International Center-Level Variation in Utilization of Completion Lymph Node Dissection and Adjuvant Systemic Therapy for Sentinel Lymph Node-Positive Melanoma at Major Referral Centers.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine overall trends and center-level variation in utilization of completion lymph node dissection (CLND) and adjuvant systemic therapy for sentinel lymph node (SLN)-positive melanoma. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Based on recent clinical trials, management options for SLN-positive melanoma now include effective adjuvant systemic therapy and nodal observation instead of CLND. It is unknown how these findings have shaped practice or how these contemporaneous developments have influenced their respective utilization. METHODS: We performed an international cohort study at 21 melanoma referral centers in Australia, Europe, and the United States that treated adults with SLN-positive melanoma and negative distant staging from July 2017 to June 2019. We used generalized linear and multinomial logistic regression models with random intercepts for each center to assess center-level variation in CLND and adjuvant systemic treatment, adjusting for patient and disease-specific characteristics. RESULTS: Among 1109 patients, performance of CLND decreased from 28% to 8% and adjuvant systemic therapy use increased from 29 to 60%. For both CLND and adjuvant systemic treatment, the most influential factors were nodal tumor size, stage, and location of treating center. There was notable variation among treating centers in management of stage IIIA patients and use of CLND with adjuvant systemic therapy versus nodal observation alone for similar risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: There has been an overall decline in CLND and simultaneous adoption of adjuvant systemic therapy for patients with SLN-positive melanoma though wide variation in practice remains. Accounting for differences in patient mix, location of care contributed significantly to the observed variation.

Effect of Electronic Symptom Monitoring on Patient-Reported Outcomes Among Patients With Metastatic Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Electronic systems that facilitate patient-reported outcome (PRO) surveys for patients with cancer may detect symptoms early and prompt clinicians to intervene. Objective: To evaluate whether electronic symptom monitoring during cancer treatment confers benefits on quality-of-life outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Report of secondary outcomes from the PRO-TECT (Alliance AFT-39) cluster randomized trial in 52 US community oncology practices randomized to electronic symptom monitoring with PRO surveys or usual care. Between October 2017 and March 2020, 1191 adults being treated for metastatic cancer were enrolled, with last follow-up on May 17, 2021. Interventions: In the PRO group, participants (n = 593) were asked to complete weekly surveys via an internet-based or automated telephone system for up to 1 year. Severe or worsening symptoms triggered care team alerts. The control group (n = 598) received usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The 3 prespecified secondary outcomes were physical function, symptom control, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 3 months, measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30; range, 0-100 points; minimum clinically important difference [MCID], 2-7 for physical function; no MCID defined for symptom control or HRQOL). Results on the primary outcome, overall survival, are not yet available. Results: Among 52 practices, 1191 patients were included (mean age, 62.2 years; 694 [58.3%] women); 1066 (89.5%) completed 3-month follow-up. Compared with usual care, mean changes on the QLQ-C30 from baseline to 3 months were significantly improved in the PRO group for physical function (PRO, from 74.27 to 75.81 points; control, from 73.54 to 72.61 points; mean difference, 2.47 [95% CI, 0.41-4.53]; P = .02), symptom control (PRO, from 77.67 to 80.03 points; control, from 76.75 to 76.55 points; mean difference, 2.56 [95% CI, 0.95-4.17]; P = .002), and HRQOL (PRO, from 78.11 to 80.03 points; control, from 77.00 to 76.50 points; mean difference, 2.43 [95% CI, 0.90-3.96]; P = .002). Patients in the PRO group had significantly greater odds of experiencing clinically meaningful benefits vs usual care for physical function (7.7% more with improvements of ≥5 points and 6.1% fewer with worsening of ≥5 points; odds ratio [OR], 1.35 [95% CI, 1.08-1.70]; P = .009), symptom control (8.6% and 7.5%, respectively; OR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.15-1.95]; P = .003), and HRQOL (8.5% and 4.9%, respectively; OR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.10-1.81]; P = .006). Conclusions and Relevance: In this report of secondary outcomes from a randomized clinical trial of adults receiving cancer treatment, use of weekly electronic PRO surveys to monitor symptoms, compared with usual care, resulted in statistically significant improvements in physical function, symptom control, and HRQOL at 3 months, with mean improvements of approximately 2.5 points on a 0- to 100-point scale. These findings should be interpreted provisionally pending results of the primary outcome of overall survival. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03249090.

