Consensus recommendations on management of selumetinib-associated adverse events in pediatric patients with neurofibromatosis type 1 and plexiform neurofibromas.

Background: Selumetinib is the first approved treatment for pediatric patients with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) and symptomatic, inoperable plexiform neurofibromas (PN) in the EU and US, as well as in multiple other countries. Evidence for the management of selumetinib-associated adverse events (AEs) is mostly limited to clinical trials and expanded-access programs. We gathered a panel of European healthcare practitioners with clinical experience prescribing selumetinib and/or managing pediatric patients with NF1-PN to provide recommendations on the prevention and management of AEs. Methods: A modified Delphi approach was used to develop the recommendations among the group of experts. Initial statements were developed from a literature review of current management recommendations and regulatory reports. The panel refined the statements and rated the extent to which they agreed with them in 2 sessions and a follow-up survey. The panel comprised 2 pediatric neuro-oncologists, 1 pediatric oncologist, 1 pediatrician, 1 neuropediatrician, 1 oncologist, 1 neurologist, 2 psychologists, and 1 dermatologist. Results: The experts agreed on the relative frequency and impact of AEs potentially associated with selumetinib. Consensus-level agreement was reached for 36 statements regarding the prevention and management of AEs potentially associated with selumetinib. Experts recommended treatments for AEs based on their experience. Conclusions: The development of a variety of consensus statements indicates expert agreement on best practices for the prevention and management of AEs potentially associated with selumetinib in pediatric patients with NF1-PN. These events are generally manageable and should be considered alongside treatment benefit. Information sharing is warranted as further experience is gained.

Final, 10-Year Outcomes with Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Previous results from this trial showed longer overall survival after treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or with nivolumab monotherapy than with ipilimumab monotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma. Given that patients with advanced melanoma are living longer than 7.5 years, longer-term data were needed to address new clinically relevant questions. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with previously untreated advanced melanoma, in a 1:1:1 ratio, to one of the following regimens: nivolumab (1 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks; nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks plus placebo; or ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 3 weeks for four doses plus placebo. Treatment was continued until the occurrence of disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. Randomization was stratified according to BRAF mutation status, metastasis stage, and programmed death ligand 1 expression. Here, we report the final, 10-year results of this trial, including results for overall survival and melanoma-specific survival, as well as durability of response. RESULTS: With a minimum follow-up of 10 years, median overall survival was 71.9 months with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, 36.9 months with nivolumab, and 19.9 months with ipilimumab. The hazard ratio for death was 0.53 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44 to 0.65) for nivolumab plus ipilimumab as compared with ipilimumab and was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.76) for nivolumab as compared with ipilimumab. Median melanoma-specific survival was more than 120 months with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (not reached, with 37% of the patients alive at the end of the trial), 49.4 months with nivolumab, and 21.9 months with ipilimumab. Among patients who had been alive and progression-free at 3 years, 10-year melanoma-specific survival was 96% with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, 97% with nivolumab, and 88% with ipilimumab. CONCLUSIONS: The final trial results showed a continued, ongoing survival benefit with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and with nivolumab monotherapy, as compared with ipilimumab monotherapy, in patients with advanced melanoma. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 067 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844505.).

A Combined Proteomic and Transcriptomic Signature Is Predictive of Response to Anti-PD-1 Treatment: A Retrospective Study in Metastatic Melanoma Patients.

