Overall survival from tebentafusp versus nivolumab plus ipilimumab in first-line metastatic uveal melanoma: a propensity score-weighted analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tebentafusp demonstrated a superior overall survival (OS) benefit [hazard ratio (HR) 0.51] compared to investigator's choice (82% pembrolizumab) in a randomized, phase III trial (IMCgp100-202; N = 378) in untreated metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM). The 1-year OS rates for tebentafusp and pembrolizumab were 73% and 59%, respectively. In the single-arm GEM1402 (N = 52), the 1-year OS rate for nivolumab plus ipilimumab (N+I) in mUM was 52%. Due to limitations in conducting randomized trials in mUM, we compared OS on tebentafusp or pembrolizumab (IMCgp100-202) to N+I (GEM1402) in untreated mUM using propensity scoring methods. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Analyses were adjusted using propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), balancing age, sex, baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), baseline alkaline phosphatase, disease location, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, and time from primary diagnosis to metastasis. OS was assessed using IPT-weighted Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard models. Sensitivity analyses using alternative missing data and weights methods were conducted. RESULTS: The primary IPTW analysis included 240 of 252 patients randomized to tebentafusp from IMCgp100-202 and 45 of 52 N+I-treated patients from GEM-1402. Key baseline covariates, including LDH, were generally well balanced before weighting. The IPTW-adjusted OS favored tebentafusp, HR 0.52 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35-0.78]; 1-year OS was 73% for tebentafusp versus 50% for N+I. Sensitivity analyses showed consistent superior OS for tebentafusp with all IPTW HRs ≤0.61. IPTW analysis of pembrolizumab versus N+I showed no significant difference in OS (HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.50-1.06). CONCLUSIONS: Tebentafusp was previously shown to provide an OS benefit compared to checkpoint inhibitors or chemotherapy in untreated mUM. Propensity score analysis demonstrated a similar OS benefit for tebentafusp compared with N+I. These data further support tebentafusp as the standard of care in previously untreated human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-A∗02:01+ adult patients with mUM.

GNAQ and GNA11 mutant nonuveal melanoma: a subtype distinct from both cutaneous and uveal melanoma.

BACKGROUND: GNAQ and GNA11 mutant nonuveal melanoma represent a poorly characterized rare subgroup of melanoma with a gene mutation profile similar to uveal melanoma. OBJECTIVES: To characterize these tumours in terms of clinical behaviour and genetic characteristics. METHODS: Patients with nonuveal GNAQ/11 mutated melanoma were identified from the prospective multicentre tumour tissue registry ADOREG, Tissue Registry in Melanoma (TRIM) and additional cooperating skin cancer centres. Extensive data on patient, tumour and treatment characteristics were collected retrospectively. Targeted sequencing was used to determine tumour mutational burden. Immunohistochemistry staining was performed for programmed death-ligand 1 and BRCA1-associated protein (BAP)1. Existing whole-exome cutaneous and uveal melanoma data were analysed for mutation type and burden. RESULTS: We identified 18 patients with metastatic GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanoma. Tumours had a lower tumour mutational burden and fewer ultraviolet signature mutations than cutaneous melanomas. In addition to GNAQ and GNA11 mutations (nine each), six splicing factor 3b subunit 1 (SF3B1), three eukaryotic translation initiation factor 1A X-linked (EIF1AX) and four BAP1 mutations were detected. In contrast to uveal melanoma, GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas frequently metastasized lymphatically and concurrent EIF1AX, SF3B1 and BAP1 mutations showed no apparent association with patient prognosis. Objective response to immunotherapy was poor with only one partial response observed in 10 treated patients (10%). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas are a subtype of melanoma that is both clinically and genetically distinct from cutaneous and uveal melanoma. As they respond poorly to available treatment regimens, novel effective therapeutic approaches for affected patients are urgently needed. What is already known about this topic? The rare occurrence of GNAQ/11 mutations in nonuveal melanoma has been documented. GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas also harbour genetic alterations in EIF1AX, SF3B1 and BAP1 that are of prognostic relevance in uveal melanoma. What does this study add? GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas show metastatic spread reminiscent of cutaneous melanoma, but not uveal melanoma. GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas have a low tumour mutational burden that is higher than uveal melanoma, but lower than cutaneous melanoma. What is the translational message? Primary GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas are a subtype of melanoma that is clinically and genetically distinct from both cutaneous and uveal melanoma. As metastatic GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas respond poorly to available systemic therapies, including immune checkpoint inhibition, novel therapeutic approaches for these tumours are urgently needed. Linked Comment: Rafei-Shamsabadi. Br J Dermatol 2020; 183:806-807.

