Neoadjuvant relatlimab and nivolumab in resectable melanoma.

Relatlimab and nivolumab combination immunotherapy improves progression-free survival over nivolumab monotherapy in patients with unresectable advanced melanoma1. We investigated this regimen in patients with resectable clinical stage III or oligometastatic stage IV melanoma (NCT02519322). Patients received two neoadjuvant doses (nivolumab 480 mg and relatlimab 160 mg intravenously every 4 weeks) followed by surgery, and then ten doses of adjuvant combination therapy. The primary end point was pathologic complete response (pCR) rate2. The combination resulted in 57% pCR rate and 70% overall pathologic response rate among 30 patients treated. The radiographic response rate using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 was 57%. No grade 3-4 immune-related adverse events were observed in the neoadjuvant setting. The 1- and 2-year recurrence-free survival rate was 100% and 92% for patients with any pathologic response, compared to 88% and 55% for patients who did not have a pathologic response (P = 0.005). Increased immune cell infiltration at baseline, and decrease in M2 macrophages during treatment, were associated with pathologic response. Our results indicate that neoadjuvant relatlimab and nivolumab induces a high pCR rate. Safety during neoadjuvant therapy is favourable compared to other combination immunotherapy regimens. These data, in combination with the results of the RELATIVITY-047 trial1, provide further confirmation of the efficacy and safety of this new immunotherapy regimen.

Androgen receptor blockade promotes response to BRAF/MEK-targeted therapy.

Treatment with therapy targeting BRAF and MEK (BRAF/MEK) has revolutionized care in melanoma and other cancers; however, therapeutic resistance is common and innovative treatment strategies are needed1,2. Here we studied a group of patients with melanoma who were treated with neoadjuvant BRAF/MEK-targeted therapy ( NCT02231775 , n = 51) and observed significantly higher rates of major pathological response (MPR; ≤10% viable tumour at resection) and improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) in female versus male patients (MPR, 66% versus 14%, P = 0.001; RFS, 64% versus 32% at 2 years, P = 0.021). The findings were validated in several additional cohorts2-4 of patients with unresectable metastatic melanoma who were treated with BRAF- and/or MEK-targeted therapy (n = 664 patients in total), demonstrating improved progression-free survival and overall survival in female versus male patients in several of these studies. Studies in preclinical models demonstrated significantly impaired anti-tumour activity in male versus female mice after BRAF/MEK-targeted therapy (P = 0.006), with significantly higher expression of the androgen receptor in tumours of male and female BRAF/MEK-treated mice versus the control (P = 0.0006 and P = 0.0025). Pharmacological inhibition of androgen receptor signalling improved responses to BRAF/MEK-targeted therapy in male and female mice (P = 0.018 and P = 0.003), whereas induction of androgen receptor signalling (through testosterone administration) was associated with a significantly impaired response to BRAF/MEK-targeted therapy in male and female patients (P = 0.021 and P < 0.0001). Together, these results have important implications for therapy.

B cells and tertiary lymphoid structures promote immunotherapy response.

Treatment with immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) has revolutionized cancer therapy. Until now, predictive biomarkers1-10 and strategies to augment clinical response have largely focused on the T cell compartment. However, other immune subsets may also contribute to anti-tumour immunity11-15, although these have been less well-studied in ICB treatment16. A previously conducted neoadjuvant ICB trial in patients with melanoma showed via targeted expression profiling17 that B cell signatures were enriched in the tumours of patients who respond to treatment versus non-responding patients. To build on this, here we performed bulk RNA sequencing and found that B cell markers were the most differentially expressed genes in the tumours of responders versus non-responders. Our findings were corroborated using a computational method (MCP-counter18) to estimate the immune and stromal composition in this and two other ICB-treated cohorts (patients with melanoma and renal cell carcinoma). Histological evaluation highlighted the localization of B cells within tertiary lymphoid structures. We assessed the potential functional contributions of B cells via bulk and single-cell RNA sequencing, which demonstrate clonal expansion and unique functional states of B cells in responders. Mass cytometry showed that switched memory B cells were enriched in the tumours of responders. Together, these data provide insights into the potential role of B cells and tertiary lymphoid structures in the response to ICB treatment, with implications for the development of biomarkers and therapeutic targets.

