[Management of uveal melanomas, guidelines for oncologists]. / Prise en charge des mélanomes oculaires, le minimum pour les oncologues.

Uveal melanomas are the most frequent primary malignant eye tumor. Enucleation was historically the gold standard. Since then, several studies showed that conservative treatments did not increase the risk of metastasis or survival. Choroidal melanomas are both radioresistant and located close to visual structures (the optic nerve and macula) of the eye, which may be preserved in some settings without compromising tumor control, as this is the first priority. Different types of radiation therapy may be used for such tumors: brachytherapy and charged particles, including proton beam therapy. If visual prognosis is dependent to the local treatment, the vital prognosis is dependent on the metastatic risk, with a risk of liver involvement in 20 to 50% of patients, depending on tumor size and genomics. Median survival after the discovery of liver metastases is about 15 months. The management of these patients is often complex. Systemic therapies (chemotherapy, targeted therapies, immunotherapy, etc.) yield limited response rates and although local treatments of liver metastases are promising, they are only feasible in selected patients. The mission of the MELACHONAT national network is to improve the management of patients regardless of the stage of the disease. The patient association ANPACO is dedicated to help uveal melanoma patients in their health care path and to promote knowledge dissemination within the patient community. The aim of this review is to focus on the local treatments of uveal melanomas as well as the management of their metastatic evolution.

Vaccination of metastatic melanoma patients with autologous dendritic cell (DC) derived-exosomes: results of thefirst phase I clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: DC derived-exosomes are nanomeric vesicles harboring functional MHC/peptide complexes capable of promoting T cell immune responses and tumor rejection. Here we report the feasability and safety of the first Phase I clinical trial using autologous exosomes pulsed with MAGE 3 peptides for the immunization of stage III/IV melanoma patients. Secondary endpoints were the monitoring of T cell responses and the clinical outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Exosomes were purified from day 7 autologous monocyte derived-DC cultures. Fifteen patients fullfilling the inclusion criteria (stage IIIB and IV, HLA-A1+, or -B35+ and HLA-DPO4+ leukocyte phenotype, tumor expressing MAGE3 antigen) were enrolled from 2000 to 2002 and received four exosome vaccinations. Two dose levels of either MHC class II molecules (0.13 versus 0.40 x 1014 molecules) or peptides (10 versus 100 mug/ml) were tested. Evaluations were performed before and 2 weeks after immunization. A continuation treatment was performed in 4 cases of non progression. RESULTS: The GMP process allowed to harvest about 5 x 1014 exosomal MHC class II molecules allowing inclusion of all 15 patients. There was no grade II toxicity and the maximal tolerated dose was not achieved. One patient exhibited a partial response according to the RECIST criteria. This HLA-B35+/A2+ patient vaccinated with A1/B35 defined CTL epitopes developed halo of depigmentation around naevi, a MART1-specific HLA-A2 restricted T cell response in the tumor bed associated with progressive loss of HLA-A2 and HLA-BC molecules on tumor cells during therapy with exosomes. In addition, one minor, two stable and one mixed responses were observed in skin and lymph node sites. MAGE3 specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses could not be detected in peripheral blood. CONCLUSION: The first exosome Phase I trial highlighted the feasibility of large scale exosome production and the safety of exosome administration.

Phase 1/2 study of subcutaneous and intradermal immunization with a recombinant MAGE-3 protein in patients with detectable metastatic melanoma.

The purpose of this phase 1/2 study was to evaluate toxicity, tumor evolution and immunologic response following administration of a fixed dose of a recombinant MAGE-3 protein by subcutaneous and intradermal routes in the absence of immunologic adjuvant. Thirty-two patients with detectable metastatic melanoma expressing gene MAGE-3 were included and 30 received at least one injection with a fixed dose of a ProtD-MAGE-3 fusion protein. The immunization schedule included 6 intradermal and subcutaneous injections at 3-week intervals. Afterward, patients without major tumor progression who required other treatments received additional vaccinations at increasing time intervals. The vaccine was generally well tolerated. Among the 26 patients who received at least 4 vaccinations, we observed 1 partial response and 4 mixed responses. For these 5 responding patients, time to progression varied from 3.5 to 51+ months. An anti-MAGE-3 CD4 T-lymphocyte response was detected in 1 out of the 5 responding patients. The majority of patients had no anti-MAGE-3 antibody response. The clinical and immunologic responses generated by the vaccine are rather limited. Nevertheless, given the potential antitumor efficacy and the very mild toxicity of vaccinations, further studies combining MAGE proteins and/or peptides with potent immunologic adjuvants are warranted, not only in metastatic melanoma, but also in the adjuvant setting.