Resistance biomarkers are needed to identify patients with advanced melanoma obtaining a response to ICI treatment and developing resistance later. We searched a combination of molecular signatures of response to ICIs in patients with metastatic melanoma. In a retrospective study on patients with metastatic melanoma treated with an anti-PD-1 agent carried out at Istituto Nazionale Tumori-IRCCS-Fondazione "G. Pascale", Naples, Italy. We integrated a whole proteome profiling of metastatic tissue with targeted transcriptomics. To assess the prognosis of patients according to groups of low and high risk, we used PFS and OS as outcomes. To identify the proteins and mRNAs gene signatures associated with the patient's response groups, the discriminant analysis for sparse data performed via partial least squares procedure was performed. Tissue samples from 22 patients were analyzed. A combined protein and gene signature associated with poorer response to ICI immunotherapy in terms of PFS and OS was identified. The PFS and OS Kaplan-Meier curves were significantly better for patients with high expression of the protein signature compared to patients with low expression of the protein signature and who were high-risk (Protein: HR = 0.023, 95% CI: 0.003-0.213; p < 0.0001. Gene: HR = 0.053, 95% CI: 0.011-0.260; p < 0.0001). The Kaplan-Meier curves showed that patients with low-risk gene signatures had better PFS (HR = 0 0.221, 95% CI: 0.071-0.68; p = 0.007) and OS (HR = 0.186, 95% CI: 0.05-0.695; p = 0.005). The proteomic and transcriptomic combined analysis was significantly associated with the outcomes of the anti-PD-1 treatment with a better predictive value compared to a single signature. All the patients with low expression of protein and gene signatures had progression within 6 months of treatment (median PFS = 3 months, 95% CI: 2-3), with a significant difference vs. the low-risk group (median PFS = not reached; p < 0.0001), and significantly poorer survival (OS = 9 months, 95% CI: 5-9) compared to patients with high expression of protein and gene signatures (median OS = not reached; p < 0.0001). We propose a combined proteomic and transcriptomic signature, including genes involved in pro-tumorigenic pathways, thereby identifying patients with reduced probability of response to immunotherapy with ICIs for metastatic melanoma.

Sequencing of Checkpoint or BRAF/MEK Inhibitors on Brain Metastases in Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: The impact of the order of treatment with checkpoint inhibitors or BRAF/MEK inhibitors on the development of brain metastases in patients with metastatic unresectable BRAFV600-mutant melanoma is unknown. The SECOMBIT trial examined the impact of the order of receipt of these treatments in such patients. METHODS: In this three-arm trial, we reviewed patients without brain metastases who received the BRAF/MEK inhibitors encorafenib and binimetinib until they had progressive disease followed by the immune checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab and nivolumab (arm A); or treatment with ipilimumab and nivolumab until they had progressive disease followed by encorafenib and binimetinib (arm B); or treatment with encorafenib and binimetinib for 8 weeks followed by ipilimumab and nivolumab until they had progressive disease followed by retreatment with encorafenib arm binimetinib (arm C). RESULTS: Brain metastases were discovered during the trial in 23/69 patients in arm A, 11/69 in arm B, and 9/68 in arm C. At a median follow-up of 56 months, the 60-month brain metastases-free survival rates were 56% for arm A, 80% for arm B (hazard ratio [HR] vs. A: 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23 to 0.58), and 85% for arm C (HR vs. A: 0.35, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with unresectable metastatic melanoma, the treatment sequence of immune checkpoint inhibition followed by BRAF/MEK inhibitors was associated with longer periods of new brain metastases-free survival than the reverse sequence. A regimen in which immune checkpoint inhibition was sandwiched between BRAF/MEK inhibition also appeared to be protective against brain metastases. (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02631447.).

Seven-year analysis of adjuvant pembrolizumab versus placebo in stage III melanoma in the EORTC1325 / KEYNOTE-054 trial.