Gene expression profiling and multiplex immunofluorescence analysis of bullous pemphigoid immune-related adverse event reveal upregulation of toll-like receptor 4/complement-induced innate immune response and increased density of TH 1 T-cells.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based cancer therapies cause a variety of cutaneous immune-related adverse events (irAEs) including immunobullous skin eruptions like bullous pemphigoid (BP). However, little is known about the underlying immunopathogenic drivers of these reactions, and understanding the unique gene expression profile and immune composition of BP-irAE remains a critical knowledge gap in the field of oncodermatology/oncodermatopathology. METHODS: BP-irAE (n = 8) and de novo BP control (n = 8) biopsy samples were subjected to gene expression profiling using the NanoString® Technologies nCounter PanCancer Immune Profiling Panel. Multiplex immunofluorescence (mIF) studies using markers for T-cells (CD3 and CD8), T helper 1 (TH 1) cells (Tbet), TH 2 cells (Gata3), TH 17 cells (RORγT), and regulatory T-cells (Tregs; FoxP3) were further evaluated using InForm® image analysis. RESULTS: Compared with de novo BP controls, BP-irAE samples exhibited upregulation of 30 mRNA transcripts (p < 0.025), including toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) and genes associated with complement activation, and downregulation of 89 mRNA transcripts (p < 0.025), including genes associated with TH 2, TH 17, and B-cell immune response. BP-irAE demonstrated a greater density of Tbet+ (TH 1) cells in the dermis (p = 0.004) and fewer Tregs in the blister floor (p = 0.028) when compared with that of de novo control BP samples. CONCLUSIONS: BP-irAE exhibited activation of the TLR4/complement-driven classical innate immune response pathway, with dermal TH 1 immune cell polarization and decreased Tregs in the blister floor. TLR/complement signaling may underlie the immunopathogenesis of BP-irAE.

Cutaneous adverse events in 155 patients with metastatic melanoma consecutively treated with anti-CTLA4 and anti-PD1 combination immunotherapy: Incidence, management, and clinical benefit.

BACKGROUND: In response to the increased use of combination checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) and the resulting increased cutaneous adverse events (CAEs), this study reviewed patients with melanoma treated with combination CPIs to characterize CAE features and their clinical impact, correlation to adverse events in other organs, and correlation to tumor response. METHODS: Patients from the authors' institutional database who received at least 1 dose of ipilimumab in combination with either nivolumab or pembrolizumab between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2017, for stage IV or unresectable stage III melanoma were identified. The time to next treatment (TTNT) was calculated from the start of CPI therapy to the start of the next treatment or death, and the development of CAEs was tested in a time-dependent Cox regression to identify associations with TTNT. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients (52.3%) experienced a total of 92 CAEs, including eczematous dermatitis (25.0%), morbilliform eruption (22.8%), vitiligo (12.0%), and pruritus without rash (8.7%). The median times to the onset and resolution of CAEs were 21 days (range, 0-341 days) and 50 days (range, 1-352 days), respectively. Most CAEs resolved after patients entered the CPI maintenance phase and treatment with oral antihistamines with or without topical steroids. CPI discontinuation occurred in 4 patients (2.6%) because of CAEs, in 49 (31.6%) because of other immune-related adverse events, and in 20 (12.9%) because of melanoma progression or death. For patients definitively treated with CPIs (n = 134; 86.5%), TTNT was significantly longer with CAEs than without CAEs (hazard ratio, 0.567; 95% CI, 0.331-0.972; P = .039). CONCLUSIONS: CAEs were mostly reversible and rarely required therapy discontinuation. The development of CAEs was associated with a longer TTNT, and this suggested a possible clinical benefit.

