Pembrolizumab versus placebo as adjuvant therapy in resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma: Outcomes in histopathologic subgroups from the randomized, double-blind, phase 3 KEYNOTE-716 trial.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) versus placebo in the phase 3 KEYNOTE-716 study of resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma. At the prespecified third interim analysis (data cut-off, January 4, 2022), the HR for RFS in the overall population was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.50 to 0.84) and the HR for DMFS was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.47 to 0.88). We present a post hoc analysis of efficacy by subtypes defined by histopathologic characteristics. METHODS: Patients aged ≥12 years with newly diagnosed, resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks (2 mg/kg up to 200 mg for pediatric patients) or placebo. The primary end point was RFS per investigator review; DMFS per investigator review was secondary. Subgroups of interest were melanoma subtype (nodular vs non-nodular), tumor thickness (≤4 mm vs >4 mm), presence of ulceration (yes vs no), mitotic rate (<5 per mm2 (median) vs ≥5 per mm2), and presence of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs; absent vs present). RESULTS: Between September 23, 2018, and November 4, 2020, 976 patients were assigned to pembrolizumab (n=487) or placebo (n=489). Median follow-up was 27.4 months (range, 14.0-39.4). The HR (95% CI) for RFS was 0.54 (0.37 to 0.79) for nodular and 0.77 (0.53 to 1.11) for non-nodular melanoma; 0.57 (0.37 to 0.89) for thickness ≤4 mm and 0.69 (0.50 to 0.96) for >4 mm; 0.66 (0.50 to 0.89) for ulceration and 0.57 (0.32 to 1.03) for no ulceration; 0.57 (0.35 to 0.92) for mitotic rate <5 per mm2 and 0.57 (0.40 to 0.80) for ≥5 per mm2; and 0.89 (0.52 to 1.54) for TILs absent and 0.51 (0.34 to 0.76) for TILs present. DMFS results were similar. In a Cox multivariate analysis, treatment arm, tumor thickness, and mitotic rate were significant independent factors for RFS, and treatment arm and mitotic rate were significant independent factors for DMFS. CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc analysis, the benefit of pembrolizumab was largely consistent with the overall study population regardless of histopathologic characteristics. These results support the use of adjuvant pembrolizumab in patients with resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03553836.

Sequential immunotherapy and targeted therapy for metastatic BRAF V600 mutated melanoma: 4-year survival and biomarkers evaluation from the phase II SECOMBIT trial.

No prospective data were available prior to 2021 to inform selection between combination BRAF and MEK inhibition versus dual blockade of programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) and cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) as first-line treatment options for BRAFV600-mutant melanoma. SECOMBIT (NCT02631447) was a randomized, three-arm, noncomparative phase II trial in which patients were randomized to one of two sequences with immunotherapy or targeted therapy first, with a third arm in which an 8-week induction course of targeted therapy followed by a planned switch to immunotherapy was the first treatment. BRAF/MEK inhibitors were encorafenib plus binimetinib and checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab plus nivolumab. Primary outcome of overall survival was previously reported, demonstrating improved survival with immunotherapy administered until progression and followed by BRAF/MEK inhibition. Here we report 4-year survival outcomes, confirming long-term benefit with first-line immunotherapy. We also describe preliminary results of predefined biomarkers analyses that identify a trend toward improved 4-year overall survival and total progression-free survival in patients with loss-of-function mutations affecting JAK or low baseline levels of serum interferon gamma (IFNy). These long-term survival outcomes confirm immunotherapy as the preferred first-line treatment approach for most patients with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma, and the biomarker analyses are hypothesis-generating for future investigations of predictors of durable benefit with dual checkpoint blockade and targeted therapy.

Antigen rapid diagnostic test monitoring for SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic and fully vaccinated cancer patients: Is it cost-effective?