In the previously reported primary analyses of this phase 3 trial, 12 months of adjuvant pembrolizumab resulted in significantly longer recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) than placebo in patients with resected high risk stage III melanoma. Stability of these benefits when the median follow-up was 3.5 and 5 years was published. Here we report results with a longer follow-up. METHODS: We randomized 1019 patients to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo, intravenously every 3 weeks for a total of 18 doses. RFS in the overall population and in the subgroup of patients with melanoma positive for the PD-1 ligand (PD-L1) were co-primary endpoints. DMFS in these two populations was a secondary and progression/recurrence-free survival 2 (PRFS2) an exploratory endpoint. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 6.9 years. In the overall intention-to-treat population, RFS was longer in the pembrolizumab group than in the placebo group (HR 0.63, 95 % CI 0.53 to 0.74). RFS at 7 years was 50 % (95 % CI 46 % to 55 %) in the pembrolizumab and 36 % (95 % CI 32 % to 41 %) in the placebo group. Positive effects were present both for loco-regional recurrences and distant metastases, and across substages IIIA-IIIB-IIIC, and PD-L1 positive and PD-L1 negative as well as for BRAF mutant and BRAF wild type populations. DMFS was longer in the pembrolizumab group than in the placebo group (HR 0.64, 95 % CI 0.54 to 0.76). DMFS at 7 years was 54 % (95 % CI 50 % to 59 %) in the pembrolizumab and 42 % (95 % CI 37 % to 46 %) in the placebo group. PRFS2 was longer in the pembrolizumab group than in the placebo group (HR 0.69, 95 % CI 0.57 to 0.84). PRFS2 at 7 years was 61 % (95 % CI 57 % to 66 %) in the pembrolizumab and 53 % (95 % CI 49 % to 57 %) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: The 7-year analysis of adjuvant therapy with pembrolizumab demonstrated a sustained improvement in the long-term RFS, DMFS and PRFS2 compared with placebo in patients with resected stage III melanoma.

Outcomes With Postrecurrence Systemic Therapy Following Adjuvant Checkpoint Inhibitor Treatment for Resected Melanoma in CheckMate 238.

PURPOSE: In phase III CheckMate 238, adjuvant nivolumab significantly improved recurrence-free survival compared with ipilimumab in patients with resected stage IIIB-C/IV melanoma without a significant difference in overall survival (OS). Here, we investigate progression-free survival (PFS) and OS after postrecurrence systemic therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients 15 years or older with resected stage IIIB-C/IV melanoma were stratified by stage and tumor PD-L1 status and randomly assigned to receive nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or ipilimumab 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses and then every 12 weeks for 1 year or until disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Patients with recurrence in each group were assessed for PFS and OS from subsequent systemic therapy (SST) initiation per recurrence timing (≤12 months [early] v >12 months [late] from initial therapy). RESULTS: Recurrences occurred in 198 (44%) of 453 nivolumab-treated patients (122 early, 76 late) and 232 (51%) of 453 ipilimumab-treated patients (160 early, 72 late). Median PFS on next-line systemic therapy for nivolumab-treated patients recurring early versus late was 4.7 versus 12.4 months (24-month rates, 16% v 31%); median OS was 19.8 versus 42.8 months (24-month rates: 37% v 73%). In response to subsequent therapy, patients on nivolumab with late versus early recurrence were more likely to benefit from anti-PD-1 monotherapy. Nivolumab-treated patients with either an early or late recurrence benefitted from an ipilimumab-based therapy or targeted therapy, each with similar OS. CONCLUSION: Postrecurrence survival was longer for patients who recurred >12 months. Patients on nivolumab who recurred early benefitted from SST but had better survival with ipilimumab-based regimens or targeted therapy compared with anti-PD-1 monotherapy.

Randomized, open-label, phase 2 study of nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab monotherapy in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors of high tumor mutational burden.