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy across cancers: meeting report from the Immunotherapy Bridge-December 1st-2nd, 2021.

After the success of immunotherapy in the treatment of advanced metastatic cancer, further evaluation in earlier settings, including high-risk, surgically-resectable disease is underway. Potential benefits of a neoadjuvant immunotherapeutic approach include presurgical tumor shrinkage, reduced surgical morbidity, early eradication of micrometastases and prevention of distant disease, and greater antigen-specific T cell response. For some cancers, pathologic response has been established as a surrogate measure for long-term outcomes, therefore offering the ability for early and objective assessment of treatment efficacy and the potential to inform and personalize adjuvant treatment clinical decision-making. Leveraging the neoadjuvant treatment setting offers the ability to deeply interrogate longitudinal tissue in order to gain translatable, pan-malignancy insights into response and mechanisms of resistance to immunotherapy. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy across cancers was a focus of discussion at the virtual Immunotherapy Bridge meeting (December 1-2, 2021). Clinical, biomarker, and pathologic insights from prostate, breast, colon, and non-small-cell lung cancers, melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers were discussed and are summarized in this report.

Gynecologic tract melanoma in the contemporary therapeutic era: High rates of local and distant disease progression.

BACKGROUND: Gynecologic tract melanoma (GTM) is a rare malignancy with historically poor outcomes. The current study examines patterns of care and oncologic outcomes in a large single-institution cohort from the contemporary therapeutic era. METHODS: Patterns of care and predictors of outcomes were evaluated for all GTM patients without metastatic disease at diagnosis who were treated at our institution between 2009 and 2020 with >6 months of follow-up. RESULTS: Of the 124 patients included, anatomic subsites were vulvar (n = 82, 66%), vaginal (n = 34, 27%), or cervical (n = 8, 6%). Primary tumor was resected for 85% (n = 106) with surgical nodal evaluation for 60% (n = 75). Systemic therapy, most commonly immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI, 58% systemic therapy), was used to treat all except one unresectable patient (17/18) and 33% (35/106) of resectable patients. Seven patients received neoadjuvant ICI. Fourteen patients received adjuvant radiation therapy to the pelvis (RT, 13% of those undergoing resection). With a median follow-up of 45 months, 100 patients (81%) recurred. Four-year actuarial outcomes were: 46% local control, 53% nodal control, 36% distant metastasis-free survival, 17% disease-free survival, 49% melanoma-specific survival and 48% overall survival. Mitotic rate > 10/mm2, nodal involvement and non-vulvar anatomic subsite were associated with poor outcomes. Patients treated after 2016 did not have significantly better outcomes than those treated earlier. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with GTM continue to have poor outcomes in the contemporary therapeutic era with particularly notable poor local disease control relative to other mucosal melanoma subtypes. More effective oncologic therapy is needed.

Dose-escalation study of vemurafenib with sorafenib or crizotinib in patients with BRAF-mutated advanced cancers.