BACKGROUND: Routine testing for cancer patients not presenting COVID-19-related symptoms and fully vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2 prior to cancer treatment is controversial. METHODS: In this retrospective study we evaluated whether antigen-rapid-diagnostic-test (Ag-RDT) monitoring for SARS-CoV-2 in a large cohort of consecutive asymptomatic (absence of SARS-CoV-2-related symptoms such as fever, cough, sore throat or nasal congestion) and fully vaccinated cancer patients enrolled in a short period during cancer treatment has an impact on the therapeutic path of cancer patients. RESULTS: From December 27, 2021, to February 11, 2022, 2439 cancer patients were screened through Ag-RDT for SARS-CoV-2 before entering the hospital for systemic treatment. Fifty-three patients (2.17%) tested positive, of whom 7 (13.2%) subsequently developed COVID-related symptoms, generally mild. Cancer treatment was discontinued, as a precaution, in 49 patients (92.5%) due to the test positivity. CONCLUSION: SARS-CoV-2 screening in asymptomatic and fully vaccinated cancer patients during systemic treatment appeared to be not cost-effective: the low rate of SARS-CoV-2 positive patients and the low percentage of overt associated infection do not seem proportional to the direct costs (nursing work for swabs, costs of materials and patient monitoring) and indirect costs (dedicated rooms, extension of waiting times for patients and oncologists in delivering therapy as well as its discontinuation in the positive ones). It can, on the other hand, be detrimental when systemic cancer treatment is suspended as a precaution. Given the small number of patients testing positive and the rapid and favorable trend of the infection, it is recommended to always consider continuing systemic oncological treatment, especially when this impacts patient survival as in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting.

Nationwide multidisciplinary consensus on the clinical management of Merkel cell carcinoma: a Delphi panel.

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare and highly aggressive cutaneous neuroendocrine carcinoma. The MCC incidence rate has rapidly grown over the last years, with Italy showing the highest increase among European countries. This malignancy has been the focus of active scientific research over the last years, focusing mainly on pathogenesis, new therapeutic trials and diagnosis. A national expert board developed 28 consensus statements that delineated the evolution of disease management and highlighted the paradigm shift towards the use of immunological strategies, which were then presented to a national MCC specialists panel for review. Sixty-five panelists answered both rounds of the questionnaire. The statements were divided into five areas: a high level of agreement was reached in the area of guidelines and multidisciplinary management, even if in real life the multidisciplinary team was not always represented by all the specialists. In the diagnostic pathway area, imaging played a crucial role in diagnosis and initial staging, planning for surgery or radiation therapy, assessment of treatment response and surveillance of recurrence and metastases. Concerning diagnosis, the usefulness of Merkel cell polyomavirus is recognized, but the agreement and consensus regarding the need for cytokeratin evaluation appears greater. Regarding the areas of clinical management and follow-up, patients with MCC require customized treatment. There was a wide dispersion of results and the suggestion to increase awareness about the adjuvant radiation therapy. The panelists unanimously agreed that the information concerning avelumab provided by the JAVELIN Merkel 200 study is adequate and reliable and that the expanded access program data could have concrete clinical implications. An immunocompromised patient with advanced MCC can be treated with immunotherapy after multidisciplinary risk/benefit assessment, as evidenced by real-world analysis and highlighted in the guidelines. A very high consensus regarding the addition of radiotherapy to treat the ongoing focal progression of immunotherapy was observed. This paper emphasizes the importance of collaboration and communication among the interprofessional team members and encourages managing patients with MCC within dedicated multidisciplinary teams. New insights in the treatment of this challenging cancer needs the contribution of many and different experts.

Quality of life in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma receiving the combination encorafenib plus binimetinib: Results from a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase III study (COLUMBUS).

BACKGROUND: In COLUMBUS, treatment with encorafenib plus binimetinib in patients with advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma showed improved progression-free and overall survival with favourable tolerability compared to vemurafenib treatment. Here, results on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are presented. METHODS: COLUMBUS was a two-part, open-label, randomised, phase III study in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma. In PART-I, 577 patients were randomised (1:1:1) to encorafenib plus binimetinib, encorafenib or vemurafenib. The primary objective was to assess progression-free survival. As a secondary objective, HRQoL was assessed by the EQ-5D, the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the FACT-M questionnaires. Furthermore, time to definitive 10% deterioration was estimated with a Kaplan-Meier analysis and differences in mean scores between groups were calculated with a mixed-effect model for repeated measures. Hospitalisation rate and the impact of hospitalisation on HRQoL were also assessed. RESULTS: Patients receiving the combination treatment showed improvement of their FACT-M and EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status scores, compared to those receiving vemurafenib (post-baseline score differences: 3.03 [p < 0.0001] for FACT M and 5.28 [p = 0.0042] for EORTC QLQ-C30), indicative of a meaningful change in patient's status. Furthermore, a delay in the deterioration of QoL was observed in non-hospitalised patients compared to hospitalised patients (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 1.16 [0.80; 1.68] for EORTC QLQ-C30 and 1.27 [0.81; 1.99] for FACT-M) and a risk reduction of 10% deterioration, favoured the combination in both groups. CONCLUSION: The improved efficacy of encorafenib plus binimetinib compared to vemurafenib, translates into a positive impact on the perceived health status as assessed by the HRQoL questionnaires. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01909453 and EudraCT number 2013-001176-38.