BACKGROUND: Checkpoint inhibitor therapy has demonstrated overall survival benefit in multiple tumor types. Tumor mutational burden (TMB) is a predictive biomarker for response to immunotherapies. This study evaluated the efficacy of nivolumab+ipilimumab in multiple tumor types based on TMB status evaluated using either tumor tissue (tTMB) or circulating tumor DNA in the blood (bTMB). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic or unresectable solid tumors with high (≥10 mutations per megabase) tTMB (tTMB-H) and/or bTMB (bTMB-H) who were refractory to standard therapies were randomized 2:1 to receive nivolumab+ipilimumab or nivolumab monotherapy in an open-label, phase 2 study (CheckMate 848; NCT03668119). tTMB and bTMB were determined by the Foundation Medicine FoundationOne® CDx test and bTMB Clinical Trial Assay, respectively. The dual primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) in patients with tTMB-H and/or bTMB-H tumors treated with nivolumab+ipilimumab. RESULTS: In total, 201 patients refractory to standard therapies were randomized: 135 had tTMB-H and 125 had bTMB-H; 82 patients had dual tTMB-H/bTMB-H. In patients with tTMB-H, ORR was 38.6% (95% CI 28.4% to 49.6%) with nivolumab+ipilimumab and 29.8% (95% CI 17.3% to 44.9%) with nivolumab monotherapy. In patients with bTMB-H, ORR was 22.5% (95% CI 13.9% to 33.2%) with nivolumab+ipilimumab and 15.6% (95% CI 6.5% to 29.5%) with nivolumab monotherapy. Early and durable responses to treatment with nivolumab+ipilimumab were seen in patients with tTMB-H or bTMB-H. The safety profile of nivolumab+ipilimumab was manageable, with no new safety signals. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with metastatic or unresectable solid tumors with TMB-H, as determined by tissue biopsy or by blood sample when tissue biopsy is unavailable, who have no other treatment options, may benefit from nivolumab+ipilimumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03668119.

First-Line Nivolumab Plus Relatlimab Versus Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma: An Indirect Treatment Comparison Using RELATIVITY-047 and CheckMate 067 Trial Data.

PURPOSE: Nivolumab plus relatlimab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab have been approved for advanced melanoma on the basis of the phase II/III RELATIVITY-047 and phase III CheckMate 067 trials, respectively. As no head-to-head trial comparing these regimens exists, an indirect treatment comparison was conducted using patient-level data from each trial. METHODS: Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) adjusted for baseline characteristic differences. Minimum follow-ups (RELATIVITY-047, 33 months; CheckMate 067, 36 months) were selected to best align assessments. Outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), confirmed objective response rate (cORR), and melanoma-specific survival (MSS) per investigator; overall survival (OS); and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). A Cox regression model compared PFS, OS, and MSS. A logistic regression model compared cORRs. Subgroup analyses were exploratory. RESULTS: After IPTW, key baseline characteristics were balanced for nivolumab plus relatlimab (n = 339) and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 297). Nivolumab plus relatlimab demonstrated similar PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08 [95% CI, 0.88 to 1.33]), cORR (odds ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.14]), OS (HR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.75 to 1.19]), and MSS (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.67 to 1.12]) to nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Subgroup comparisons showed larger numerical differences favoring nivolumab plus ipilimumab with acral melanoma, BRAF-mutant melanoma, and lactate dehydrogenase >2 × upper limit of normal, but were limited by small samples. Nivolumab plus relatlimab was associated with fewer grade 3-4 TRAEs (23% v 61%) and any-grade TRAEs leading to discontinuation (17% v 41%). CONCLUSION: Nivolumab plus relatlimab demonstrated similar efficacy to nivolumab plus ipilimumab in the overall population, including most-but not all-subgroups, and improved safety in patients with untreated advanced melanoma. Results should be interpreted with caution.

Safety and efficacy outcomes of early cessation of anti-PD1 therapy in patients 80 years or older: A retrospective cohort study.

