SEOM-GEM clinical guidelines for cutaneous melanoma (2023).

Cutaneous melanoma incidence is rising. Early diagnosis and treatment administration are key for increasing the chances of survival. For patients with locoregional advanced melanoma that can be treated with complete resection, adjuvant-and more recently neoadjuvant-with targeted therapy-BRAF and MEK inhibitors-and immunotherapy-anti-PD-1-based therapies-offer opportunities to reduce the risk of relapse and distant metastases. For patients with advanced disease not amenable to radical treatment, these treatments offer an unprecedented increase in overall survival. A group of medical oncologists from the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) and Spanish Multidisciplinary Melanoma Group (GEM) has designed these guidelines, based on a thorough review of the best evidence available. The following guidelines try to cover all the aspects from the diagnosis-clinical, pathological, and molecular-staging, risk stratification, adjuvant therapy, advanced disease therapy, and survivor follow-up, including special situations, such as brain metastases, refractory disease, and treatment sequencing. We aim help clinicians in the decision-making process.

Access to melanoma drugs in Spain: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: The development of highly active drugs has improved the survival of melanoma patients, but elevated drug prices place a significant burden on health care systems. In Spain, the public health care system is transferred to the 17 autonomous communities (AACC). The objective of this study is to describe the situation of drug access for melanoma patients in Spain and how this decentralized system is affecting equity. METHODS: From July to September 2023, a cross-sectional survey was sent to members of the Spanish Multidisciplinary Melanoma Group (GEM Group). The questionnaire consulted about the real access to new drugs in each hospital. The responses were collected anonymously and analyzed according to several variables, including the AACC. RESULTS: The survey was answered by 50 physicians in 15 AACC. No major differences on access between AACC were observed for indications that are reimbursed by the Spanish Health Care System (adjuvant immunotherapy for stage IIIC-IIID and resected stage IV melanoma). Important differences in drug access were observed among AACC and among centers within the same AACC, for most of the EMA indications that are not reimbursed (adjuvant immunotherapy for stages IIB-IIC-IIIA-IIIB) or that are not fully reimbursed (ipilimumab plus nivolumab in advanced stage). Homogeneously, access to adjuvant targeted drugs, TIL therapy and T-VEC, is extremely low or non-existing in all AACC. CONCLUSIONS: For most indications that reimbursement is restricted out of the EMA indication, a great diversity on access was found throughout the different hospitals in Spain, including heterogeneity intra-AACC.

Contribution of tumour and immune cells to PD-L1 expression as a predictive biomarker in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: exploratory analysis from KEYNOTE-119.

The efficacy of pembrolizumab monotherapy versus chemotherapy increased with increasing programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, as quantified by combined positive score (CPS; PD-L1 expression on both tumour cells and immune cells) in patients with previously treated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) in the phase 3 KEYNOTE-119 study. This exploratory analysis was conducted to determine whether the expression of PD-L1 on tumour cells contributes to the predictive value of PD-L1 CPS in mTNBC. PD-L1 expression in tumour samples was assessed using PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx and quantified using both CPS and tumour proportion score (TPS; PD-L1 expression on tumour cells alone). Calculated immune cell density (CID) was defined as CPS minus TPS. The ability of each scoring method (CPS, TPS, and CID) to predict clinical outcomes with pembrolizumab was evaluated. With pembrolizumab, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.69 (95% CI = 0.58-0.80) for CPS, 0.55 (95% CI = 0.46-0.64) for TPS, and 0.67 (95% CI = 0.56-0.77) for CID. After correction for cutoff prevalence, CPS performed as well as, if not better than, CID with respect to predicting objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. Data from this exploratory analysis suggest that, although PD-L1 expression on immune cells alone is predictive of response to programmed death 1 blockade in mTNBC, adding tumour PD-L1 expression assessment (i.e. CPS, which combines immune cell and tumour cell PD-L1 expression) may improve prediction. PD-L1 CPS thus remains an effective and broadly applicable uniform scoring system for enriching response to programmed death 1 blockade with pembrolizumab in mTNBC as well as other tumour types.

