Relatlimab and Nivolumab versus Nivolumab in Untreated Advanced Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3) and programmed death 1 (PD-1) are distinct inhibitory immune checkpoints that contribute to T-cell exhaustion. The combination of relatlimab, a LAG-3-blocking antibody, and nivolumab, a PD-1-blocking antibody, has been shown to be safe and to have antitumor activity in patients with previously treated melanoma, but the safety and activity in patients with previously untreated melanoma need investigation. METHODS: In this phase 2-3, global, double-blind, randomized trial, we evaluated relatlimab and nivolumab as a fixed-dose combination as compared with nivolumab alone when administered intravenously every 4 weeks to patients with previously untreated metastatic or unresectable melanoma. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was 10.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.4 to 15.7) with relatlimab-nivolumab as compared with 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.4 to 5.6) with nivolumab (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.62 to 0.92]; P = 0.006 by the log-rank test). Progression-free survival at 12 months was 47.7% (95% CI, 41.8 to 53.2) with relatlimab-nivolumab as compared with 36.0% (95% CI, 30.5 to 41.6) with nivolumab. Progression-free survival across key subgroups favored relatlimab-nivolumab over nivolumab. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 18.9% of patients in the relatlimab-nivolumab group and in 9.7% of patients in the nivolumab group. CONCLUSIONS: The inhibition of two immune checkpoints, LAG-3 and PD-1, provided a greater benefit with regard to progression-free survival than inhibition of PD-1 alone in patients with previously untreated metastatic or unresectable melanoma. Relatlimab and nivolumab in combination showed no new safety signals. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb; RELATIVITY-047 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03470922.).

Overall survival with first-line atezolizumab in combination with vemurafenib and cobimetinib in BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma (IMspire150): second interim analysis of a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Primary analysis of the phase 3 IMspire150 study showed improved investigator-assessed progression-free survival with first-line atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (atezolizumab group) versus placebo, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (control group) in patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma. With a median follow-up of 18·9 months (IQR 10·4-23·8) at the primary analysis, overall survival data were immature. Here, we report the results from the second, prespecified, interim overall survival analysis. METHODS: The multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 IMspire150 study was done at 108 academic and community hospitals in 20 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated unresectable stage IIIc or stage IV melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either atezolizumab (840 mg intravenously on day 1 and 15) or placebo plus vemurafenib (960 mg or 720 mg twice daily orally) and cobimetinib (60 mg once daily orally; 21 days on and 7 days off) in 28-day cycles. Atezolizumab and placebo were added to treatment regimens from cycle two onwards. Randomisation was done centrally (Durham, NC, USA) based on a permuted block randomisation scheme (block size of 4) using an interactive web-based response system and was stratified by geographical region and baseline lactate dehydrogenase concentration. Overall survival was analysed in the intention-to-treat population and safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug according to actual treatment received. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, which was previously reported. Here, we report the second, prespecified, interim overall survival analysis, which was planned after about 270 overall survival events had occurred. The trial is ongoing, but is no longer enrolling patients, and it is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02908672. FINDINGS: Between Jan 13, 2017, and April 26, 2018, 514 patients (median age 54 years [IQR 43-63]; 299 [58%] men and 215 [42%] women) were enrolled in the trial and randomly assigned to the atezolizumab group (256 [50%] patients) or the control group (258 [50%] patients). At the data cutoff (Sept 8, 2021), 273 patients had died (126 in the atezolizumab group and 147 in the control group). Median follow-up was 29·1 months (IQR 10·1-45·4) for the atezolizumab group versus 22·8 months (10·6-44·1) for the control group. Median overall survival was 39·0 months (95% CI 29·9-not estimable) in the atezolizumab group versus 25·8 months (22·0-34·6) in the control group (HR 0·84 [95% CI 0·66-1·06]; p=0·14). The most common adverse events of any grade in the atezolizumab group were blood creatine phosphokinase increased (123 [53%] of 231 patients), diarrhoea (116 [50%]), and pyrexia (115 [50%]). The most common adverse events of any grade in the control group were diarrhoea (157 [56%] of 280 patients), blood creatine phosphokinase increased (135 [48%]), and rash (119 [43%]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were increased lipase (54 [23%] of 231 patients in the atezolizumab group vs 62 [22%] of 280 patients in the control group), increased blood creatine phosphokinase (51 [22%] vs 50 [18%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase (32 [14%] vs 26 [9%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 112 (48%) patients in the atezolizumab group and 117 (42%) patients in the control group. Grade 5 adverse events were reported in eight (3%) patients in the atezolizumab group versus six (2%) patients in the control group. Two grade 5 adverse events (hepatitis fulminant and hepatic failure) in the atezolizumab group were considered to be associated with the triplet combination, and one event in the control group (pulmonary haemorrhage) was considered to be associated with cobimetinib. INTERPRETATION: Additional follow-up of the IMspire150 trial showed that overall survival was not significantly improved with atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib compared with placebo, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib in patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma. Results of the final analysis are awaited to establish whether a significant improvement in overall survival can be achieved with long-term treatment with this triplet combination versus vemurafenib plus cobimetinib. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