Melanoma of Unknown Primary: Evaluation of the Characteristics, Treatment Strategies, Prognostic Factors in a Monocentric Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Melanoma of unknown primary (MUP), accounts for up to 3% of all melanomas and consists of a histologically confirmed melanoma metastasis to either lymph nodes, (sub)cutaneous tissue, or visceral sites without any evidence of a primary cutaneous, ocular, or mucosal melanoma. This study aimed to investigate the characteristics, treatment strategies, and prognostic factors of MUP patients, in order to shed some light on the clinical behavior of this malignancy. METHODS: All the consecutive patients with a diagnosis of MUP referring to our institutions between 1985 and 2018 were considered in this retrospective cohort study. The records of 173 patients with a suspected diagnosis of MUP were retrospectively evaluated for inclusion in the study. Patient selection was performed according to the Das Gupta criteria, and a total of 127 MUP patients were finally included in the study, representing 2.7% of the patients diagnosed with melanoma skin cancer at our institutions during the same study period. A second cohort of all consecutive 417 MKP patients with AJCC stages IIIB-IV, referring tions in the period considered (1985-2018), was included in the study to compare survival between MUP and MKP patients. All the diagnoses were based on histopathologic, cytologic and immunohistochemical examination of the metastases. All tumors were re-staged according to the 2018 American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th Edition. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 32 months (IQR: 15-84). 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 54%, while 3-year overall survival (OS) was 62%. Worse OS and PFS were associated with older age (P = 0.0001 for OS; P = 0.008 for PFS), stage IV (P < 0.0001 for OS; P = 0.0001 for PFS) and higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (P < 0.0001 for OS and P = 0.01 for PFS). Patients with lymph node disease showed longer PFS (P = 0.001) and OS (P = 0.0008) than those with (sub)cutis disease. Complete lymph node dissection (CLND) was the most common surgical treatment; a worse OS in these patients was associated with the number of positive lymph nodes (P = 0.01), without significant association with the number of retrieved lymph nodes (P = 0.79). Survival rates were lower in patients undergoing chemotherapy (CT) and target therapy (TT), and higher in those receiving immunotherapy (IT). 417 patients with AJCC stages IIIB-IV of Melanoma Known Primary (MKP) were included for the survival comparison with MUP. 3-year PFS rates were 54 and 58% in MUP and MKP, respectively (P = 0.30); 3-year OS rates were 62 and 70% in MUP and MKP, respectively (P = 0.40). CONCLUSIONS: The most common clinical scenario of our series was a male patient around 59 years with lymph node disease. We report that CLND associated with IT was the best treatment in terms of survival outcome. In the current era of IT and TT for melanoma, new studies have to clarify the impact of novel drugs on MUP.

An Italian Retrospective Survey on Bone Metastasis in Melanoma: Impact of Immunotherapy and Radiotherapy on Survival.

BACKGROUND: We performed a multicenter retrospective observational study to investigate the impact of clinical-pathological features and therapeutic strategies on both the complications and survival of patients with bone metastases (BMs) from malignant melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 305 patients with melanoma and radiological evidence of BMs were retrospectively enrolled from 19 Italian centers. All patients received conventional treatments in accordance with each own treating physician's practice. Both univariate and multivariate models were used to explore the impact of melanoma features, including skeletal-related events (SREs), and different treatments on both overall survival (OS) and time-to-SREs. The chi-squared test evaluated the suitability of several parameters to predict the occurrence of SREs. RESULTS: Eighty-three percent of patients had metachronous BMs. The prevalent (90%) bone metastatic site was the spine, while 45% had involvement of the appendicular skeleton. Forty-seven percent experienced at least one SRE, including palliative radiotherapy (RT) in 37% of cases. No melanoma-associated factor was predictive of the development of SREs, although patients receiving early treatment with bone-targeted agents showed 62% lower risk and delayed time of SRE occurrence. Median OS from the diagnosis of bone metastasis was 10.7 months. The multivariate analysis revealed as independent prognostic factors the number of BMs, number of metastatic organs, baseline lactate dehydrogenase levels, and treatment with targeted therapy or immunotherapy. Subgroup analyses showed the best OS (median = 16.5 months) in the subset of patients receiving both immunotherapy and palliative RT. CONCLUSION: Based on our results, patients undergoing immunotherapy and palliative RT showed an OS benefit suggestive of a possible additive effect. The apparent protective role of bone targeting agent use on SREs observed in our analysis should deserve prospective evaluation.