Acral lentiginous melanoma: a skin cancer with unfavourable prognostic features. A study of the German central malignant melanoma registry (CMMR) in 2050 patients.

BACKGROUND: Acral lentiginous melanoma (ALM) is one of the four major subtypes in cutaneous melanoma (CM). Although ALM has a poorer prognosis than other CM subtypes, the prognostic factors associated with ALM have only been verified in small-sized cohorts because of the low incidence of ALM worldwide. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the clinical characteristics of ALM and to evaluate their prognostic values based on a large dataset from the Central Malignant Melanoma Registry (CMMR) of the German Dermatologic Society. METHODS: The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the potential influence of clinical and histological parameters on ALM disease-specific survival (DSS) curves, which were compared using the log-rank test. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify independent prognostic factors for DSS. RESULTS: In total, 2050 patients with ALM were identified from 58 949 patients with CM recorded by the CMMR with follow-up data. In multivariate analyses, age (P = 0·006), ulceration (P = 0·013), tumour thickness (P < 0·001) and tumour spread (P < 0·001) turned out to be significant prognostic factors for DSS in ALM whereas sex, nevus association and level of invasion were not independent factors. CONCLUSIONS: ALM has the same prognostic factors as other subtypes of melanoma. Unfavourable prognosis probably derives from the delay in diagnosis in comparison with other melanoma subtypes.

Anti-PD-1 therapy in patients with advanced melanoma and preexisting autoimmune disorders or major toxicity with ipilimumab.

Background: Anti-PD-1 antibodies (anti-PD-1) have clinical activity in a number of malignancies. All clinical trials have excluded patients with significant preexisting autoimmune disorders (ADs) and only one has included patients with immune-related adverse events (irAEs) with ipilimumab. We sought to explore the safety and efficacy of anti-PD-1 in such patients. Patients and methods: Patients with advanced melanoma and preexisting ADs and/or major immune-related adverse events (irAEs) with ipilimumab (requiring systemic immunosuppression) that were treated with anti-PD-1 between 1 July 2012 and 30 September 2015 were retrospectively identified. Results: One hundred and nineteen patients from 13 academic tertiary referral centers were treated with anti-PD-1. In patients with preexisting AD (N = 52), the response rate was 33%. 20 (38%) patients had a flare of AD requiring immunosuppression, including 7/13 with rheumatoid arthritis, 3/3 with polymyalgia rheumatica, 2/2 with Sjogren's syndrome, 2/2 with immune thrombocytopaenic purpura and 3/8 with psoriasis. No patients with gastrointestinal (N = 6) or neurological disorders (N = 5) flared. Only 2 (4%) patients discontinued treatment due to flare, but 15 (29%) developed other irAEs and 4 (8%) discontinued treatment. In patients with prior ipilimumab irAEs requiring immunosuppression (N = 67) the response rate was 40%. Two (3%) patients had a recurrence of the same ipilimumab irAEs, but 23 (34%) developed new irAEs (14, 21% grade 3-4) and 8 (12%) discontinued treatment. There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusions: In melanoma patients with preexisting ADs or major irAEs with ipilimumab, anti-PD-1 induced relatively frequent immune toxicities, but these were often mild, easily managed and did not necessitate discontinuation of therapy, and a significant proportion of patients achieved clinical responses. The results support that anti-PD-1 can be administered safely and can achieve clinical benefit in patients with preexisting ADs or prior major irAEs with ipilimumab.

PD-1 blockade: a therapeutic option for treatment of metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma.

The immune system is extremely important in the development and progression of Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC). Immune checkpoint blockade has recently been shown to enable efficacious treatment of a variety of tumours. We report the use of an anti-programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1) antibody for treatment of a patient with metastatic MCC. An 80-year-old patient with metastatic MCC received off-label treatment with the anti-PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab after the disease had progressed during therapy with oral etoposide. A positron emission tomography (PET) computed tomography scan performed after three cycles of pembrolizumab revealed responses to therapy with reduced size of the adrenal gland metastases and less PET activity in the adrenal gland and lymph node metastases. Treatment was resumed owing to disease progression after a treatment-free interval of > 4 months. During subsequent months of treatment, the size of the metastases stabilized and uptake of nuclide by all tumour sites once again decreased. These results reveal the potential efficacy of an anti-PD-1 antibody for treatment of metastatic MCC. Thus, they contribute to currently limited data on the use of anti-PD-1 antibodies for the treatment of MCC. Moreover, this is the first report of successful resumption of treatment of metastatic MCC with an anti-PD-1 antibody. Results from ongoing trials will contribute to determination of the relevance of PD-1 blockade in metastatic MCC.

[Malignant melanoma : Current status]. / Malignes Melanom : Aktueller Stand.

CLINICAL ISSUE: The incidence of malignant melanoma is continuously increasing. The prognosis of metastatic disease is still limited. STANDARD TREATMENT: Until a few years ago palliative chemotherapy with a limited response rate was the standard treatment for metastatic melanoma. TREATMENT INNOVATIONS: Immunotherapy and targeted therapy provide new treatment options. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have significantly improved the prognosis. DIAGNOSTIC WORK-UP: Regional lymph node sonography, computed tomography (CT) of the neck, chest and abdomen and brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are routinely used. As an alternative to CT scans 18 F fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) may be used. PERFORMANCE AND ACHIEVEMENTS: Immunotherapy provides the chance of long-term disease control in metastatic melanoma. Ipilimumab may provide long-term tumor control in approximately 20% of patients. Median overall survival of approximately 2 years is achieved during therapy with anti-programmed cell death (PD) 1 antibodies. For combined therapy of ipilimumab and nivolumab a response rate of almost 60% is achieved and 2­year survival is also approximately 60%. The range of immune-mediated side effects demands particular consideration. For response evaluation immune-related response criteria were defined. Furthermore, immunotherapeutic approaches, such as talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC), which is a modified herpes virus can be used for intralesional injection. PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: An individual definition of the appropriate therapy for each patient is of particular importance. In the context of modern therapy regimens close patient monitoring is crucial.

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

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

Erythema nodosum-like lesions during BRAF inhibitor therapy: Report on 16 new cases and review of the literature.

IMPORTANCE: BRAF inhibitors have been licensed for the therapy of BRAF-mutated melanoma. Recently, inflammatory skin lesions clinically resembling erythema nodosum have been reported as therapy side-effects that may lead to treatment discontinuation. OBJECTIVE: To identify and characterize cases with BRAF inhibitor-associated erythema nodosum-like inflammatory skin lesions and development of an algorithm for their management. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective chart review of melanoma patients treated with BRAF inhibitors in 14 departments of Dermatology in Germany and Austria and PubMed search for cases in the literature. RESULTS: Sixteen patients were identified who developed erythema nodosum-like lesions under BRAF inhibitor therapy; 14 had received vemurafenib and two dabrafenib plus trametinib. The most frequently involved body sites were the legs. Histopathology was performed in five cases and revealed panniculitis in three and vasculitis in two patients respectively. Arthralgia and fever were associated symptoms in 44% and 31% of patients respectively. Inflammatory symptoms led to discontinuation of treatment in three patients, while in the majority of cases symptomatic management was sufficient. Skin lesions finally resolved despite continued BRAF inhibitor therapy in seven patients. In the literature, 19 additional patients with similar cutaneous appearance under BRAF inhibitors could be identified. An algorithm for the management of such lesions is proposed. CONCLUSION: Erythema nodosum-like skin lesions histologically correspond to panniculitis and/or vasculitis. Symptomatic treatment may be sufficient. However, additional work-up and interruption of BRAF inhibitor therapy may be necessary in severe cases which are commonly associated with systemic symptoms.

[Melanoma: introduction and special demands on radiology]. / Das Melanom: Einführung und besondere Anforderungen für die Radiologie.

CLINICAL ISSUE: The incidence of melanoma has rapidly increased in the last decades. Most relevant for patient prognosis is the tumor thickness, hence an early diagnosis is crucial. STANDARD TREATMENT: The basis of treatment is at the primary tumor stage and excision of regional metastases with curative intention. TREATMENT INNOVATIONS: Targeted therapies, such as BRAF and MEK inhibitors have the advantage of a rapid response even in highly advanced stages of the disease. DIAGNOSTIC WORK-UP: For routine diagnostics ultrasound, computed tomography (CT), fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography CT (FDG-PET/CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are used. PERFORMANCE AND ACHIEVEMENTS: In the treatment of distant metastases new treatment options are available which more than doubled patient survival rates. Especially immune therapies with immune checkpoint blockers, such as ipilimumab or PD-1 antibodies can lead to long-term survival of patients. In contrast to chemotherapy these new substances have characteristics which make new demands on radiologists related to the possibility of pseudoprogression in immune therapies, which make it necessary to use other response criteria. In addition, autoimmune phenomena, such as a sarcoid-like reactions may mimic new metastases and should be included in the differential diagnosis. BRAF inhibitors may lead to cystic conversions of metastases which again require an evaluation beyond the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST), e.g. with the adapted Choi criteria. PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: Close interdisciplinary communication, functional imaging methods and adapted response criteria, such as the immune-related response criteria will optimize radiological evaluations of melanoma.

Functional and symptom impact of trametinib versus chemotherapy in BRAF V600E advanced or metastatic melanoma: quality-of-life analyses of the METRIC study.

BACKGROUND: In a randomized phase III study, trametinib prolonged progression-free survival and improved overall survival versus chemotherapy in patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients' quality of life (QOL) was assessed at baseline and follow-up visits using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core QOL questionnaire. RESULTS: In the primary efficacy population (BRAF V600E+, no brain metastases) from baseline to weeks 6 and 12, patients' global health status scores worsened by 4-5 points with chemotherapy but improved by 2-3 points with trametinib. Rapid and substantive reductions in QOL functionality (e.g. role functioning, 8-11 points at weeks 6 and 12) and symptom exacerbation (e.g. fatigue, 4-8 points; nausea and vomiting, 5 points, both at weeks 6 and 12) were observed in chemotherapy-treated patients. In contrast, trametinib-treated patients reported small improvements or slight worsening from baseline at week 12, depending on the functional dimension and symptom. The mean symptom-scale scores for chemotherapy-treated patients increased from baseline (symptoms worsened) for seven of eight symptoms at week 6 (except insomnia) and six of eight symptoms at week 12 (except dyspnea and insomnia). In contrast, at weeks 6 and 12, the mean symptom-scale scores for trametinib decreased from baseline (symptoms improved) for pain (11-12 points), insomnia (10-12 points), and appetite loss (1-5 points), whereas those for diarrhea worsened (15-16 points). Mixed-model repeated-measures analyses showed significant (P < 0.05) and/or clinically meaningful improvements (small to moderate) from baseline in favor of trametinib for global health; physical, role, and social functioning; fatigue; pain; insomnia; nausea and vomiting; constipation; dyspnea; and appetite at weeks 6 and/or 12. QOL results for the intent-to-treat population were consistent. CONCLUSIONS: This first QOL assessment for a MEK inhibitor in metastatic melanoma demonstrated that trametinib was associated with less functional impairment, smaller declines in health status, and less exacerbation of symptoms versus chemotherapy.

[Cutaneous side effects of anti-tumor therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors]. / Kutane Nebenwirkungen der medikamentösen Tumortherapie mit BRAF- und MEK-Inhibitoren.

BACKGROUND: BRAF and MEK inhibitors are new targeted therapies which are used in the treatment of malignancies, in particular of malignant melanoma. SIDE EFFECTS: Cutaneous side effects are common during the treatment with both types of inhibitors. These side effects include inflammatory reactions such as maculopapular and papulopustular exanthema, hand-foot syndrome, panniculitis, paronychia, photo- and radio-sensitization. As a class effect, BRAF-inhibitors induce proliferative disorders of keratinocytes and melanocytes, such as palmoplantar hyperkeratosis (as part of the hand-foot syndrome), verruciform and acanthoma-like lesions, follicular and Grover disease-like hyperkeratoses, keratoacanthomas, squamous cell carcinomas and atypical melanocytic nevi with transition to secondary melanomas. Furthermore, hair alterations and xerosis are possible. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with BRAF and MEK inhibitors requires close dermatologic monitoring of the patient. This manuscript summarizes the most frequent cutaneous side effects and their management.

First-line avelumab treatment in patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma: 4-year follow-up from part B of the JAVELIN Merkel 200 study.

BACKGROUND: Results from the JAVELIN Merkel 200 study led to the approval of avelumab [an anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody] for the treatment of metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (mMCC) in multiple countries and its inclusion in the treatment guidelines as a preferred or recommended therapy in this setting. Here, we report 4-year follow-up results from the cohort of patients with mMCC who received avelumab as first-line treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In part B of JAVELIN Merkel 200, a single-arm, open-label, phase II study, patients with mMCC who had not received prior systemic therapy for metastatic disease received avelumab 10 mg/kg via intravenous infusion every 2 weeks until confirmed disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal. In this analysis, long-term overall survival (OS), patient disposition, and subsequent treatment were analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 116 patients received first-line avelumab. At the data cutoff (2 February 2022), the median follow-up was 54.3 months (range 48.0-69.7 months). Seven patients (6.0%) remained on treatment and an additional 21 patients remained in follow-up (18.1%); 72 patients (62.1%) had died. The median OS was 20.3 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 12.4-42.0 months], with a 4-year OS rate of 38% (95% CI 29% to 47%). In patients with PD-L1+ or PD-L1- tumors, the 4-year OS rate was 48% (95% CI 26% to 67%) and 35% (95% CI 25% to 45%), respectively. In total, 48 patients (41.4%) received poststudy anticancer drug therapy, most commonly etoposide (20.7%), carboplatin (19.0%), and avelumab (12.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Avelumab first-line monotherapy in patients with mMCC resulted in meaningful long-term OS, which compared favorably with historical studies of first-line chemotherapy. These results further support the role of avelumab as a standard of care for patients with mMCC.

Differentiation of irradiation and cetuximab induced skin reactions in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer undergoing radioimmunotherapy: the HICARE protocol (head and neck cancer: immunochemo and radiotherapy with erbitux) - a multicenter phase IV trial.

BACKGROUND: In order to improve the clinical outcome of patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LASCCHN) not being capable to receive platinum-based chemoradiation, radiotherapy can be intensified by addition of cetuximab, a monoclonal antibody that blocks the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). The radioimmunotherapy with cetuximab is a feasible treatment option showing a favourable toxicity profile. The most frequent side effect of radiotherapy is radiation dermatitis, the most common side effect of treatment with cetuximab is acneiform rash. Incidence and severity of these frequent, often overlapping and sometimes limiting skin reactions, however, are not well explored. A clinical and molecular differentiation between radiogenic skin reactions and skin reactions caused by cetuximab which may correlate with outcome, have never been described before. METHODS/DESIGN: The HICARE study is a national, multicenter, prospective phase IV study exploring the different types of skin reactions that occur in patients with LASCCHN undergoing radioimmun(chemo)therapy with the EGFR inhibitor cetuximab. 500 patients with LASCCHN will be enrolled in 40 participating sites in Germany. Primary endpoint is the rate of radiation dermatitis NCI CTCAE grade 3 and 4 (v. 4.02). Radioimmunotherapy will be applied according to SmPC, i.e. cetuximab will be administered as loading dose and then weekly during the radiotherapy. Irradiation will be applied as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or 3D-dimensional radiation therapy. DISCUSSION: The HICARE trial is expected to be one of the largest trials ever conducted in head and neck cancer patients. The goal of the HICARE trial is to differentiate skin reactions caused by radiation from those caused by the monoclonal antibody cetuximab, to evaluate the incidence and severity of these skin reactions and to correlate them with outcome parameters. Besides, the translational research program will help to identify and confirm novel peripheral blood based molecular predictors and surrogates for treatment response and resistance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial Identifier, NCT01553032 (clinicaltrials.gov)EudraCT number: 2010-019748-38.

Prophylaxis of acute radiation dermatitis with an innovative FDA-approved two-step skin care system in a patient with head and neck cancer undergoing a platin-based radiochemotherapy: a case report and review of the literature.

Radiodermatitis is a very common side effect in cancer treatment often leading to therapy delays and diminution of the patients' health state and quality of life. Despite a wide range of supportive strategies, radiodermatitis is still a major problem necessitating further improvements in prevention and treatment. Lactokine is a milk-based protein shown to assist in the reduction of skin redness. The treatment is a unique FDA-approved skin care system (R1 and R2). In this case presentation we describe the prophylactic use of R1 and R2 in a 63-year-old, female patient with a squamous cell carcinoma of the hypopharynx undergoing a platin-based chemoradiation. The application was feasible and safe and the patient developed only a slight radiodermatitis. To our knowledge this is the first report in the literature on the prophylactic use of R1 and R2. Further evidence will be provided by a prospective, clinical trial we have launched (CREAM-1; study registration in ISRCTN Registry: ISRCTN87302591). We also review the literature to give an overview about common strategies in the management of radiodermatitis.

Preferences of German and Swiss melanoma patients for toxicities versus melanoma recurrence during adjuvant treatment (GERMELATOX-A-trial).

PURPOSE: Adjuvant treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors like PD1-antibodies (ICI) ± CTLA4-antibodies (cICI) or targeted therapy with BRAF/MEK inhibitors (TT) in high-risk melanoma patients demonstrate a significant improvement in disease-free survival (DFS). Due to specific side effects, the choice of treatment is very often driven by the risk for toxicity. This study addressed for the first time in a multicenter setting the attitudes and preferences of melanoma patients for adjuvant treatment with (c)ICI and TT. METHODS: In this study ("GERMELATOX-A"), 136 low-risk melanoma patients from 11 skin cancer centers were asked to rate side effect scenarios typical for each (c)ICI and TT with mild-to-moderate or severe toxicity and melanoma recurrence leading to cancer death. We asked patients about the reduction in melanoma relapse and the survival increase at 5 years they would require to tolerate defined side-effects. RESULTS: By VAS, patients on average valued melanoma relapse worse than all scenarios of side-effects during treatment with (c)ICI or TT. In case of severe side effects, patients required a 15% higher rate of DFS at 5 years for (c)ICI (80%) compared to TT (65%). For survival, patients required an increase of 5-10% for melanoma survival during (c)ICI (85%/80%) compared to TT (75%). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated a pronounced variation of patient preferences for toxicity and outcomes and a clear preference for TT. As adjuvant melanoma treatment with (c)ICI and TT will be increasingly implemented in earlier stages, precise knowledge of the patient perspective can be helpful for decision making.