COLUMBUS 5-year update: a randomized, open-label, phase III trial of encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib in patients with BRAF.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: Here, we summarize the 5-year results from part 1 of the COLUMBUS clinical study, which looked at the combination treatment of encorafenib plus binimetinib in people with a specific type of skin cancer called melanoma. Encorafenib (BRAFTOVI®) and binimetinib (MEKTOVI®) are medicines used to treat a type of melanoma that has a change in the BRAF gene, called advanced or metastatic BRAF V600-mutant melanoma. Participants with advanced or metastatic BRAF V600-mutant melanoma took either encorafenib plus binimetinib together (COMBO group), compared with encorafenib alone (ENCO group) or vemurafenib (ZELBORAF®) alone (VEMU group). WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: In this 5-year update, more participants in the COMBO group were alive for longer without their disease getting worse after 5 years than those in the VEMU and ENCO groups. Patients in the COMBO group were alive for longer without their disease getting worse when they: Had less advanced cancer Were able to do more daily activities Had normal lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels Had fewer organs with tumors before treatment After treatment, fewer participants in the COMBO group received additional anticancer treatment than participants in the VEMU and ENCO groups. The number of participants who reported severe side effects was similar for each treatment. The side effects caused by the drugs in the COMBO group decreased over time. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: Overall, this 5-year update confirmed that people with BRAF V600-mutant melanoma that has spread to other parts of the body and who took encorafenib plus binimetinib were alive for longer without their disease getting worse than those who took vemurafenib or encorafenib alone. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01909453 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Dose-dense sequential adjuvant chemotherapy in the trastuzumab era: final long-term results of the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group Phase III HE10/05 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Dose-dense sequential chemotherapy with anthracyclines and taxanes achieved an 18% reduction of recurrence risk in early breast cancer (BC). The optimal chemotherapy schedule and interval between cycles remain under investigation. METHODS: Overall, 990 patients were randomised to receive either three cycles of epirubicin (E, 110 mg/m2) every 2 weeks followed by 3 cycles of paclitaxel (T, 200 mg/m2) every 2 weeks followed by three cycles of intensified CMF (Control Arm A, E-T-CMF) that was previously used in BC or three cycles of epirubicin followed by three cycles of CMF followed by nine consecutive weekly cycles of docetaxel (wD) 35 mg/m2 (Arm B, E-CMF-wD) or nine consecutive weekly cycles of paclitaxel (wT) 80 mg/m2 (Arm C, E-CMF-wT). Trastuzumab was administered for HER2-positive disease. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 13.3 years, 330 disease-free survival (DFS) events (33.3%) were reported. DFS and overall survival (OS) did not differ between patients in the combined B and C arms versus arm A either in the entire cohort (HR = 0.90, P = 0.38 and HR = 0.85, P = 0.20) or among trastuzumab-treated patients (HR = 0.69, P = 0.13 and HR = 0.67, P = 0.13). Thirty-four patients (3.4%) developed secondary neoplasms. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, no significant differences in survival were found amongst the studied regimens after a long-term observational period. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12610000151033.

Five-Year Outcomes with Dabrafenib plus Trametinib in Metastatic Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Patients who have unresectable or metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600E or V600K mutation have prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival when receiving treatment with BRAF inhibitors plus MEK inhibitors. However, long-term clinical outcomes in these patients remain undefined. To determine 5-year survival rates and clinical characteristics of the patients with durable benefit, we sought to review long-term data from randomized trials of combination therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors. METHODS: We analyzed pooled extended-survival data from two trials involving previously untreated patients who had received BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib (at a dose of 150 mg twice daily) plus MEK inhibitor trametinib (2 mg once daily) in the COMBI-d and COMBI-v trials. The median duration of follow-up was 22 months (range, 0 to 76). The primary end points in the COMBI-d and COMBI-v trials were progression-free survival and overall survival, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 563 patients were randomly assigned to receive dabrafenib plus trametinib (211 in the COMBI-d trial and 352 in the COMBI-v trial). The progression-free survival rates were 21% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17 to 24) at 4 years and 19% (95% CI, 15 to 22) at 5 years. The overall survival rates were 37% (95% CI, 33 to 42) at 4 years and 34% (95% CI, 30 to 38) at 5 years. In multivariate analysis, several baseline factors (e.g., performance status, age, sex, number of organ sites with metastasis, and lactate dehydrogenase level) were significantly associated with both progression-free survival and overall survival. A complete response occurred in 109 patients (19%) and was associated with an improved long-term outcome, with an overall survival rate of 71% (95% CI, 62 to 79) at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: First-line treatment with dabrafenib plus trametinib led to long-term benefit in approximately one third of the patients who had unresectable or metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600E or V600K mutation. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; COMBI-d ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01584648; COMBI-v ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01597908.).