BACKGROUND: BRAF inhibitors are effective in melanoma and other cancers with BRAF mutations; however, patients ultimately develop therapeutic resistance through the activation of alternative signaling pathways such as RAF/RAS or MET. The authors hypothesized that combining the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib with either the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib or the MET inhibitor crizotinib could overcome therapeutic resistance. METHODS: Patients with advanced cancers and BRAF mutations were enrolled in a dose-escalation study (3 + 3 design) to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and the dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) of vemurafenib with sorafenib (VS) or vemurafenib with crizotinib (VC). RESULTS: In total, 38 patients (VS, n = 24; VC, n = 14) were enrolled, and melanoma was the most represented tumor type (VS, 38%; VC, 64%). In the VS arm, vemurafenib 720 mg twice daily and sorafenib 400 mg am/200 mg pm were identified as the MTDs, DLTs included grade 3 rash (n = 2) and grade 3 hypertension, and partial responses were reported in 5 patients (21%), including 2 with ovarian cancer who had received previous treatment with BRAF, MEK, or ERK inhibitors. In the VC arm, vemurafenib 720 mg twice daily and crizotinib 250 mg daily were identified as the MTDs, DLTs included grade 3 rash (n = 2), and partial responses were reported in 4 patients (29%; melanoma, n = 3; lung adenocarcinoma, n = 1) who had received previous treatment with BRAF, MEK, and/or ERK inhibitors. Optional longitudinal collection of plasma to assess dynamic changes in circulating tumor DNA demonstrated the elimination of BRAF-mutant DNA from plasma during therapy (P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: Vemurafenib combined with sorafenib or crizotinib was well tolerated with encouraging activity, including among patients who previously received treatment with BRAF, MEK, or ERK inhibitors.

Aurora kinase inhibition sensitizes melanoma cells to T-cell-mediated cytotoxicity.

Although immunotherapy has achieved impressive durable clinical responses, many cancers respond only temporarily or not at all to immunotherapy. To find novel, targetable mechanisms of resistance to immunotherapy, patient-derived melanoma cell lines were transduced with 576 open reading frames, or exposed to arrayed libraries of 850 bioactive compounds, prior to co-culture with autologous tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs). The synergy between the targets and TILs to induce apoptosis, and the mechanisms of inhibiting resistance to TILs were interrogated. Gene expression analyses were performed on tumor samples from patients undergoing immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma. Finally, the effect of inhibiting the top targets on the efficacy of immunotherapy was investigated in multiple preclinical models. Aurora kinase was identified as a mediator of melanoma cell resistance to T-cell-mediated cytotoxicity in both complementary screens. Aurora kinase inhibitors were validated to synergize with T-cell-mediated cytotoxicity in vitro. The Aurora kinase inhibition-mediated sensitivity to T-cell cytotoxicity was shown to be partially driven by p21-mediated induction of cellular senescence. The expression levels of Aurora kinase and related proteins were inversely correlated with immune infiltration, response to immunotherapy and survival in melanoma patients. Aurora kinase inhibition showed variable responses in combination with immunotherapy in vivo, suggesting its activity is modified by other factors in the tumor microenvironment. These data suggest that Aurora kinase inhibition enhances T-cell cytotoxicity in vitro and can potentiate antitumor immunity in vivo in some but not all settings. Further studies are required to determine the mechanism of primary resistance to this therapeutic intervention.

Nodal Recurrence is a Primary Driver of Early Relapse for Patients with Sentinel Lymph Node-Positive Melanoma in the Modern Therapeutic Era.

BACKGROUND: Management of patients with sentinel lymph node (SLN)-positive melanoma has changed dramatically over the last few years such that completion lymph node dissection (CLND) has become uncommon, and many patients receive adjuvant immunotherapy or targeted therapy. This study seeks to characterize patterns and predictors of early recurrence in this setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients with primary cutaneous melanoma undergoing sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) between 3/2016 and 12/2019 were identified. The subset with a positive SLN who did not undergo CLND were examined for further analysis of outcomes and predictors of recurrence. RESULTS: Overall, 215 patients with SLN-positive melanoma who did not have CLND were identified. Adjuvant systemic therapy was administered to 102 (47%), with 93% of this subset receiving immunotherapy (n = 95). Median follow-up from SLNB was 20 months (IQR 12-28.5 months), and 57 patients (27%) recurred during this time. The SLN basin was the most common site of recurrence (n = 38, 67% of recurrence), with isolated nodal recurrence being the most common first site of recurrent disease (n = 22, 39% of recurrence). On multivariable analysis, lymphovascular invasion (LVI) of the primary tumor, two or more involved nodes, and > 1 mm nodal deposit were independently associated with higher rates of nodal relapse. CONCLUSIONS: Nodal recurrence is a primary driver of early disease relapse for patients with SLN-positive melanoma who do not undergo CLND in the era of effective adjuvant systemic therapy. LVI, ≥ 2 nodes, or > 1 mm nodal disease identifies patients at particularly high risk of nodal relapse.