Identification of host variants associated with overall survival of esophageal cancer patients receiving platinum-based therapy.

Aim: Clinical features of esophageal cancer (EC) patients have poor prognostic power. Thus, it is paramount to discover biomarkers that can allow a more accurate survival prediction. Methods: To detect genetic variants associated with survival, DNA from 120 patients treated with cisplatin-based neoadjuvant therapy were genotyped using drug metabolism enzymes and transporters array. Results: We identified two variants: the rs2038067 in PPARD (p = 0.0004) and the rs683369 (F160L) in SLC22A1 (p = 0.001). Their prognostic power was greater than that of clinical stage alone (p = 0.017) and comparable to that of response to neoadjuvant therapy (p = 0.71). Interestingly, the prognostic accuracy of response models increased significantly when genetic variables were included (p = 0.003). Conclusion: Our data, though preliminary, strengthen the potential utility of germline variants for a better-tailored management of EC patients.

Cost-effectiveness of a melanoma screening programme using whole disease modelling.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the potential impact of a melanoma screening programme, compared with usual care, on direct costs and life expectancy in the era of targeted drugs and cancer immunotherapy. METHODS: Using a Whole Disease Model approach, a Markov simulation model with a time horizon of 25 years was devised to analyse the cost-effectiveness of a one-time, general practitioner-based melanoma screening strategy in the population aged over 20, compared with no screening. The study considered the most up-to-date drug therapy and was conducted from the perspective of the Veneto regional healthcare system within the Italian National Health Service. Only direct costs were considered. Sensitivity analyses, both one-way and probabilistic, were performed to identify the parameters with the greatest impact on cost-effectiveness, and to assess the robustness of our model. RESULTS: Over a 25-year time horizon, the screening intervention dominated usual care. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings. The key drivers of the model were the proportion of melanomas detected by the screening procedure and the adherence of the target population to the screening programme. CONCLUSIONS: The screening programme proved to be a dominant option compared with usual care. These findings should prompt serious consideration of the design and implementation of a regional or national melanoma screening strategy within a National Health Service.

The density and spatial tissue distribution of CD8+ and CD163+ immune cells predict response and outcome in melanoma patients receiving MAPK inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Clinical response to MAPK inhibitors in metastatic melanoma patients is heterogeneous for reasons still needing to be elucidated. As the patient immune activity contributes to treatment clinical benefit, the pre-existing level of immunity at tumor site may provide biomarkers of disease outcome to therapy. Here we investigated whether assessing the density and spatial tissue distribution of key immune cells in the tumor microenvironment could identify patients predisposed to respond to MAPK inhibitors. METHODS: Pretreatment tumor biopsies from a total of 213 patients (158 for the training set and 55 for the validation set) treated with BRAF or BRAF/MEK inhibitors within the Italian Melanoma Intergroup were stained with selected immune markers (CD8, CD163, ß-catenin, PD-L1, PD-L2). Results, obtained by blinded immunohistochemical scoring and digital image analysis, were correlated with clinical response and outcome by multivariate logistic models on response to treatment and clinical outcome, adjusted for American Joint Committee on Cancer stage, performance status, lactate dehydrogenase and treatment received. RESULTS: Patients with high intratumoral, but not peritumoral, CD8+ T cells and concomitantly low CD163+ myeloid cells displayed higher probability of response (OR 9.91, 95% CI 2.23-44.0, p = 0.003) and longer overall survival (HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.16-0.72, p = 0.005) compared to those with intratumoral low CD8+ T cells and high CD163+ myeloid cells. The latter phenotype was instead associated with a shorter progression free survival (p = 0.010). In contrast, PD-L1 and PD-L2 did not correlate with clinical outcome while tumor ß-catenin overexpression showed association with lower probability of response (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.21-1.06, p = 0.068). CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of the spatially constrained distribution of CD8+ and CD163+ cells, representative of the opposite circuits of antitumor vs protumor immunity, respectively, may assist in identifying melanoma patients with improved response and better outcome upon treatment with MAPK inhibitors. These data underline the role of endogenous immune microenvironment in predisposing metastatic melanoma patients to benefit from therapies targeting driver-oncogenic pathways.