Real-world safety and efficacy data of immunotherapy in patients with cancer and autoimmune disease: the experience of the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group.

BACKGROUND: Data on the safety and efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in patients with concurrent autoimmune diseases (AID) are limited. METHODS: We performed a retrospective multicenter review of medical records of patients with cancer and underlying AID who received ICI. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Among 123 patients with pre-existing AID who received ICI, the majority had been diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC, 68.3%) and melanoma (14.6%). Most patients had a rheumatologic (43.9%), or an endocrine disorder (21.1%). Overall, 74 (60.2%) patients experienced an immune-related adverse event (irAE) after ICI initiation, AID flare (25.2%), or new irAE (35%). Frequent irAEs included thyroiditis, dermatitis and colitis. ICI was permanently discontinued due to unacceptable (8.1%) or fatal (0.8%) toxicity. In patients with NSCLC, corticosteroid treatment at the initiation of immunotherapy was associated with poor PFS (HR = 2.78, 95% CI 1.40-5.50, p = 0.003). The occurrence of irAE was associated with increased PFS (HR = 0.48, 95% CI 0.25-0.92, p = 0.026). Both parameters maintained their independent prognostic significance. CONCLUSIONS: ICI in patients with cancer and pre-existing AID is associated with manageable toxicity that infrequently requires treatment discontinuation. However, since severe AID flare might occur, expected ICI efficacy and toxicity must be balanced. CLINICAL TRIAL IDENTIFIER: NCT04805099.

PIVOT-12: a phase III study of adjuvant bempegaldesleukin plus nivolumab in resected stage III/IV melanoma at high risk for recurrence.

Bempegaldesleukin (BEMPEG: NKTR-214) is an immunostimulatory IL-2 cytokine prodrug engineered to deliver a controlled, sustained and preferential IL-2 pathway signal. Nivolumab (NIVO), a PD-1 inhibitor, has been shown to prolong survival in patients with advanced melanoma and recurrence-free survival in the adjuvant setting. PIVOT-02 showed that BEMPEG plus NIVO was well-tolerated and demonstrated clinical activity as first-line therapy in metastatic melanoma. PIVOT-12 is a randomized, phase III, global, multicenter, open-label study comparing adjuvant therapy with BEMPEG plus NIVO versus NIVO alone in adult and adolescent patients with completely resected cutaneous stage III/IV melanoma at high risk of recurrence. The primary objective is to compare the efficacy, as measured by recurrence-free survival, of BEMPEG plus NIVO versus NIVO.

Following surgery, patients with advanced melanoma may require further treatment to reduce the likelihood of disease recurrence. Nivolumab (NIVO), a checkpoint inhibitor, reduces the risk of melanoma recurrence by enhancing the ability of the immune system to fight disease. Despite the availability of NIVO and other therapies, many patients with melanoma still experience disease recurrence after surgery. This article presents information on a clinical trial named PIVOT-12, which aims to assess the effectiveness of a new investigational drug called bempegaldesleukin that modifies the immune system and is given with NIVO to patients with stage III/IV melanoma following surgery. The main end point being measured is recurrence-free survival, which measures the time between a patient starting the study and the date of disease recurrence. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04410445 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib as first-line treatment for unresectable advanced BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma (IMspire150): primary analysis of the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: IMspire150 aimed to evaluate first-line combination treatment with BRAF plus MEK inhibitors and immune checkpoint therapy in BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced or metastatic melanoma. METHODS: IMspire150 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study done at 112 institutes in 20 countries. Patients with unresectable stage IIIc-IV, BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to 28-day cycles of atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (atezolizumab group) or atezolizumab placebo, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (control group). In cycle 1, all patients received vemurafenib and cobimetinib only; atezolizumab placebo was added from cycle 2 onward. Randomisation was stratified by lactate dehydrogenase concentration and geographical region. Blinding for atezolizumab was achieved by means of an identical intravenous placebo, and blinding for vemurafenib was achieved by means of a placebo tablet. The primary outcome was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. This trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02908672) is ongoing but no longer recruiting patients. FINDINGS: Between Jan 13, 2017, and April 26, 2018, 777 patients were screened and 514 were enrolled and randomly assigned to the atezolizumab group (n=256) or control group (n=258). At a median follow-up of 18·9 months (IQR 10·4-23·8), progression-free survival as assessed by the study investigator was significantly prolonged with atezolizumab versus control (15·1 vs 10·6 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0·78; 95% CI 0·63-0·97; p=0·025). Common treatment-related adverse events (>30%) in the atezolizumab and control groups were blood creatinine phosphokinase increased (51·3% vs 44·8%), diarrhoea (42·2% vs 46·6%), rash (40·9%, both groups), arthralgia (39·1% vs 28·1%), pyrexia (38·7% vs 26·0%), alanine aminotransferase increased (33·9% vs 22·8%), and lipase increased (32·2% vs 27·4%); 13% of patients in the atezolizumab group and 16% in the control group stopped all treatment because of adverse events. INTERPRETATION: The addition of atezolizumab to targeted therapy with vemurafenib and cobimetinib was safe and tolerable and significantly increased progression-free survival in patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech.