Pulmonary resection for tissue harvest in adoptive tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte therapy: Safety and feasibility.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Adoptive T-cell therapies (ACTs) using expansion of tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) populations are of great interest for advanced malignancies, with promising response rates in trial settings. However, postoperative outcomes following pulmonary TIL harvest have not been widely documented, and surgeons may be hesitant to operate in the setting of widespread disease. METHODS: Patients who underwent pulmonary TIL harvest were identified, and postoperative outcomes were studied, including pulmonary, cardiovascular, infectious, and wound complications. RESULTS: 83 patients met inclusion criteria. Pulmonary TIL harvest was undertaken primarily via a thoracoscopy with a median operative blood loss and duration of 30 ml and 65 min, respectively. The median length of stay was 2 days. Postoperative events were rare, occurring in only five (6%) patients, including two discharged with a chest tube, one discharged with oxygen, one episode of urinary retention, and one blood transfusion. No reoperations occurred. The median time from TIL harvest to ACT infusion was 37 days. CONCLUSIONS: Pulmonary TIL harvest is safe and feasible, without major postoperative events in our cohort. All patients were able to receive intended ACT infusion without delays. Therefore, thoracic surgeons should actively participate in ongoing ACT trials and aggressively seek to enroll patients on these protocols.

Intracranial antitumor activity with encorafenib plus binimetinib in patients with melanoma brain metastases: A case series.

BACKGROUND: Sixty percent of patients with stage IV melanoma may develop brain metastases, which result in significantly increased morbidity and a poor overall prognosis. Phase 3 studies of melanoma usually exclude patients with untreated brain metastases; therefore, clinical data for intracranial responses to treatments are limited. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective case series investigation of consecutive BRAF-mutant patients with melanoma brain metastases (MBMs) treated with a combination of BRAF inhibitor encorafenib and MEK inhibitor binimetinib was conducted to evaluate the antitumor response. Assessments included the intracranial, extracranial, and global objective response rates (according to the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1); the clinical benefit rate; the time to response; the duration of response; and safety. RESULTS: A total of 24 patients with stage IV BRAF-mutant MBMs treated with encorafenib plus binimetinib in 3 centers in the United States were included. Patients had received a median of 2.5 prior lines of treatment, and 88% had prior treatment with BRAF/MEK inhibitors. The intracranial objective response rate was 33%, and the clinical benefit rate was 63%. The median time to a response was 6 weeks, and the median duration of response was 22 weeks. Among the 21 patients with MBMs and prior BRAF/MEK inhibitor treatment, the intracranial objective response rate was 24%, and the clinical benefit rate was 57%. Similar outcomes were observed for extracranial and global responses. The safety profile for encorafenib plus binimetinib was similar to that observed in patients with melanoma without brain metastases. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with encorafenib plus binimetinib elicited intracranial activity in patients with BRAF-mutant MBMs, including patients previously treated with BRAF/MEK inhibitors. Further prospective studies are warranted and ongoing.

Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy for Locally Advanced Melanoma.

OPINION STATEMENT: Patients with clinical stage III melanoma, defined as palpable lymph nodes with or without in-transit metastases, have poor prognosis even with recent advances with targeted and checkpoint inhibitor therapy in the adjuvant setting. Neoadjuvant therapy for clinical stage III melanoma is an attractive treatment paradigm as patient outcomes may be improved by earlier introduction to systemic therapy. Additionally, preoperative therapy that shrinks disease has the potential to improve surgical morbidity. Neoadjuvant therapy also provides for pathologic response assessment which can serve as a way to stratify patient outcomes and subsequent disease relapse risk. Early trials of neoadjuvant immunotherapy are yielding promising results, with high rates of pathologic complete response (pCR) and improved relapse-free survival rates. Ipilimumab, nivolumab with or without ipilimumab, and pembrolizumab have been investigated in the neoadjuvant setting. A meta-analysis has shown a 1-year relapse-free survival rate of over 80% with neoadjuvant immunotherapy. Importantly, pooled data also shows that pCR strongly correlates with outcomes. Early phase trials have also highlighted the importance of dosing of neoadjuvant therapy to appropriately balance response and immune related toxicities, which can be severe. The combination of ipilimumab 1 mg/kg and nivolumab 3 mg/kg has been identified as an optimal regimen for further study. Translational studies have highlighted the ability of neoadjuvant immunotherapy to expand tumor-specific T cells in both the tumor microenvironment and peripheral blood. At this time, surgical resection and adjuvant therapy remains standard of care for clinical stage III melanoma; however, appropriate patients should be considered for ongoing neoadjuvant clinical trials.

Neoadjuvant systemic therapy in melanoma: recommendations of the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium.

Advances in the treatment of metastatic melanoma have improved responses and survival. However, many patients continue to experience resistance or toxicity to treatment, highlighting a crucial need to identify biomarkers and understand mechanisms of response and toxicity. Neoadjuvant therapy for regional metastases might improve operability and clinical outcomes over upfront surgery and adjuvant therapy, and has become an established role for drug development and biomarker discovery in other cancers (including locally advanced breast cancer, head and neck squamous cell carcinomas, gastroesophageal cancer, and anal cancer). Patients with clinically detectable stage III melanoma are ideal candidates for neoadjuvant therapy, because they represent a high-risk patient population with poor outcomes when treated with upfront surgery alone. Neoadjuvant therapy is now an active area of research for melanoma with numerous completed and ongoing trials (since 2014) with disparate designs, endpoints, and analyses under investigation. We have, therefore, established the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium with experts in medical oncology, surgical oncology, pathology, radiation oncology, radiology, and translational research to develop recommendations for investigating neoadjuvant therapy in melanoma to align future trial designs and correlative analyses. Alignment and consistency of neoadjuvant trials will facilitate optimal data organisation for future regulatory review and strengthen translational research across the melanoma disease continuum.

Neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib versus standard of care in patients with high-risk, surgically resectable melanoma: a single-centre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Dual BRAF and MEK inhibition produces a response in a large number of patients with stage IV BRAF-mutant melanoma. The existing standard of care for patients with clinical stage III melanoma is upfront surgery and consideration for adjuvant therapy, which is insufficient to cure most patients. Neoadjuvant targeted therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors (such as dabrafenib and trametinib) might provide clinical benefit in this high-risk p opulation. METHODS: We undertook this single-centre, open-label, randomised phase 2 trial at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX, USA). Eligible participants were adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with histologically or cytologically confirmed surgically resectable clinical stage III or oligometastatic stage IV BRAFV600E or BRAFV600K (ie, Val600Glu or Val600Lys)-mutated melanoma. Eligible patients had to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, a life expectancy of more than 3 years, and no previous exposure to BRAF or MEK inhibitors. Exclusion criteria included metastases to bone, brain, or other sites where complete surgical excision was in doubt. We randomly assigned patients (1:2) to either upfront surgery and consideration for adjuvant therapy (standard of care group) or neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib (8 weeks of neoadjuvant oral dabrafenib 150 mg twice per day and oral trametinib 2 mg per day followed by surgery, then up to 44 weeks of adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib starting 1 week after surgery for a total of 52 weeks of treatment). Randomisation was not masked and was implemented by the clinical trial conduct website maintained by the trial centre. Patients were stratified by disease stage. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed event-free survival (ie, patients who were alive without disease progression) at 12 months in the intent-to-treat population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231775. FINDINGS: Between Oct 23, 2014, and April 13, 2016, we randomly assigned seven patients to standard of care, and 14 to neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib. The trial was stopped early after a prespecified interim safety analysis that occurred after a quarter of the participants had been accrued revealed significantly longer event-free survival with neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib than with standard of care. After a median follow-up of 18·6 months (IQR 14·6-23·1), significantly more patients receiving neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib were alive without disease progression than those receiving standard of care (ten [71%] of 14 patients vs none of seven in the standard of care group; median event-free survival was 19·7 months [16·2-not estimable] vs 2·9 months [95% CI 1·7-not estimable]; hazard ratio 0·016, 95% CI 0·00012-0·14, p<0·0001). Neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib were well tolerated with no occurrence of grade 4 adverse events or treatment-related deaths. The most common adverse events in the neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib group were expected grade 1-2 toxicities including chills (12 patients [92%]), headache (12 [92%]), and pyrexia (ten [77%]). The most common grade 3 adverse event was diarrhoea (two patients [15%]). INTERPRETATION: Neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib significantly improved event-free survival versus standard of care in patients with high-risk, surgically resectable, clinical stage III-IV melanoma. Although the trial finished early, limiting generalisability of the results, the findings provide proof-of-concept and support the rationale for further investigation of neoadjuvant approaches in this disease. This trial is currently continuing accrual as a single-arm study of neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Physician interpretation of genomic test results and treatment selection.

BACKGROUND: Genomic testing is increasingly performed in oncology, but concerns remain regarding the clinician's ability to interpret results. In the current study, the authors sought to determine the agreement between physicians and genomic annotators from the Precision Oncology Decision Support (PODS) team at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston regarding actionability and the clinical use of test results. METHODS: On a prospective protocol, patients underwent clinical genomic testing for hotspot mutations in 46 or 50 genes. Six months after sequencing, physicians received questionnaires for patients who demonstrated a variant in an actionable gene, investigating their perceptions regarding the actionability of alterations and clinical use of these findings. Genomic annotators independently classified these variants as actionable, potentially actionable, unknown, or not actionable. RESULTS: Physicians completed 250 of 288 questionnaires (87% response rate). Physicians considered 168 of 250 patients (67%) as having an actionable alteration; of these, 165 patients (98%) were considered to have an actionable alteration by the PODS team and 3 were of unknown significance. Physicians were aware of genotype-matched therapy available for 119 patients (71%) and 48 of these 119 patients (40%) received matched therapy. Approximately 46% of patients in whom physicians regarded alterations as not actionable (36 of 79 patients) were classified as having an actionable/potentially actionable mutation by the PODS team. However, many of these were only theoretically actionable due to limited trials and/or therapies (eg, KRAS). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians are aware of recurrent mutations in actionable genes on "hotspot" panels. As larger genomic panels are used, there may be a growing need for annotation of actionability. Decision support to increase awareness of genomically relevant trials and novel treatment options for recurrent mutations (eg, KRAS) also are needed. Cancer 2018;124:966-72. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Metastatic melanoma with balloon/histiocytoid cytomorphology after treatment with immunotherapy: A histologic mimic and diagnostic pitfall.

Epithelioid cells with foamy cytoplasm (histiocytoid features) are typical histopathologic findings among benign and malignant histiocytic neoplasms such as xanthoma and atypical fibroxanthoma. However, these changes are unusual in melanoma, which is typically composed of nested and variably pigmented atypical epithelioid cells. Here, we report a patient with metastatic melanoma in lymph nodes presenting with prominent balloon cell/histiocytoid features expressing melanocytic markers, after treatment with nivolumab. This report suggests that the spectrum of neoplasms with histiocytoid features should be expanded to include melanoma, a pattern that, to the best of our knowledge, is uncommon, especially in the setting of post-neoadjuvant therapy.