Adverse events associated with encorafenib plus binimetinib in the COLUMBUS study: incidence, course and management.

BACKGROUND: Dual inhibition of the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway with BRAF/MEK inhibitor (BRAFi/MEKi) therapy is a standard treatment for BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma and has historically been associated with grade III pyrexia or photosensitivity depending on the combination used. The objective of this study was to fully describe adverse events from the COLUMBUS study evaluating the most recent BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination encorafenib+binimetinib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic BRAFV600-mutant melanoma were randomised to receive encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily, encorafenib 300 mg once daily or vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily. Adverse events that represent known effects of available BRAFi and/or MEKi were evaluated. RESULTS: The safety population included a total of 570 patients (encorafenib+binimetinib = 192; encorafenib = 192; vemurafenib = 186). Median duration of exposure was longer with encorafenib+binimetinib (51 weeks) than with encorafenib (31 weeks) or vemurafenib (27 weeks). Common BRAFi/MEKi toxicities with encorafenib+binimetinib were generally manageable, reversible and infrequently associated with discontinuation. Pyrexia was less frequent with encorafenib+binimetinib (18%) and encorafenib (16%) than with vemurafenib (30%) and occurred later in the course of therapy with encorafenib+binimetinib (median time to first onset: 85 days versus 2.5 days and 19 days, respectively). The incidence of photosensitivity was lower with encorafenib+binimetinib (5%) and encorafenib (4%) than with vemurafenib (30%). The incidence of serous retinopathy was higher with encorafenib+binimetinib (20%) than with encorafenib (2%) or vemurafenib (2%), but no patients discontinued encorafenib+binimetinib because of this event. CONCLUSION: Encorafenib+binimetinib is generally well tolerated and has a low discontinuation rate in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma, with a distinct safety profile as compared with other anti-BRAF/MEK targeted therapies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT01909453) and with EudraCT (number 2013-001176-38).

An open-label, multicentre safety study of vemurafenib in patients with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma: final analysis and a validated prognostic scoring system.

BACKGROUND: The oncogenic BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib improves outcomes for patients with advanced BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma compared with cytotoxic chemotherapy. Vemurafenib is now approved for use in this patient population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this open-label, multicentre study, patients with previously treated or untreated melanoma and the BRAFV600 mutation received vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was safety. In a post hoc analysis, overall survival (OS) was analysed according to a prognostic scoring system developed using Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, existence of brain metastases and baseline serum lactate dehydrogenase level. The index was validated using data from patients treated with vemurafenib or dacarbazine in three clinical trials and data from patients treated with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in two studies. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01307397). RESULTS: Between March 2011 and January 2013, 3224 patients were enrolled, and 3219 patients received ≥1 dose of vemurafenib (safety population); median follow-up time was 33.4 months. Vemurafenib's long-term benefits were confirmed, and no new safety signals identified. The prognostic index showed between-group differences in OS, with tight, non-overlapping confidence intervals. Validation in a pooled group of 666 vemurafenib-treated clinical trial patients revealed a similar pattern; the pattern was similar in 280 patients treated with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib. CONCLUSIONS: Final results from the vemurafenib safety study confirm vemurafenib's tolerability in BRAFV600 mutation-positive patients and resemble those seen in real-world clinical practice. This index may be useful in patients on combination therapy and as a basis for further work.