Granulomatous colitis in a patient with metastatic melanoma under immunotherapy: a case report and literature review.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICPIs) have changed the way advanced malignancies are currently confronted, improving cancer patients' outcomes but also generating distinct immune-related (ir) adverse events. ICPIs-induced colitis is a common complication showing different clinical and histological manifestations. In the literature review, 14 cases with ICPIs related colon granulomas have been reported in 5 studies with either limited or unavailable information regarding histology. Granulomatous reactions can be mistakenly perceived as disease recurrence or progression. Better understanding and identification of this infrequent histological display can help to avoid misdiagnosis and mismanagement. CASE PRESENTATION: A 63-year-old female patient with metastatic melanoma was admitted to the hospital with symptoms of nausea, persistent diarrhea and shivering fever under consecutive treatments with ICPIs, initially pembrolizumab and subsequently ipilimumab. Sigmoidoscopy was performed revealing mucosal edema, hyperemia and erosions of the rectum and sigmoid colon. Histological evaluation of sigmoid colon mucosa biopsies revealed an unusual colitis pattern characterized by multiple intracryptal granulomas attributed to ICPIs therapy. Steroids were administered and the patient recovered. ICPIs treatment was discontinued. The patient was subsequently treated with chemotherapy but follow up radiology showed disease progression. A re-challenge with another ICPI regimen was decided and the patient is currently under immunotherapy with stable disease regarding melanoma status and without any sign of colitis recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: The present report provides detailed histological description of a distinctive ICPIs-induced granulomatous colitis and highlights the need for awareness of the distinct adverse events and reaction patterns in the context of immunotherapy.

Adjuvant nivolumab versus ipilimumab in resected stage IIIB-C and stage IV melanoma (CheckMate 238): 4-year results from a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Previously, findings from CheckMate 238, a double-blind, phase 3 adjuvant trial in patients with resected stage IIIB-C or stage IV melanoma, showed significant improvements in recurrence-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival with nivolumab versus ipilimumab. This report provides updated 4-year efficacy, initial overall survival, and late-emergent safety results. METHODS: This multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial was done in 130 academic centres, community hospitals, and cancer centres across 25 countries. Patients aged 15 years or older with resected stage IIIB-C or IV melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive nivolumab or ipilimumab via an interactive voice response system and stratified according to disease stage and baseline PD-L1 status of tumour cells. Patients received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or intravenous ipilimumab 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, and then every 12 weeks until 1 year of treatment, disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival by investigator assessment, and overall survival was a key secondary endpoint. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned patients). All patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included in the safety analysis. The results presented in this report reflect the 4-year update of the ongoing study with a database lock date of Jan 30, 2020. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02388906. FINDINGS: Between March 30 and Nov 30, 2015, 906 patients were assigned to nivolumab (n=453) or ipilimumab (n=453). Median follow-up was 51·1 months (IQR 41·6-52·7) with nivolumab and 50·9 months (36·2-52·3) with ipilimumab; 4-year recurrence-free survival was 51·7% (95% CI 46·8-56·3) in the nivolumab group and 41·2% (36·4-45·9) in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·71 [95% CI 0·60-0·86]; p=0·0003). With 211 (100 [22%] of 453 patients in the nivolumab group and 111 [25%] of 453 patients in the ipilimumab group) of 302 anticipated deaths observed (about 73% of the originally planned 88% power needed for significance), 4-year overall survival was 77·9% (95% CI 73·7-81·5) with nivolumab and 76·6% (72·2-80·3) with ipilimumab (HR 0·87 [95% CI 0·66-1·14]; p=0·31). Late-emergent grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in three (1%) of 452 and seven (2%) of 453 patients. The most common late-emergent treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events reported were diarrhoea, diabetic ketoacidosis, and pneumonitis (one patient each) in the nivolumab group, and colitis (two patients) in the ipilimumab group. Two previously reported treatment-related deaths in the ipilimumab group were attributed to study drug toxicity (marrow aplasia in one patient and colitis in one patient); no further treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: At a minimum of 4 years' follow-up, nivolumab demonstrated sustained recurrence-free survival benefit versus ipilimumab in resected stage IIIB-C or IV melanoma indicating a long-term treatment benefit with nivolumab. With fewer deaths than anticipated, overall survival was similar in both groups. Nivolumab remains an efficacious adjuvant treatment for patients with resected high-risk melanoma, with a safety profile that is more tolerable than that of ipilimumab. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical.