Older patients have similar immune checkpoint inhibitor efficacy and rates of adverse events as younger patients, but appear to have decreased tolerability, particularly in the oldest patient cohort (>80 years), often leading to early cessation of therapy. We aimed to determine whether early discontinuation impacts efficacy of anti-PD-1 therapy in patients ≥80 years old. In this retrospective, multicenter, international cohort study, we examined 773 patients with 4 tumor types who were at least 80 years old and treated with anti-PD-1 therapy. We determined response rate, overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients who discontinued therapy early (<12 months) for reasons other than progression or death. We used descriptive statistics for demographics, response, and toxicity rates. Survival statistics were described using Kaplan Meier curves. Median (range) age at anti-PD-1 initiation was 83.0 (75.8-97.0) years. The cancer types included were melanoma (n = 286), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (n = 345), urothelial cell carcinoma (UCC) (n = 108), and renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (n = 34). Of these, 102 met the primary endpoint of <12 months to discontinuation for reasons other than death or progression. Median PFS and OS, respectively, for these patients were 34.4 months and 46.6 months for melanoma, 15.8 months and 23.4 months for NSCLC, and 10.4 months and 15.8 months for UCC. This study suggests geriatric patients who have demonstrated therapeutic benefit and discontinued anti-PD-1 therapy at less than 12 months of duration for reasons other than progression may have durable clinical benefit without additional therapy.

Neoadjuvant Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Resectable Stage III Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Phase 1-2 trials involving patients with resectable, macroscopic stage III melanoma have shown that neoadjuvant immunotherapy is more efficacious than adjuvant immunotherapy. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with resectable, macroscopic stage III melanoma, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive two cycles of neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab and then undergo surgery or to undergo surgery and then receive 12 cycles of adjuvant nivolumab. Only the patients in the neoadjuvant group who had a partial response or nonresponse received subsequent adjuvant treatment. The primary end point was event-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 423 patients underwent randomization. At a median follow-up of 9.9 months, the estimated 12-month event-free survival was 83.7% (99.9% confidence interval [CI], 73.8 to 94.8) in the neoadjuvant group and 57.2% (99.9% CI, 45.1 to 72.7) in the adjuvant group. The difference in restricted mean survival time was 8.00 months (99.9% CI, 4.94 to 11.05; P<0.001; hazard ratio for progression, recurrence, or death, 0.32; 99.9% CI, 0.15 to 0.66). In the neoadjuvant group, 59.0% of the patients had a major pathological response, 8.0% had a partial response, 26.4% had a nonresponse (>50% residual viable tumor), and 2.4% had progression; in 4.2%, surgery had not yet been performed or was omitted. The estimated 12-month recurrence-free survival was 95.1% among patients in the neoadjuvant group who had a major pathological response, 76.1% among those who had a partial response, and 57.0% among those who had a nonresponse. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher that were related to systemic treatment occurred in 29.7% of the patients in the neoadjuvant group and in 14.7% in the adjuvant group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with resectable, macroscopic stage III melanoma, neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab followed by surgery and response-driven adjuvant therapy resulted in longer event-free survival than surgery followed by adjuvant nivolumab. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and others; NADINA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04949113.).

COLUMBUS 7-year update: A randomized, open-label, phase III trial of encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib in patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with encorafenib plus binimetinib and encorafenib monotherapy is associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with vemurafenib in patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. We report results from the 7-year analysis of COLUMBUS part 1 (NCT01909453) at 99.7 months (median duration between randomization and data cutoff). METHODS: 577 patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma who were treatment-naive or progressed after first-line immunotherapy were randomized 1:1:1 to encorafenib 450 mg once daily (QD) plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily (BID) (n = 192), vemurafenib 960 mg BID (n = 191), or encorafenib monotherapy 300 mg QD (n = 194). No prior BRAF/MEK inhibitor was allowed. RESULTS: Seven-year PFS and OS rates (95 % CI) were 21.2 % (14.7-28.4 %) and 27.4 % (21.2-33.9%) in the encorafenib plus binimetinib arm and 6.4 % (2.1-14.0 %) and 18.2 % (12.8-24.3 %) in the vemurafenib arm, respectively. Median melanoma-specific survival (95 % CI) was 36.8 months (27.7-51.5 months) in the encorafenib plus binimetinib arm and 19.3 months (14.8-25.9 months) in the vemurafenib arm. Thirty-four long-term responders (complete/partial response ongoing at 7 years) were identified across arms. CONCLUSIONS: This is the longest follow-up from a phase III trial of BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination in BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. Safety results were consistent with the known tolerability profile of encorafenib plus binimetinib. Results support the long-term efficacy and known safety of encorafenib plus binimetinib in this population and provide new insights on long-term responders. Interactive data visualization is available at the COLUMBUS dashboard (https://clinical-trials.dimensions.ai/columbus7/).