Active surveillance of patients who have sentinel node positive melanoma: An international, multi-institution evaluation of adoption and early outcomes after the Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial II (MSLT-2).

BACKGROUND: For patients with sentinel lymph node (SLN)-positive cutaneous melanoma, the Second Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy trial demonstrated equivalent disease-specific survival (DSS) with active surveillance using nodal ultrasound versus completion lymph node dissection (CLND). Adoption and outcomes of active surveillance in clinical practice and in adjuvant therapy recipients are unknown. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort of SLN-positive adults treated at 21 institutions in Australia, Europe, and the United States from June 2017 to November 2019, the authors evaluated the impact of active surveillance and adjuvant therapy on all-site recurrence-free survival (RFS), isolated nodal RFS, distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and DSS using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: Among 6347 SLN biopsies, 1154 (18%) were positive and had initial negative distant staging. In total, 965 patients (84%) received active surveillance, 189 (16%) underwent CLND. Four hundred thirty-nine patients received adjuvant therapy (surveillance, 38%; CLND, 39%), with the majority (83%) receiving anti-PD-1 immunotherapy. After a median follow-up of 11 months, 220 patients developed recurrent disease (surveillance, 19%; CLND, 22%), and 24 died of melanoma (surveillance, 2%; CLND, 4%). Sixty-eight patients had an isolated nodal recurrence (surveillance, 6%; CLND, 4%). In patients who received adjuvant treatment without undergoing prior CLND, all isolated nodal recurrences were resectable. On risk-adjusted multivariable analyses, CLND was associated with improved isolated nodal RFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.36; 95% CI, 0.15-0.88), but not all-site RFS (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.45-1.02). Adjuvant therapy improved all-site RFS (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.47-0.57). DSS and DMFS did not differ by nodal management or adjuvant treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Active surveillance has been adopted for most SLN-positive patients. At initial assessment, real-world outcomes align with randomized trial findings, including in adjuvant therapy recipients. LAY SUMMARY: For patients with melanoma of the skin and microscopic spread to lymph nodes, monitoring with ultrasound is an alternative to surgically removing the remaining lymph nodes. The authors studied adoption and real-world outcomes of ultrasound monitoring in over 1000 patients treated at 21 centers worldwide, finding that most patients now have ultrasounds instead of surgery. Although slightly more patients have cancer return in the lymph nodes with this strategy, typically, it can be removed with delayed surgery. Compared with up-front surgery, ultrasound monitoring results in the same overall risk of melanoma coming back at any location or of dying from melanoma.

Sex Differences in Tolerability to Anti-Programmed Cell Death Protein 1 Therapy in Patients with Metastatic Melanoma and Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Are We All Equal?

BACKGROUND: Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) have emerged as a serious clinical issue in the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Risk factors for irAEs remain controversial. Therefore, we studied sex differences in irAEs in patients treated with anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients with metastatic melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with anti-PD-1 therapy at Mayo Clinic Rochester and Florida from 2015 to 2018 were reviewed. Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test was used for time-to-event analysis. RESULTS: In 245 patients with metastatic melanoma, premenopausal women were more likely to experience irAEs (all grades) compared with postmenopausal women and men (67% vs. 60% vs. 46%), primarily because of an increase in endocrinopathies (33% vs. 12% vs. 10%, respectively). In patients with NSCLC (231 patients), women (all ages) were also more likely to develop irAEs of all grades (48% vs. 31%). Women with NSCLC were more likely to develop pneumonitis (11% vs. 4%) and endocrinopathies (14% vs. 5%). No differences in grade ≥3 toxicities were seen across sexes in both cohorts, but women were more likely to receive systemic steroids for the treatment of irAEs compared with men. Better progression-free-survival was observed in women with NSCLC and irAEs (10 months vs. 3.3 months) compared with women without irAEs. CONCLUSION: Women with metastatic melanoma and NSCLC are more likely to experience irAEs compared with men. We also observed differences between sexes in the frequency of certain irAEs. Larger studies are needed to investigate the mechanisms underlying these associations. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The results of this study suggest that women may be at a higher risk for immune-related adverse events (irAEs) compared with men when treated with anti-programmed cell death protein 1 therapy. In addition, women were more likely to develop certain irAEs, including endocrinopathies and pneumonitis. Close follow-up of women undergoing treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors will allow clinicians to diagnose these treatment-related complications early, potentially reducing their associated morbidity and mortality. In addition, a possible association between irAEs and response to therapy was observed.