Prognosis and Management of BRAF V600E-Mutated Pregnancy-Associated Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Approximately one third of women who develop melanoma at childbearing age are diagnosed during gestation or the postpartum period, facing pregnancy-associated melanoma (PAM). However, only some retrospective studies with heterogeneous data have analyzed the impact of pregnancy on melanoma development, and no evidence exists about the behavior and the management of BRAF-mutated disease. SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS: In order to better describe the evolution of BRAF V600E-mutated PAM, we present here all consecutive cases diagnosed in our site during the last 7 years, recording oncological, obstetrical, and perinatal parameters, as well as the therapeutic decisions for both melanoma and gestation. Based on our institutional experience, we weigh the current published evidence and discuss upcoming clinical considerations about the prognosis of PAM, the role of BRAF status, and the possible treatment options during pregnancy in localized or advanced/metastatic disease. Five women were diagnosed with newly metastatic or relapsed BRAF V600E-mutated PAM (four during gestation and one in the 1st year postpartum) between 2012 and 2019. All of them developed extensive metastatic disease with multiple organ involvement, and four developed brain metastases. All cases experienced melanoma progression in less than 6 months under targeted therapy and died soon independently of the followed sequence of treatments. All the neonates were delivered alive and healthy, but one developed melanoma earlier than the second year of life. RESULTS: Reviewing the literature to confirm our unfavorable outcomes, no specific data on BRAF-mutated PAM were retrieved and current evidence still supports that the prognosis of PAM should be guided by the established risk factors, whereas the management of advanced/metastatic PAM should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. CONCLUSION: More data are required to ascertain whether BRAF-mutated profile adversely affects PAM outcome, although the clinicians should be aware to detect any potential melanoma lesion during pregnancy as soon as possible, treating it locally, regardless of its BRAF status. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The prognosis and management of pregnancy-associated melanoma whether BRAF-mutated or wild type, is currently guided by the same parameters as in the nonpregnant condition. In this special nontrial subpopulation, BRAF-mutated status seems to have a detrimental effect on disease outcome, independently of the following treatments. In early stage melanoma, wide local excision with or without sentinel lymph node dissection may be curative at any trimester of gestation, while in advanced/metastatic setting, therapeutic strategy including immune-checkpoint or BRAF/MEK inhibitors, is more challenging, regardless of BRAF status, and should be based on an individualized decision in each case at a multidisciplinary level.

Adjuvant Nivolumab versus Ipilimumab in Resected Stage III or IV Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab and ipilimumab are immune checkpoint inhibitors that have been approved for the treatment of advanced melanoma. In the United States, ipilimumab has also been approved as adjuvant therapy for melanoma on the basis of recurrence-free and overall survival rates that were higher than those with placebo in a phase 3 trial. We wanted to determine the efficacy of nivolumab versus ipilimumab for adjuvant therapy in patients with resected advanced melanoma. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 906 patients (≥15 years of age) who were undergoing complete resection of stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV melanoma to receive an intravenous infusion of either nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks (453 patients) or ipilimumab at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses and then every 12 weeks (453 patients). The patients were treated for a period of up to 1 year or until disease recurrence, a report of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. The primary end point was recurrence-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: At a minimum follow-up of 18 months, the 12-month rate of recurrence-free survival was 70.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 66.1 to 74.5) in the nivolumab group and 60.8% (95% CI, 56.0 to 65.2) in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.65; 97.56% CI, 0.51 to 0.83; P<0.001). Treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported in 14.4% of the patients in the nivolumab group and in 45.9% of those in the ipilimumab group; treatment was discontinued because of any adverse event in 9.7% and 42.6% of the patients, respectively. Two deaths (0.4%) related to toxic effects were reported in the ipilimumab group more than 100 days after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing resection of stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV melanoma, adjuvant therapy with nivolumab resulted in significantly longer recurrence-free survival and a lower rate of grade 3 or 4 adverse events than adjuvant therapy with ipilimumab. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 238 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02388906 ; Eudra-CT number, 2014-002351-26 .).

Prognostic impact of stromal and intratumoral CD3, CD8 and FOXP3 in adjuvantly treated breast cancer: do they add information over stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte density?

BACKGROUND: Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and their subsets contribute to breast cancer prognosis. We investigated the prognostic impact of CD3+, CD8+ and FOXP3+ TILs in patients with early intermediate/high-risk breast cancer treated with adjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy within two randomized trials conducted by our Group. METHODS: We examined 1011 patients (median follow-up 130.9 months) and their tumors for total, stromal (s) and intratumoral (i) CD3, CD8 and FOXP3 lymphocyte density (counts/mm2) on tissue-microarray cores by immunohistochemistry. Morphological sTIL density on whole H&E-stained sections was also evaluated. RESULTS: The majority of TILs were CD3+. Total CD3 and CD8, sCD3 and sCD8, iCD3 and iCD8, sFOXP3 and iFOXP3 were strongly correlated (Spearman's rho values > 0.6). High individual lymphocytic subsets and sTIL density were strongly associated with high tumor grade, higher proliferation and HER2-positive and triple-negative tumors (all p values < 0.001). Higher sTIL density (10% increments), high density of almost each individual marker and all-high profiles conferred favorable prognosis. However, when adjusted for sTIL density, stromal and intratumoral lymphocytic subsets lost their prognostic significance, while higher sTIL density conferred up to 15% lower risk for relapse. Independently of sTIL density, higher total CD3+ and CD8+ TILs conferred 35% and 28% lower risk for relapse, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Stromal and intratumoral CD3+, CD8+ and FOXP3+ TIL density do not seem to add prognostic information over the morphologically assessed sTIL density, which is worth introducing in routine histology reports.

A Practical Guide for the Follow-Up of Patients with Advanced Basal Cell Carcinoma During Treatment with Hedgehog Pathway Inhibitors.

The Hedgehog pathway inhibitors (HPIs), vismodegib and sonidegib, are increasingly employed in the treatment of patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma (BCC). The aim of this review is to create a synthesis of available information in the literature regarding the follow-up of patients with advanced BCC treated with HPIs and to provide the treating physician with a structured practical guide to standardize clinical practice. Several challenges during treatment are addressed: to optimally evaluate tumor responses, to differentiate between resistance (HPI rechallenge not possible) and recurrence (HPI rechallenge may be possible) in case of BCC regrowth, to readily assess for toxicity and tolerability issues, to provide patients with practical ways and behaviors to effectively cope with adverse events, and to improve patient adherence and quality of life. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This is a practical guide for clinical practice regarding the monitoring and follow-up of patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma (BCC) during treatment with the Hedgehog pathway inhibitors (HPIs) vismodegib and sonidegib. This review aims to bridge the gap in knowledge of assessing tumor response for BCC with both an externally visible component and an infiltrating component measurable with imaging. Furthermore, it addresses the follow-up for adverse events as a challenging multistep process involving practices aiming to readily assess new-onset symptoms of HPI toxicity, perform total-body skin examination, and improve patient adherence and quality of life.

First-line therapy-stratified survival in BRAF-mutant melanoma: a retrospective multicenter analysis.

BACKGROUND: Inhibition of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway as well as programmed death 1 receptor (PD-1) blockade was shown to prolong overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced B-Raf proto-oncogene (BRAF)-mutant melanoma. However, due to the lack of head-to-head trials, it remains unclear if one of these therapeutic approaches should be preferred in first-line therapy. Here, we present a retrospective analysis comparing anti-PD-1 monotherapy with BRAF/MAPK/ERK kinase (MEK) combined inhibition used as first-line agents in a real-world clinical setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Clinical data, routine blood counts and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels of 301 patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma harboring an activating mutation in BRAF (V600E/K) were included. Of these, 106 received anti-PD-1 antibodies, while 195 patients were treated with a selective BRAF inhibitor combined with an MEK inhibitor as palliative first-line therapy. Patients were sub-grouped according to previously described predictive and prognostic markers. RESULTS: OS was significantly longer in patients receiving anti-PD-1 monotherapy compared to patients receiving combined MAPK inhibitors. Subsequent therapies were comparable among these groups. The difference in OS was less pronounced in patients with high LDH levels and visceral metastatic spread. CONCLUSION: First-line treatment with a PD-1 blocking antibody might be associated with longer OS than first-line inhibition of the MAPK pathway in patients with advanced melanoma harboring mutant BRAF. These hypothesis-generating data need to be confirmed or rejected in prospective, randomized trials.

Overall survival in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma receiving encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib (COLUMBUS): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Encorafenib plus binimetinib and encorafenib alone improved progression-free survival compared with vemurafenib in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma in the COLUMBUS trial. Here, we report the results of the secondary endpoint of overall survival. METHODS: COLUMBUS was a two-part, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study done at 162 hospitals in 28 countries. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years with histologically confirmed, locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, or unknown primary melanoma, BRAFV600E or BRAFV600K mutation, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and were treatment naive or had progressed on or after first-line immunotherapy. In part 1 of the study, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) by use of interactive response technology to receive oral encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus oral binimetinib 45 mg twice daily (encorafenib plus binimetinib group), oral encorafenib 300 mg once daily (encorafenib group), or oral vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily (vemurafenib group). Randomisation was stratified by the American Joint Committee on Cancer stage, ECOG performance status, and BRAF mutation status. The primary outcome of the trial, progression-free survival with encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib, was reported previously. Here we present the prespecified interim overall survival analysis. Efficacy analyses were by intent to treat. Safety was analysed in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. Part 2 of the study was initiated at the request of the US Food and Drug Administration to better understand the contribution of binimetinib to the combination therapy by comparing encorafenib 300 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily with encorafenib 300 mg once daily alone. Results of part 2 will be published separately. This trial is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01909453, and EudraCT, number 2013-001176-38. FINDINGS: Between Dec 30, 2013, and April 10, 2015, 577 of 1345 screened patients were randomly assigned to receive encorafenib plus binimetinib (n=192), encorafenib (n=194), or vemurafenib (n=191). Median follow-up for overall survival was 36·8 months (95% CI 35·9-37·5). Median overall survival was 33·6 months (95% CI 24·4-39·2) with encorafenib plus binimetinib and 16·9 months (14·0-24·5) with vemurafenib (hazard ratio 0·61 [95% CI 0·47-0·79]; two-sided p<0·0001). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events did not change substantially from the first report; those seen in more than 5% of patients treated with encorafenib plus binimetinib were increased γ-glutamyltransferase (18 [9%] of 192 patients), increased blood creatine phosphokinase (14 [7%]), and hypertension (12 [6%]); those seen with encorafenib alone were palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (26 [14%] of 192 patients), myalgia (19 [10%]), and arthralgia (18 [9%]); and with vemurafenib the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event was arthralgia (11 [6%] of 186 patients). One death in the combination treatment group was considered by the investigator to be possibly related to treatment. INTERPRETATION: The combination of encorafenib plus binimetinib provided clinically meaningful efficacy with good tolerability as shown by improvements in both progression-free survival and overall survival compared with vemurafenib. These data suggest that the combination of encorafenib plus binimetinib is likely to become an important therapeutic option in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma. FUNDING: Array BioPharma, Novartis.

Encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma (COLUMBUS): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Combined BRAF-MEK inhibitor therapy is the standard of care for BRAFV600-mutant advanced melanoma. We investigated encorafenib, a BRAF inhibitor with unique target-binding properties, alone or in combination with the MEK inhibitor binimetinib, versus vemurafenib in patients with advanced BRAFV600-mutant melanoma. METHODS: COLUMBUS was conducted as a two-part, randomised, open-label phase 3 study at 162 hospitals in 28 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had histologically confirmed locally advanced (American Joint Committee on Cancer [AJCC] stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV), unresectable or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, or unknown primary melanoma; a BRAFV600E or BRAFV600K mutation; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1; and were treatment naive or had progressed on or after previous first-line immunotherapy. In part 1 of the study, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via interactive response technology to receive either oral encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus oral binimetinib 45 mg twice daily (encorafenib plus binimetinib group), oral encorafenib 300 mg once daily (encorafenib group), or oral vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily (vemurafenib group). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by blinded independent central review for encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib. Efficacy analyses were by intention-to-treat. Safety was analysed in patients who received at least one dose of study drug and one postbaseline safety assessment. The results of part 2 will be published separately. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01909453, and EudraCT, number 2013-001176-38. FINDINGS: Between Dec 30, 2013, and April 10, 2015, 577 of 1345 screened patients were randomly assigned to either the encorafenib plus binimetinib group (n=192), the encorafenib group (n=194), or the vemurafenib group (n=191). With a median follow-up of 16·6 months (95% CI 14·8-16·9), median progression-free survival was 14·9 months (95% CI 11·0-18·5) in the encorafenib plus binimetinib group and 7·3 months (5·6-8·2) in the vemurafenib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54, 95% CI 0·41-0·71; two-sided p<0·0001). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events seen in more than 5% of patients in the encorafenib plus binimetinib group were increased γ-glutamyltransferase (18 [9%] of 192 patients), increased creatine phosphokinase (13 [7%]), and hypertension (11 [6%]); in the encorafenib group they were palmoplantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (26 [14%] of 192 patients), myalgia (19 [10%]), and arthralgia (18 [9%]); and in the vemurafenib group it was arthralgia (11 [6%] of 186 patients). There were no treatment-related deaths except for one death in the combination group, which was considered possibly related to treatment by the investigator. INTERPRETATION: Encorafenib plus binimetinib and encorafenib monotherapy showed favourable efficacy compared with vemurafenib. Overall, encorafenib plus binimetinib appears to have an improved tolerability profile compared with encorafenib or vemurafenib. Encorafenib plus binimetinib could represent a new treatment option for patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma. FUNDING: Array BioPharma, Novartis.

Nivolumab in previously untreated melanoma without BRAF mutation.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab was associated with higher rates of objective response than chemotherapy in a phase 3 study involving patients with ipilimumab-refractory metastatic melanoma. The use of nivolumab in previously untreated patients with advanced melanoma has not been tested in a phase 3 controlled study. METHODS: We randomly assigned 418 previously untreated patients who had metastatic melanoma without a BRAF mutation to receive nivolumab (at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks and dacarbazine-matched placebo every 3 weeks) or dacarbazine (at a dose of 1000 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks and nivolumab-matched placebo every 2 weeks). The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: At 1 year, the overall rate of survival was 72.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.5 to 78.9) in the nivolumab group, as compared with 42.1% (95% CI, 33.0 to 50.9) in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio for death, 0.42; 99.79% CI, 0.25 to 0.73; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 5.1 months in the nivolumab group versus 2.2 months in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio for death or progression of disease, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.56; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 40.0% (95% CI, 33.3 to 47.0) in the nivolumab group versus 13.9% (95% CI, 9.5 to 19.4) in the dacarbazine group (odds ratio, 4.06; P<0.001). The survival benefit with nivolumab versus dacarbazine was observed across prespecified subgroups, including subgroups defined by status regarding the programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1). Common adverse events associated with nivolumab included fatigue, pruritus, and nausea. Drug-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 11.7% of the patients treated with nivolumab and 17.6% of those treated with dacarbazine. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab was associated with significant improvements in overall survival and progression-free survival, as compared with dacarbazine, among previously untreated patients who had metastatic melanoma without a BRAF mutation. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 066 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01721772.).

CDKN2A/CDK4 Status in Greek Patients with Familial Melanoma and Association with Clinico-epidemiological Parameters.

Approximately 5-10% of melanoma cases occur in a familial context. CDKN2A/CDK4 were the first high-penetrance melanoma genes identified. The aims of this study were to evaluate CDKN2A/CDK4 variants in Greek familial melanoma patients and to correlate the mutational status with specific clinico-epidemiological characteristics. A cross-sectional study was conducted by genotyping CDKN2A/CDK4 variants and selected MC1R polymorphisms in 52 melanoma-prone families. Descriptive statistics were calculated and comparisons were made using the χ2 test, Fisher's exact test and Student's t-test for statistical analysis, as appropriate. CDKN2A variants were detected in 46.2% of melanoma-prone families, while a CDK4 variant was found in only one family. This study confirmed that, in the Greek population, the age at melanoma diagnosis was lower in patients carrying a variant in CDKN2A compared with wild-type patients. No statistically significant associations were found between CDKN2A mutational status and MC1R polymorphisms.

MelaNostrum: a consensus questionnaire of standardized epidemiologic and clinical variables for melanoma risk assessment by the melanostrum consortium.

BACKGROUND: Many melanoma observational studies have been carried out across different countries and geographic areas using heterogeneous assessments of epidemiologic risk factors and clinical variables. AIM: To develop a consensus questionnaire to standardize epidemiologic and clinical data collection for melanoma risk assessment. METHODS: We used a stepwise strategy that included: compilation of variables from case-control datasets collected at various centres of the MelaNostrum Consortium; integration of variables from published case-control studies; consensus discussion of the collected items by MelaNostrum members; revision by independent experts; addition of online tools and image-based charts; questionnaire testing across centres and generation of a final draft. RESULTS: We developed a core consensus questionnaire (MelanoQ) that includes four separate sections: A. general and demographic data; B. phenotypic and ultraviolet radiation exposure risk factors and lifestyle habits; C. clinical examination, medical and family history; and D. diagnostic data on melanoma (cases only). Accompanying online tools, informative tables, and image-based charts aid standardization. Different subsections of the questionnaire are designed for self-administration, patient interviews performed by a physician or study nurse, and data collection from medical records. CONCLUSIONS: The MelanoQ questionnaire is a useful tool for the collection and standardization of epidemiologic and clinical data across different studies, centres, cultures and languages. This will expedite ongoing efforts to compile high-quality data for pooled analyses or meta-analyses and offer a solid base for the design of clinical, epidemiologic and translational studies on melanoma.