Use of artificial intelligence chatbots in clinical management of immune-related adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots have become a major source of general and medical information, though their accuracy and completeness are still being assessed. Their utility to answer questions surrounding immune-related adverse events (irAEs), common and potentially dangerous toxicities from cancer immunotherapy, are not well defined. METHODS: We developed 50 distinct questions with answers in available guidelines surrounding 10 irAE categories and queried two AI chatbots (ChatGPT and Bard), along with an additional 20 patient-specific scenarios. Experts in irAE management scored answers for accuracy and completion using a Likert scale ranging from 1 (least accurate/complete) to 4 (most accurate/complete). Answers across categories and across engines were compared. RESULTS: Overall, both engines scored highly for accuracy (mean scores for ChatGPT and Bard were 3.87 vs 3.5, p<0.01) and completeness (3.83 vs 3.46, p<0.01). Scores of 1-2 (completely or mostly inaccurate or incomplete) were particularly rare for ChatGPT (6/800 answer-ratings, 0.75%). Of the 50 questions, all eight physician raters gave ChatGPT a rating of 4 (fully accurate or complete) for 22 questions (for accuracy) and 16 questions (for completeness). In the 20 patient scenarios, the average accuracy score was 3.725 (median 4) and the average completeness was 3.61 (median 4). CONCLUSIONS: AI chatbots provided largely accurate and complete information regarding irAEs, and wildly inaccurate information ("hallucinations") was uncommon. However, until accuracy and completeness increases further, appropriate guidelines remain the gold standard to follow.

POLARIS: A phase 2 trial of encorafenib plus binimetinib evaluating high-dose and standard-dose regimens in patients with BRAF V600-mutant melanoma with brain metastasis.

Background: POLARIS (phase 2 [ph2]; NCT03911869) evaluated encorafenib (BRAF inhibitor) in combination with binimetinib (MEK1/2 inhibitor) in BRAF/MEK inhibitor-naïve patients with BRAF V600-mutant melanoma with asymptomatic brain metastases. Methods: The safety lead-in (SLI) assessed tolerability for high-dose encorafenib 300 mg twice daily (BID) plus binimetinib 45 mg BID. If the high dose was tolerable in ph2, patients would be randomized to receive high or standard dose (encorafenib 450 mg once daily [QD] plus binimetinib 45 mg BID). Otherwise, standard dose was evaluated as the recommended ph2 dose (RP2D). Patients who tolerated standard dosing during Cycle 1 could be dose escalated to encorafenib 600 mg QD plus binimetinib 45 mg BID in Cycle 2. Safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics were examined. Results: RP2D was standard encorafenib dosing, as >33% of evaluable SLI patients (3/9) had dose-limiting toxicities. Overall, of 13 safety-evaluable patients (10 SLI, 3 ph2), 9 had prior immunotherapy. There were 9 treatment-related adverse events in the SLI and 3 in ph2. Of the SLI efficacy-evaluable patients (n = 10), 1 achieved complete response and 5 achieved partial responses (PR); the brain metastasis response rate (BMRR) was 60% (95% CI: 26.2, 87.8). In ph2, 2 of 3 patients achieved PR (BMRR, 67% [95% CI: 9.4, 99.2]). Repeated encorafenib 300 mg BID dosing did not increase steady-state exposure compared with historical 450 mg QD data. Conclusions: Despite small patient numbers due to early trial termination, BMRR appeared similar between the SLI and ph2, and the ph2 safety profile appeared consistent with previous reports of standard-dose encorafenib in combination with binimetinib.