An algorithm based on immunotherapy discontinuation and liver biopsy spares corticosteroids in two thirds of cases of severe checkpoint inhibitor-induced liver injury.

BACKGROUND: There are few data on corticosteroids (CS)-sparing strategies for checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-induced liver injury (ChILI). AIM: We aimed to assess the performance of a 2-step algorithm for severe ChILI, based on ICI temporary discontinuation (step-1) and, if lack of biochemical improvement, CS based on the degree of necroinflammation at biopsy (step-2). METHODS: Prospective study that included all subjects with grade 3/4 ChILI. Peripheral extended immunophenotyping was performed. Indication for CS: severe necroinflammation; mild or moderate necroinflammation with later biochemical worsening. RESULTS: From 111 subjects with increased transaminases (January 2020 to August 2023), 44 were diagnosed with grade 3 (N = 35) or grade 4 (N = 9) ChILI. Main reason for exclusion was alternative diagnosis. Lung cancer (13) and melanoma (12) were the most common malignancies. ICI: 23(52.3%) anti-PD1, 8(18.2%) anti-PD-L1, 3(6.8%) anti-CTLA-4, 10(22.7%) combined ICI. Liver injury pattern: hepatocellular (23,52.3%) mixed (12,27.3%) and cholestatic (9,20.5%). 14(32%) presented bilirubin >1.2 mg/dL. Overall, 30(68.2%) patients did not require CS: 22(50.0%) due to ICI discontinuation (step-1) and 8/22 (36.4%) based on the degree of necroinflammation (step-2). Biopsy mainly impacted on grade 3 ChILI, sparing CS in 8 out of 15 (53.3%) non-improvement patients after ICI discontinuation. CD8+ HLA-DR expression (p = 0.028), central memory (p = 0.046) were lower in CS-free managed subjects, but effector-memory cells (p = 0.002) were higher. Time to transaminases normalisation was shorter in those CS-free managed (overall: p < 0.001, grade 3: p < 0.001). Considering our results, a strategy based on ICI discontinuation and biopsy for grade 3 ChILI is proposed. CONCLUSIONS: An algorithm based on temporary immunotherapy discontinuation and biopsy allows CS avoidance in two thirds of cases of severe ChILI.

Mucosal Melanoma Clinical Management and Prognostic Implications: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Mucosal melanoma (MM) is an uncommon melanoma subtype affecting mucosal surfaces of the head and neck, anorectal region, and vulvovaginal area. We aimed to present our experience at a tertiary-level hospital regarding MM diagnosis, management, monitoring of progression, mutations, and outcome predictors. We performed a registry-based cohort study including MM cases diagnosed from 2012 to 2022 and retrospectively characterized somatic mutations on BRAF, NRAS and c-KIT. We employed Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests, and Cox regression analysis to explore prognostic factors and survival outcomes in a cohort of 35 patients, mainly women (63%) with a median age of 70 years. Predominantly, MM occurred in the vulvovaginal region (48.6%). At diagnosis, 28.6% had lymph node involvement, and 31.4% also had distant metastasis. Mutations in BRAF and c-KIT were identified in 3/35 (9%) and 2/6 patients (33%), respectively. Surgery was performed in 71.4% of patients, and most received systemic treatment (65.7%). Lower disease stage, thinner Breslow depth, and surgical resection were associated with improved overall survival. Notably, age, sex, radiotherapy, and BRAF mutant status did not affect survival. Standard management typically involves immunotherapy. Cases with BRAF or c-KIT mutations may be considered for targeted therapies. Unfortunately, MM prognosis remains unfavorable, with a less than 50% survival rate at 2 years.

Impact of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy on health-related quality of life in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: results from the phase 3 randomised KEYNOTE-119 study.

BACKGROUND: In KEYNOTE-119 (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02555657), overall survival (primary end-point) was similar between pembrolizumab and chemotherapy in patients with previously treated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), although the pembrolizumab treatment effect increased with tumour PD-L1 expression. We report results of prespecified health-related quality of life (HRQoL) analyses from KEYNOTE-119. METHODS: Eligible patients were randomised 1:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W intravenously for up to 35 cycles or treatment of physician's choice per local/country guidelines. Prespecified exploratory end-points were the change from baseline in HRQoL (EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-BR23) and to characterise utilities (EQ-5D-3L). Time to deterioration (TTD) was the time from start of treatment to first onset of a ≥10-point worsening from baseline. RESULTS: HRQoL analyses included 187 patients with tumour PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥10. Changes from baseline at 6 weeks (primary analysis time point) were directionally better with pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL (between-group difference in least-squares mean scores of 4.21 [95% CI, -1.38 to 9.80]), QLQ-C30 functional scales (physical, role, cognitive, social), QLQ-C30 symptom scales/items (fatigue, nausea/vomiting, dyspnoea, appetite loss), and QLQ-BR23 symptom scales/items (systemic therapy side-effects, upset by hair loss). Median TTD was directionally longer for pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for QLQ-C30 QHS/QoL (4.3 versus 1.7 months), QLQ-C30 nausea/vomiting (7.7 versus 4.8 months), and QLQ-BR23 systemic therapy side-effects (6.1 versus 3.4 months). Minimal treatment differences were observed for other HRQoL end-points. CONCLUSIONS: HRQoL results were consistent with clinical outcomes and appeared to be driven by results for patients with tumour PD-L1 CPS ≥10.

Health-Related Quality of Life with Pembrolizumab in Patients with Locally Advanced or Recurrent or Metastatic Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma: KEYNOTE-629.

INTRODUCTION: At first interim analysis of KEYNOTE-629, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) with pembrolizumab was stable or improved over 48 weeks in recurrent or metastatic (R/M) cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). HRQoL results from the second interim analysis in R/M or locally advanced (LA) cSCC are presented. METHODS: Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for ≤ 2 years. Change in EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and EQ-5D-5L scores were exploratory end points. Primary analysis was performed at week 12 to ensure adequate completion/compliance. Descriptive analyses were also conducted through weeks 48 and 75 for the LA and R/M cohorts, respectively. RESULTS: At data cutoff (29 July 2020), mean scores in the LA cohort (n = 47) were stable from baseline to week 12 for EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS)/quality of life (QoL) (-0.27 points [95% confidence interval (CI) -10.93 to 10.39]), physical functioning (-1.29 points [95% CI -8.77 to 6.19]), and EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale (2.06 [95% CI -7.70 to 11.82]). HRQoL remained stable through week 48 in the LA cohort; 76.6% and 74.5% of patients had improved or stable GHS/QoL and physical functioning scores, respectively. HRQoL continued to show stability or improvement through week 75 in the R/M cohort (n = 99); 71.7% and 64.6% of patients had improved or stable GHS/QoL and physical functioning scores, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab has demonstrated antitumor activity and manageable safety. The current analysis shows pembrolizumab treatment preserved HRQoL. Collectively, these results support pembrolizumab as standard of care for LA or R/M cSCC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03284424-September 15, 2017.

Efficacy and safety of cosibelimab, an anti-PD-L1 antibody, in metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Programmed cell death receptor-1 (PD-1)-blocking antibodies are approved to treat metastatic or locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) cases ineligible for curative surgery or radiation. Notwithstanding, some patients experience inadequate responses or severe immune-related adverse events (AEs), indicating the need for improved therapies. Cosibelimab is a high-affinity programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-blocking antibody that activates innate and adaptive immunity by blocking PD-L1 interaction with PD-1 and B7-1 receptors. It is an unmodified immunoglobulin G1 subtype with a functional Fc domain capable of inducing antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity and complement-dependent cytotoxicity. Here, we present results of the pivotal study of patients with metastatic CSCC from an open-label, multicenter, multiregional, multicohort, phase 1 trial of cosibelimab. METHODS: In this trial, participants with metastatic CSCC received cosibelimab 800 mg intravenously every 2 weeks. Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) by independent central review using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, V.1.1. Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR) and safety. RESULTS: Objective response was observed in 37 of 78 participants (47.4% (95% CI: 36.0% to 59.1%)), with median follow-up of 15.4 months (range: 0.4 to 40.5) as of data cut-off. Median DOR was not reached (range: 1.4+ to 34.1+ months), with response ongoing in 73.0% of participants. Common treatment-emergent AEs (≥15%) were fatigue (26.9%), rash (16.7%), and anemia (15.4%). Eighteen participants (23.1%) experienced immune-related AEs (grade 3: n=2 (2.6%); no grade 4/5). No treatment-related deaths were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Cosibelimab demonstrated clinically meaningful ORR and DOR and was associated with a manageable safety profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03212404.

A pan-cancer clinical platform to predict immunotherapy outcomes and prioritize immuno-oncology combinations in early-phase trials.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy is effective, but current biomarkers for patient selection have proven modest sensitivity. Here, we developed VIGex, an optimized gene signature based on the expression level of 12 genes involved in immune response with RNA sequencing. METHODS: We implemented VIGex using the nCounter platform (Nanostring) on a large clinical cohort encompassing 909 tumor samples across 45 tumor types. VIGex was developed as a continuous variable, with cutoffs selected to detect three main categories (hot, intermediate-cold and cold) based on the different inflammatory status of the tumor microenvironment. FINDINGS: Hot tumors had the highest VIGex scores and exhibited an increased abundance of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes as compared with the intermediate-cold and cold. VIGex scores varied depending on tumor origin and anatomic site of metastases, with liver metastases showing an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. The predictive power of VIGex-Hot was observed in a cohort of 98 refractory solid tumor from patients treated in early-phase immunotherapy trials and its clinical performance was confirmed through an extensive metanalysis across 13 clinically annotated gene expression datasets from 877 patients treated with immunotherapy agents. Last, we generated a pan-cancer biomarker platform that integrates VIGex categories with the expression levels of immunotherapy targets under development in early-phase clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the clinical utility of VIGex as a tool to aid clinicians for patient selection and personalized immunotherapy interventions. FUNDING: BBVA Foundation; 202-2021 Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology Fellowship award; Princess Margaret Cancer Center.

Bempegaldesleukin Plus Nivolumab in Untreated Advanced Melanoma: The Open-Label, Phase III PIVOT IO 001 Trial Results.

PURPOSE: Despite marked advances in the treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma, the need for novel therapies remains. Bempegaldesleukin (BEMPEG), a pegylated interleukin-2 (IL-2) cytokine prodrug, demonstrated efficacy in the phase II PIVOT-02 trial. PIVOT IO 001 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03635983) is a phase III, randomized, open-label study that builds on the PIVOT-02 results in first-line melanoma. METHODS: Patients with previously untreated, unresectable, or metastatic melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive BEMPEG plus nivolumab (NIVO) or NIVO monotherapy. Primary end points were objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review and overall survival (OS). Secondary and exploratory end points included additional efficacy measures, safety, and pharmacokinetics (PKs) and pharmacodynamics analyses. RESULTS: In 783 patients (n = 391, BEMPEG plus NIVO; n = 392, NIVO monotherapy), the median follow-up was 11.6 months in the intent-to-treat population. The ORR with BEMPEG plus NIVO was 27.7% versus 36.0% with NIVO (two-sided P = .0311). The median PFS with BEMPEG plus NIVO was 4.17 months (95% CI, 3.52 to 5.55) versus 4.99 months (95% CI, 4.14 to 7.82) with NIVO (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 97% CI, 0.88 to 1.35; P = .3988). The median OS was 29.67 months (95% CI, 22.14 to not reached [NR]) with BEMPEG plus NIVO versus 28.88 months (95% CI, 21.32 to NR) with NIVO (HR, 0.94; 99.929% CI, 0.59 to 1.48; P = .6361). Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) and serious AE rates were higher with the combination (21.7% and 10.1%, respectively) versus NIVO (11.5% and 5.5%, respectively). BEMPEG PK exposure and absolute lymphocyte count changes after BEMPEG plus NIVO were comparable between PIVOT IO 001 and PIVOT-02. CONCLUSION: The PIVOT IO 001 study did not meet its primary end points of ORR, PFS, and OS. Increased toxicity was observed with BEMPEG plus NIVO versus NIVO.

Initial Evidence for the Efficacy of Naporafenib in Combination With Trametinib in NRAS-Mutant Melanoma: Results From the Expansion Arm of a Phase Ib, Open-Label Study.

PURPOSE: No approved targeted therapy for the treatment of patients with neuroblastoma RAS viral (v-ras) oncogene homolog (NRAS)-mutant melanoma is currently available. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this phase Ib escalation/expansion study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02974725), the safety, tolerability, and preliminary antitumor activity of naporafenib (LXH254), a BRAF/CRAF protein kinases inhibitor, were explored in combination with trametinib in patients with advanced/metastatic KRAS- or BRAF-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer (escalation arm) or NRAS-mutant melanoma (escalation and expansion arms). RESULTS: Thirty-six and 30 patients were enrolled in escalation and expansion, respectively. During escalation, six patients reported grade ≥3 dose-limiting toxicities, including dermatitis acneiform (n = 2), maculopapular rash (n = 2), increased lipase (n = 1), and Stevens-Johnson syndrome (n = 1). The recommended doses for expansion were naporafenib 200 mg twice a day plus trametinib 1 mg once daily and naporafenib 400 mg twice a day plus trametinib 0.5 mg once daily. During expansion, all 30 patients experienced a treatment-related adverse event, the most common being rash (80%, n = 24), blood creatine phosphokinase increased, diarrhea, and nausea (30%, n = 9 each). In expansion, the objective response rate, median duration of response, and median progression-free survival were 46.7% (95% CI, 21.3 to 73.4; 7 of 15 patients), 3.75 (95% CI, 1.97 to not estimable [NE]) months, and 5.52 months, respectively, in patients treated with naporafenib 200 mg twice a day plus trametinib 1 mg once daily, and 13.3% (95% CI, 1.7 to 40.5; 2 of 15 patients), 3.75 (95% CI, 2.04 to NE) months, and 4.21 months, respectively, in patients treated with naporafenib 400 mg twice a day plus trametinib 0.5 mg once daily. CONCLUSION: Naporafenib plus trametinib showed promising preliminary antitumor activity in patients with NRAS-mutant melanoma. Prophylactic strategies aimed to lower the incidence of skin-related events are under investigation.

Exploring the Immunogenicity of Noncanonical HLA-I Tumor Ligands Identified through Proteogenomics.

PURPOSE: Tumor antigens are central to antitumor immunity. Recent evidence suggests that peptides from noncanonical (nonC) aberrantly translated proteins can be presented on HLA-I by tumor cells. Here, we investigated the immunogenicity of nonC tumor HLA-I ligands (nonC-TL) to better understand their contribution to cancer immunosurveillance and their therapeutic applicability. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Peptides presented on HLA-I were identified in 9 patient-derived tumor cell lines from melanoma, gynecologic, and head and neck cancer through proteogenomics. A total of 507 candidate tumor antigens, including nonC-TL, neoantigens, cancer-germline, or melanocyte differentiation antigens, were tested for T-cell recognition of preexisting responses in patients with cancer. Donor peripheral blood lymphocytes (PBL) were in vitro sensitized against 170 selected nonC-TL to isolate antigen-specific T-cell receptors (TCR) and evaluate their therapeutic potential. RESULTS: We found no recognition of the 507 nonC-TL tested by autologous ex vivo expanded tumor-reactive T-cell cultures while the same cultures demonstrated reactivity to mutated, cancer-germline, or melanocyte differentiation antigens. However, in vitro sensitization of donor PBL against 170 selected nonC-TL, led to the identification of TCRs specific to three nonC-TL, two of which mapped to the 5' UTR regions of HOXC13 and ZKSCAN1, and one mapping to a noncoding spliced variant of C5orf22C. T cells targeting these nonC-TL recognized cancer cell lines naturally presenting their corresponding antigens. Expression of the three immunogenic nonC-TL was shared across tumor types and barely or not detected in normal cells. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings predict a limited contribution of nonC-TL to cancer immunosurveillance but demonstrate they may be attractive novel targets for widely applicable immunotherapies. See related commentary by Fox et al., p. 2173.

Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors in young adults with metastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND: The integration of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) for the treatment of melanoma has resulted in remarkable and durable responses. Given the potential role of immunosenescence, age may contribute to differential ICI efficacy and toxicity. While older patients have been studied in detail, outcomes from ICI in young patients (≤40 years) are not well characterised. METHODS: We performed a multi-institutional, retrospective study of patients with advanced melanoma treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy or ICI combination (ipilimumab and anti-PD-1). Response rates, survival, and toxicities were examined based on age comparing those under 40 years of age with older patients (age 41-70 and ≥ 71 years). RESULTS: A total of 676 patients were included: 190 patients (28%) aged ≤40 years, 313 (46%) between ages 41-70, and 173 patients (26%) aged ≥71. Patients ≤40 years had higher response rates (53% vs 38%, p = 0.035) and improved progression-free survival (median 13.7 vs 4.0 months, p = 0.032) with combination ICI compared to monotherapy. Progression-free survival was similar among groups while overall survival was inferior in patients >70 years, who had low response rates to combination therapy (28%). ICIs had a similar incidence of severe toxicities, though hepatotoxicity was particularly common in younger patients vs. patients >40 with monotherapy (9% vs. 2%, p = 0.007) or combination ICI (37% vs. 10%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: ICIs had comparable efficacy between younger and older patients, although outcomes were superior with combination ICI compared to monotherapy in patients aged ≤40 years. Toxicity incidence was similar across age groups, though organs affected were substantially different.

Retreatment With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors After a Severe Immune-Related Hepatitis: Results From a Prospective Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Liver injury related to immunotherapy is a relatively frequent immune-related adverse event that requires permanent discontinuation of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in severe cases. We present the outcome of a cohort of patients who were retreated with immunotherapy after resolution of severe immune-related hepatitis. METHODS: We performed a prospective, multicenter, noninterventional study that included all consecutive patients with cancer and previous grade 3 or 4 immune-related hepatitis who were retreated with ICIs in 3 academic hospitals. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients who developed severe immune-related hepatitis were included: 20 of 23 (87.0%) received a single ICI and 3 of 23 (13.0%) received anti-programmed cell death protein-1 plus an anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen. The most frequent cancers were lung cell and urinary tract (7 and 6 cases, respectively). Immunotherapy was discontinued in all cases. Nineteen patients (82.6%) also received corticoids. Patients mainly were retreated with the same ICI (18 of 23; 78.3%) after a median time of 10 weeks (range, 1-54 wk) from the severe immune-related hepatitis. Fifteen patients (65.2%) did not have recurrence of the immune-related hepatitis after retreatment. Among the 8 (34.8%) subjects with recurrence, 5 of 8 were grade 3 and 3 of 8 were grade 4. Six (75%) had either an underlying autoimmune disease or antinuclear antibodies ≥1/80 (75% vs 26.7%; P = .037). None of the patients with previously grade 4 hepatitis had a recurrence, and those patients who had a recurrence tended to present with a better oncological prognosis. Overall, 19 (82.6%) subjects required permanent discontinuation of ICIs, with cancer progression the main reason for discontinuation (9 of 19; 47.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Retreatment with ICIs is a feasible option after a severe immune-related hepatitis, even with the same ICIs, without recurrence of the liver injury retreatment in up to 65% of patients.

Adjuvant Therapy of Nivolumab Combined With Ipilimumab Versus Nivolumab Alone in Patients With Resected Stage IIIB-D or Stage IV Melanoma (CheckMate 915).

PURPOSE: Ipilimumab and nivolumab have each shown treatment benefit for high-risk resected melanoma. The phase III CheckMate 915 trial evaluated adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab alone in patients with resected stage IIIB-D or IV melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, phase III trial, 1,833 patients received nivolumab 240 mg once every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg once every 6 weeks (916 patients) or nivolumab 480 mg once every 4 weeks (917 patients) for ≤ 1 year. After random assignment, patients were stratified by tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and stage. Dual primary end points were recurrence-free survival (RFS) in randomly assigned patients and in the tumor PD-L1 expression-level < 1% subgroup. RESULTS: At a minimum follow-up of approximately 23.7 months, there was no significant difference between treatment groups for RFS in the all-randomly assigned patient population (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.09; P = .269) or in patients with PD-L1 expression < 1% (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.14). In all patients, 24-month RFS rates were 64.6% (combination) and 63.2% (nivolumab). Treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported in 32.6% of patients in the combination group and 12.8% in the nivolumab group. Treatment-related deaths were reported in 0.4% of patients in the combination group and in no nivolumab-treated patients. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab 240 mg once every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg once every 6 weeks did not improve RFS versus nivolumab 480 mg once every 4 weeks in patients with stage IIIB-D or stage IV melanoma. Nivolumab showed efficacy consistent with previous adjuvant studies in a population resembling current practice using American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition, reaffirming nivolumab as a standard of care for melanoma adjuvant treatment.

BRAF activation by metabolic stress promotes glycolysis sensitizing NRASQ61-mutated melanomas to targeted therapy.

NRAS-mutated melanoma lacks a specific line of treatment. Metabolic reprogramming is considered a novel target to control cancer; however, NRAS-oncogene contribution to this cancer hallmark is mostly unknown. Here, we show that NRASQ61-mutated melanomas specific metabolic settings mediate cell sensitivity to sorafenib upon metabolic stress. Mechanistically, these cells are dependent on glucose metabolism, in which glucose deprivation promotes a switch from CRAF to BRAF signaling. This scenario contributes to cell survival and sustains glucose metabolism through BRAF-mediated phosphorylation of 6-phosphofructo-2-kinase/fructose-2,6-bisphosphatase-2/3 (PFKFB2/PFKFB3). In turn, this favors the allosteric activation of phosphofructokinase-1 (PFK1), generating a feedback loop that couples glycolytic flux and the RAS signaling pathway. An in vivo treatment of NRASQ61 mutant melanomas, including patient-derived xenografts, with 2-deoxy-D-glucose (2-DG) and sorafenib effectively inhibits tumor growth. Thus, we provide evidence for NRAS-oncogene contributions to metabolic rewiring and a proof-of-principle for the treatment of NRASQ61-mutated melanoma combining metabolic stress (glycolysis inhibitors) and previously approved drugs, such as sorafenib.

Incidence and characteristics of adverse drug reactions in a cohort of patients treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in real-world practice.