Esophageal Cancer Clinical Presentation: Trends in the Last 3 Decades in a Large Italian Series.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate trends in patients' characteristics and comorbidities in esophageal cancer (EC) patients. BACKGROUND: Identifying changing pattern is essential to understand and predict further changes and to plan surgical procedures and resource allocation. METHODS: Trends in patients' characteristics and comorbidities were evaluated in 4440 EC patients at the Center for Esophageal Diseases in Padova, Italy, during 1980 to 2011. Joinpoint regression analysis was performed to evaluate trends and to estimate annual percentage changes (APCs). RESULTS: During the study period, there has been a statistically significant increment of the rate of esophageal adenocarcinoma (APC 3.70). The rates of elderly and of asymptomatic patients increased over time (APCs 0.98 and 6.24), whereas the rates of malnutrition, alcoholic drinking, and gastric ulcer decreased (APCs -1.50, -1.72, and -5.20). Reflux rate increased until 1997 and decreased thereafter (APCs 6.96 and -4.48), whereas the rate of Barrett esophagus increased until 1992 (APC 35.84) and then leveled. The rates of patients with previous neoplasms increased over time (APCs 3.22 and 4.86). There have been significant changes in systemic comorbidities, with an increase of hypertension and cardiac disease (APCs 7.56 and 1.86) and a decrease of advanced liver disease and pulmonary disease (APCs -2.67 and -1.74). CONCLUSION: The current EC patient has more often an esophageal adenocarcinoma and is more frequently elderly, asymptomatic, a survivor of previous neoplasms, and a patient with hypertension and cardiac disease than 30 years ago. On the contrary, malnutrition, alcoholic drinking, gastric ulcer, pulmonary disease, and advanced liver disease decreased.

Estimation of Direct Melanoma-related Costs by Disease Stage and by Phase of Diagnosis and Treatment According to Clinical Guidelines.

Cutaneous melanoma is a major concern in terms of healthcare systems and economics. The aim of this study was to estimate the direct costs of melanoma by disease stage, phase of diagnosis, and treatment according to the pre-set clinical guidelines drafted by the AIOM (Italian Medical Oncological Association). Based on the AIOM guidelines for malignant cutaneous melanoma, a highly detailed decision-making model was developed describing the patient's pathway from diagnosis through the subsequent phases of disease staging, surgical and medical treatment, and follow-up. The model associates each phase potentially involving medical procedures with a likelihood measure and a cost, thus enabling an estimation of the expected costs by disease stage and clinical phase of melanoma diagnosis and treatment according to the clinical guidelines. The mean per-patient cost of the whole melanoma pathway (including one year of follow-up) ranged from €149 for stage 0 disease to €66,950 for stage IV disease. The costs relating to each phase of the disease's diagnosis and treatment depended on disease stage. It is essential to calculate the direct costs of managing malignant cutaneous melanoma according to clinical guidelines in order to estimate the economic burden of this disease and to enable policy-makers to allocate appropriate resources.

Mitotic rate correlates with sentinel lymph node status and outcome in cutaneous melanoma greater than 1 millimeter in thickness: A multi-institutional study of 1524 cases.

BACKGROUND: The 7th edition of the TNM American Joint Committee on Cancer classification incorporates mitotic rate (MR) only for primary cutaneous melanoma (PCM) with Breslow thickness (BT) ≤1 mm. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether and to what extent MR is able to predict sentinel lymph node (SLN) status and clinical outcome of PCM patients with BT >1 mm. METHODS: The study included consecutive patients with PCM. Logistic regression and Cox regression model were used to analyze the impact of MR on SLN status, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival. RESULTS: From 1998 to 2015, 1524 PCM (median age 57.8 years) cases were diagnosed with a BT >1 mm in six centers of the Italian Melanoma Intergroup. Median follow-up was 5.0 years. By multivariate analysis, MR was associated with SLN positivity (odds ratio 1.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-3.50, P = .018). After adjusting for BT, ulceration, age, sex, and SLN status, MR correlated with a poor DFS (hazard ratio 1.52, 95% CI 1.18-1.97, P = .002) and overall survival (hazard ratio 1.63, 95% CI 1.17-2.29, P = .004). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective analysis. CONCLUSION: MR is an independent prognostic factor for PCM patients with BT >1 mm. Incorporating this tissue biomarker could provide a better stratification of patients entering clinical trials in the adjuvant setting.

Vemurafenib in BRAFV600 mutated metastatic melanoma: a subanalysis of the Italian population of a global safety study.

AIM: We describe the ad interim analysis of the Italian cohort of the global safety study on vemurafenib in patients with metastatic melanoma. PATIENTS & METHODS: A total of 385 patients received vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily. RESULTS: In total, 330 patients (86%) reported adverse events; 16 serious adverse events were observed (three related to vemurafenib). The response rate was 30.4%. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 5.9 months and 16.3 months, respectively. In patients with brain metastasis (BM; n = 83), median PFS was 4.3 months and OS was 7.6 months. In patients without BM, PFS was 6.5 months and OS was not reached. Median PFS was 12.6 months in patients with M1a stage of disease, 9.6 months in those with M1b stage and 5.4 months in subjects with M1c stage. CONCLUSION: Vemurafenib appears safe and active in clinical practice, and seems particularly active in patients without BM and low tumor burden.