Successful application of chemosaturation with percutaneous hepatic perfusion in metastatic uveal melanoma patient progressing after systemic treatment options: a case report.

Uveal melanoma (UM) is a rare subtype of melanoma, accounting for less than 5% of all melanoma cases. Metastatic UM differs notably from cutaneous melanoma, exhibiting variations in etiology, prognosis, driver mutations, metastatic patterns, and poor responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Beyond local treatment options, such as resection, radiation therapy, and enucleation, and systemic treatments, such as ICIs, the approval of tebentafusp, a bispecific gp100 peptide-HLA-directed CD3 T-cell engager, marks a breakthrough in treating HLA-A*02:01 metastatic UM. Despite the advancements in treatment options, the long-term survival rates remain inadequate. We report a patient with metastatic UM who previously received ICI and progressed on tebentafusp treatment but subsequently exhibited a remarkable response to local treatment targeting liver metastasis. Such observations highlight the significance of exploring sequential therapeutic strategies for advanced UM, offering potential avenues to enhance treatment efficacy and patient prognosis.

Pembrolizumab Versus Placebo as Adjuvant Therapy in Resected Stage IIB or IIC Melanoma: Final Analysis of Distant Metastasis-Free Survival in the Phase III KEYNOTE-716 Study.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.Pembrolizumab adjuvant therapy was shown to significantly improve recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) in patients with resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma in earlier analyses of the randomized, double-blind, phase III KEYNOTE-716 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03553836). We report results of the protocol-specified final analysis of DMFS for KEYNOTE-716. Overall, 976 patients were randomly allocated to pembrolizumab (n = 487) or placebo (n = 489). As of January 4, 2023, median follow-up was 39.4 months (range, 26.0-51.4 months). The median DMFS was not reached in either treatment group, and the estimated 36-month DMFS was 84.4% for pembrolizumab and 74.7% for placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.59 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.79]). The median RFS was not reached in either treatment group, and the estimated 36-month RFS was 76.2% for pembrolizumab and 63.4% for placebo (HR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.49 to 0.79]). DMFS and RFS results were consistent across most prespecified subgroups, including stage IIB and stage IIC melanoma. The safety profile of pembrolizumab was manageable and consistent with previous reports. These results continue to support the use of pembrolizumab adjuvant therapy in patients with resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma.

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.

Plain language summary of the CheckMate 76K study results: nivolumab given after stage 2B/2C melanoma is removed by surgery.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: In this article, we summarize results from the ongoing phase 3 CheckMate 76K clinical study published online in Nature Medicine in October 2023. The study goal was to learn whether nivolumab works as an adjuvant therapy (that is, helps to keep cancer from coming back when it is given after surgery) for stage 2 melanoma (skin cancer) that has not spread to other parts of the body. Nivolumab is an immunotherapy that activates a person's immune system so it can destroy cancer cells. In melanoma, staging describes the severity of the cancer. Melanoma staging ranges from 0 (very thin and confined to the upper layer of the skin) to 4 (spread to distant parts of the body), with earlier stages removed by surgery. The people in this study had stage 2 melanoma that had not spread to the lymph nodes or other organs in the body. HOW WAS THE STUDY DESIGNED?: People 12 years and older with stage 2 melanoma that had not spread and had been removed by surgery were included in CheckMate 76K. People were randomly assigned to receive either nivolumab (526 patients) or placebo (264 patients). A placebo resembles the test medicine but does not contain any active medicines. The researchers assessed whether people who received nivolumab lived longer without their cancer returning and/or spreading to other parts of their bodies (compared with placebo) and if nivolumab was well tolerated. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: Researchers found that people who received nivolumab were 58% less likely to have their cancer return and 53% less likely of having their cancer spread to distant parts of their body, compared with placebo. These reductions in risk with nivolumab were seen in different subgroups of people with a range of characteristics, and regardless of how deep the melanoma had gone into the skin. People taking nivolumab had more side effects than those taking placebo, but most were mild to moderate and manageable. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: Results from CheckMate 76K support the benefit of using nivolumab as a treatment option for people with stage 2 melanoma post-surgery.

Prognostic and predictive value of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the EORTC 1325/KEYNOTE-054 phase III trial of pembrolizumab versus placebo in resected high-risk stage III melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Pain is common in patients with cancer. The World Health Organisation recommends paracetamol or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for mild pain and combined with other agents for moderate/severe pain. This study estimated associations of NSAIDs with recurrence-free survival (RFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in high-risk patients with resected melanoma in the EORTC 1325/KEYNOTE-054 phase III clinical trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with AJCC7 stage IIIA, IIIB or IIIC resected melanoma were randomized to receive 200 mg of adjuvant pembrolizumab (N = 514) or placebo (N = 505) 3-weekly for one year or until recurrence. As previously reported, pembrolizumab prolonged RFS and DMFS. NSAID use was defined as administration between 7 days pre-randomization and starting treatment. Multivariable Cox and Fine and Gray models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for associations of NSAIDs with RFS, DMFS and irAEs. RESULTS: Of 1019 patients randomized, 59 and 44 patients in the pembrolizumab and placebo arms, respectively, used NSAIDs. NSAIDs were not associated with RFS (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.58-1.43) or DMFS in the pembrolizumab (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.65-1.66) or placebo arms (for RFS, HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.48-1.20; for DMFS, HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49-1.31). NSAIDs were associated with the incidence of irAEs in the placebo arm (HR 3.06, 95% CI 1.45-6.45) but not in the pembrolizumab arm (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.58-1.53). CONCLUSION: NSAIDs were not associated with efficacy outcomes nor the risk of irAEs in patients with resected high-risk stage III melanoma receiving adjuvant pembrolizumab.

Combined immunotherapy in melanoma patients with brain metastases: A multicenter international study.

BACKGROUND: Ipilimumab plus nivolumab (COMBO) is the standard treatment in asymptomatic patients with melanoma brain metastases (MBM). We report a retrospective study aiming to assess the outcome of patients with MBM treated with COMBO outside clinical trials. METHODS: Consecutive patients treated with COMBO have been included. Demographics, steroid treatment, Central Nervous System (CNS)-related symptoms, BRAF status, radiotherapy or surgery, response rate (RR), progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) have been analyzed. RESULTS: 376 patients were included: 262 received COMBO as first-line and 114 as a subsequent line of therapy, respectively. In multivariate analysis, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) (≥1 vs 0) [HR 1.97 (1.46-2.66)], extracerebral metastases [HR 1.92 (1.09-3.40)], steroid use at the start of COMBO [HR 1.59 (1.08-2.38)], CNS-related symptoms [HR 1.59 (1.08-2.34)], SRS (Stereotactic radiosurgery) [HR 0.63 (0.45-0.88)] and surgery [HR 0.63 (0.43-0.91)] were associated with OS. At a median follow-up of 30 months, the median OS (mOS) in the overall population was 21.3 months (18.1-24.5), whilst OS was not yet reached in treatment-naive patients, steroid-free at baseline. In patients receiving COMBO after BRAF/MEK inhibitors(i) PFS at 1-year was 15.7%. The dose of steroids (dexamethasone < vs ≥ 4 mg/day) was not prognostic. SRS alongside COMBO vs COMBO alone in asymptomatic patients prolonged survival. (p = 0.013). Toxicities were consistent with previous studies. An independent validation cohort (n = 51) confirmed the findings. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate remarkable long-term survival in treatment-naïve, asymptomatic, steroid-free patients, as well as in those receiving SRS plus COMBO. PFS and OS were poor in patients receiving COMBO after progressing to BRAF/MEKi.