Background: Data related to adverse drug reactions (ADRs), specifically immune-related adverse events (irAEs), in long-term treatment with immunotherapy in real-world practice is scarce, as is general information regarding the management of ADRs. Objectives: To characterize and describe the incidence of ADRs in patients who began immunotherapy treatment in clinical practice. Methods: In a prospective observational study cancer patients ≥18 years of age who were treated with a monotherapy regime of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors were evaluated. The study period was from November 2017 to June 2019 and patients were followed up until June 2021. Patients were contacted monthly by telephone and their electronic health records were reviewed. Each ADR was graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE 5.0). Results: Out of 99 patients, 86 met the inclusion criteria. Most were male (67.4%), with a median age of 66 (interquartile range, IQR: 59-76). The most frequent cancer was non-small cellular lung cancer (46 cases, 53.5%), followed by melanoma (22, 25.6%). A total of 74 patients (86%) were treated with anti-PD-1 drugs and 12 (14%) were treated with anti-PD-L1 drugs. The median treatment durations were 4.9 (IQR: 1.9-17.0) and 5.9 months (IQR: 1.2-12.3), respectively. Sixty-three patients (73%) developed from a total of 156 (44% of the total number of ADR) irADRs, wherein the most frequent were skin disorders (50 cases, 32%, incidence = 30.5 irADRs/100 patients per year [p-y]), gastrointestinal disorders (29, 19%, 17.7 irADRs/100 p-y), musculoskeletal disorders (17, 11%, 10.4 irADRs/100 p-y), and endocrine disorders (14, 9%, 8.6 irADRs/100 p-y). A total of 22 irADRs (14%) had a latency period of ≥12 months. Twelve irADRs (7.7%) were categorized as grade 3-4, and while 2 (1.3%) were categorized as grade 5 (death). Sixty-one irADRs (39.1%) in 36 patients required pharmacological treatment and 47 irADRs (30.1%) in 22 patients required treatment with corticosteriods. Conclusion: The majority of patients treated with anti-PD1/PDL1-based immunotherapy experienced adverse reactions. Although most of these reactions were mild, 11.5% were categorized as grade 3 or above. A high percentage of the reactions were immune-related and occurred throughout the treatment, thereby indicating that early identification and close monitoring is essential.

The Low Incidence of Viral Hepatitis Reactivation Among Subjects on Immunotherapy Reduces the Impact of Suboptimal Screening Rate.

Background and Aims: Immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is a pillar of many advanced tumors. However, there is scarce data concerning the rate of viral hepatitis screening in this population or the risk of viral reactivation. Methods: Retrospective-prospective study that includes all patients who began ICIs between January/2019 and December/2020 in a University Hospital. Data on viral hepatitis screening prior to the beginning of ICIs were collected. In subjects lacking information, serological tests were requested prospectively. Among HBsAg, anti-HBc, or anti-HCV positive subjects, reactivation was prospectively assessed. Results: During the 2-year period of study, 595 subjects received ICIs (61.2% male, mean age 63 years). The most prevalent cancers found were 35.5% lung cancer, 12.1% melanoma, and 8.2% head and neck; ICIs schemes were mainly anti-PD1 (65.7%), followed by anti-PD-L1 (19.2%), and combined therapy (13.6%). Prior to immunotherapy, anti-HCV screening was performed in 462 (77.6%) subjects, HBsAg in 462 (77.6%), anti-HBc in 335 (56.3%), and the complete screening in 328 (55.1%). The anti-HBc screening was more frequently ordered among patients treated with concomitant systemic therapy (p = 0.003), especially in the case of chemotherapy (p = 0.015), though HCV screening was more commonly performed in concomitant therapies different from chemotherapy (p = 0.001). Serological tests were completed prospectively in those alive, leading to an overall prevalence for anti-HCV of 3.5%, HBsAg at 1.3%, and anti-HBc of 15.2%. HCV-RNA was detected in 2/19 (both patients with hepatocellular carcinoma), HBV-DNA in 4/7 HBsAg positive, and in 1/75 anti-HBc positive subject. Five out of the 7 HBsAg carriers and 1/75 anti-HBc+ subjects (due to concomitant antiretroviral therapy) received antiviral prophylaxis. Neither cases of HBV reactivation nor changes in HCV viral load were observed. Discussion: HBV and HCV screening prior to immunotherapy is suboptimal. Though the rate of viral hepatitis reactivation seems extremely low, efforts should be made to optimize viral hepatitis screening prior to immunotherapy for the selection of candidates for either antiviral prophylaxis or periodical follow-up.