Clinical experience with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg: real-world efficacy and safety data from an expanded access programme cohort.

BACKGROUND: Ipilimumab improves survival in patients with advanced melanoma. The activity and safety of ipilimumab outside of a clinical trial was assessed in an expanded access programme (EAP). METHODS: Ipilimumab was available upon physician request for patients aged 16 or over with pretreated stage III (unresectable)/IV melanoma, for whom no other therapeutic option was available. Patients received ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses. Patients with stable disease or an objective response to ipilimumab were eligible for retreatment upon disease progression. Tumour assessments were conducted at baseline and week 12. Patients were monitored for adverse events (AEs) within 3 to 4 days of each scheduled visit. RESULTS: Of 855 patients participating in the EAP in Italy, 833 were evaluable for response. Of these, 13% had an objective immune response, and the immune-related disease control rate was 34%. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 3.7 and 7.2 months, respectively. Efficacy was independent of BRAF and NRAS mutational status. Overall, 33% of patients reported an immune-related AE (irAE). The frequency of irAEs was not associated with response to ipilimumab. CONCLUSIONS: Outside of a clinical trial setting, ipilimumab is a feasible treatment option in patients with pretreated metastatic melanoma, regardless of BRAF and NRAS mutational status. Data from this large cohort of patients support clinical trial evidence that ipilimumab can induce durable disease control and long-term survival in patients who have failed to respond to prior treatment.

Vemurafenib in patients with BRAF(V600) mutated metastatic melanoma: an open-label, multicentre, safety study.

BACKGROUND: The orally available BRAF kinase inhibitor vemurafenib, compared with dacarbazine, shows improved response rates, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival in patients with metastatic melanoma that has a BRAF(V600) mutation. We assessed vemurafenib in patients with advanced metastatic melanoma with BRAF(V600) mutations who had few treatment options. METHODS: In an open-label, multicentre study, patients with untreated or previously treated melanoma and a BRAF(V600) mutation received oral vemurafenib 960 mg twice a day. The primary endpoint was safety. All analyses were done on the safety population, which included all patients who received at least one dose of vemurafenib. This report is the third interim analysis of this study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01307397. FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2011, and Jan 31, 2013, 3226 patients were enrolled in 44 countries. 3222 patients received at least one dose of vemurafenib (safety population). At data cutoff, 868 (27%) patients were on study treatment and 2354 (73%) had withdrawn, mainly because of disease progression. Common adverse events of all grades included rash (1592 [49%]), arthralgia (1259 [39%]), fatigue (1093 [34%]), photosensitivity reaction (994 [31%]), alopecia (826 [26%]), and nausea (628 [19%]). 1480 (46%) patients reported grade 3 or 4 adverse events, including cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (389 [12%]), rash (155 [5%]), liver function abnormalities (165 [5%]), arthralgia (106 [3%]), and fatigue (93 [3%]). Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were reported more frequently in patients aged 75 years and older (n=257; 152 [59%, 95% CI 53-65] and ten [4%, 2-7], respectively) than in those younger than 75 years (n=2965; 1286 [43%, 42-45] and 82 [3%, 2-3], respectively). INTERPRETATION: Vemurafenib safety in this diverse population of patients with BRAF(V600) mutated metastatic melanoma, who are more representative of routine clinical practice, was consistent with the safety profile shown in the pivotal trials of this drug. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Sequential treatment with ipilimumab and BRAF inhibitors in patients with metastatic melanoma: data from the Italian cohort of the ipilimumab expanded access program.

Of 93 patients with pretreated, BRAF(V600) mutation-positive advanced melanoma who received vemurafenib or dabrafenib before (n = 45) or after (n = 48) treatment with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, median overall survival (mOS) from first treatment was 9.9 and 14.5 months, respectively. Among patients treated with a BRAF inhibitor first, mOS from the end of BRAF inhibition was 1.2 months for those who did not complete ipilimumab treatment as per protocol, compared with 12.7 months for those who did (p < .001). Prospective, randomized studies are required to determine the optimal sequencing of ipilimumab and BRAF inhibitors in patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma.