent on macrophages than on melanoma cells. In contrast, FACS provided more detailed information regarding the T cell subset differentiation, their activation status and expression of immune checkpoint molecules. Interestingly, mIHC detected significantly higher Treg numbers than FACS and showed preferential CD4+ T cell distribution in the tumor stroma. Based on the mIHC and FACS data, we provide a model which defines metastatic melanoma immune context into four categories using the presence or absence of PDL1+ melanoma cells and/or macrophages, and their location within the tumor or on the periphery, combined with the presence or absence of IT CD8+ T cells. This model interprets melanoma immune context as a spectrum of tumor escape from immune control, and provides a snapshot upon which interpretation of checkpoint blockade inhibitor (CBI) therapy responses can be built.

Access to innovative medicines for metastatic melanoma worldwide: Melanoma World Society and European Association of Dermato-oncology survey in 34 countries.

According to data from recent studies from Europe, a large percentage of patients have restricted access to innovative medicines for metastatic melanoma. Melanoma World Society and European Association of Dermato-oncology conducted a Web-based survey on access to first-line recommended treatments for metastatic melanoma by current guidelines (National Comprehensive Center Network, European Society for Medical Oncology [ESMO] and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/European Association of Dermato-oncology/European dermatology Forum) among melanoma experts from 27 European countries, USA, China, Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Mexico from September 1st, 2017 to July 1st, 2018. Data on licencing and reimbursement of medicines and the number of patient treated were correlated with the data on health expenditure per capita (HEPC), Mackenbach score of health policy performance, health technology assessment (HTA), ASCO and ESMO Magnitude of clinical benefit scale (ESMO MCBS) scores of clinical benefit and market price of medicines. Regression analysis for evaluation of correlation between the parameters was carried out using SPSS software. The estimated number of patients without access in surveyed countries was 13768. The recommended BRAFi + MEKi combination and anti-PD1 immunotherapy were fully reimbursed/covered in 19 of 34 (55.8%) and 17 of 34 (50%) countries, and combination anti-CTLA4+anti-PD1 in was fully covered in 6 of 34 (17.6%) countries. Median delay in reimbursement was 991 days, and it was in significant correlation with ESMO MCBS (p = 0.02), median market price (p = 0.001), HEPC and Mackenbach scores (p < 0.01). Price negotiations or managed entry agreements (MEAs) with national authorities were necessary for reimbursement. In conclusion, great discrepancy exists in metastatic melanoma treatment globally. Access to innovative medicines is in correlation with economic parameters as well as with healthcare system performance parameters. Patient-oriented drug development, market access and reimbursement pathways must be urgently found.