Case series of dabrafenib-trametinib-induced pyrexia successfully treated with colchicine.

The most common adverse event (AE) of dabrafenib and trametinib (DT) is pyrexia, which has been reported to occur in up to 71% of patients. Pyrexia resulted in therapy discontinuation in up to 26% of patients that otherwise were benefiting from the treatment. Little is known about the pathogenesis and optimal management of this common AE. We hypothesized that the etiology of pyrexia in patients treated with DT could be extrapolated from DT-related cutaneous adverse effects in which a paradoxical MAPK pathway activation has been identified. Based on preliminary data by our group suggesting an upregulation of the mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPKs) in human lymphocytes exposed to dabrafenib and trametinib, specifically elevated expression of phosphorylated JNK (p-JNK), p38 MAPK (p-p38 MAPK), and ERK5 (p-ERK5), we hypothesized that the mechanism of MAPK pathway activation with DT therapy is similar to that reported in patients with familial Mediterranean fever (FMF), a rare, inherited condition characterized by episodes of fever and rash that responds exceedingly well to colchicine-based therapy in which the MAPK pathway is hyper-activated. Based on this association, our group explored the use of oral colchicine for the treatment of DT-associated pyrexia in five patients with metastatic melanoma.

NCCTG N0879 (Alliance): A randomized phase 2 cooperative group trial of carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab ± everolimus for metastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Despite the success of immune checkpoint and targeted therapy, many patients with melanoma ultimately require further treatment. The combination of carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab (CPB) has demonstrated promising activity in a single-arm study. In the current study, the authors performed a randomized phase 2 study to confirm efficacy and to determine whether adding everolimus would increase the activity of the combination. METHODS: Through the North Central Cancer Treatment Group, a total of 149 patients with unresectable AJCC 6th edition stage IV melanoma were randomized from May 2010 to May 2014 to either CPB or CPB with everolimus (CPBE). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), with secondary endpoints of overall survival (OS), response rate, and tolerability. RESULTS: The CPB and CPBE treatment arms were balanced with regard to age (median age: 59 years vs 58 years) and high lactate dehydrogenase (48% vs 51%), but were unbalanced with regard to sex (male sex: 72% vs 55%; P = .03). Overall, there was no difference noted with regard to PFS, with a median PFS of 5.6 months for CPB versus 5.1 months for CPBE (hazard ratio [HR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.81-1.62 [P = .44]), or for OS, with a median OS of 14.5 months for CPB versus 10.8 months for CPBE (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.84-1.84). The confirmed response rate was 13% for CPB and 23% for CPBE (P = .13). Toxicity was higher for CPBE compared with CPB (83% for grade 3 + and 14% for grade 4 + vs 63% for grade 3 + and 11% for grade 4+, respectively) (toxicities were graded using the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program of the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 4.0]). Common grade 3 + toxicities were neutropenia, leukopenia, and fatigue, which occurred in both treatment arms with comparable frequency. CONCLUSIONS: Both experimental arms demonstrated activity, with a PFS of >5 months. However, the addition of everolimus to CPB failed to improve outcomes, with increased toxicity noted. These findings replicate the moderate antitumor activity of CPB, with future development possibly in combination with targeted or immunotherapy. Cancer 2018;124:537-45. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Neoadjuvant systemic therapy for regionally advanced melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Patients with regionally advanced melanoma are at high risk of distant failure and unlikely to be cured by surgery alone. Neoadjuvant therapy may provide benefit in these patients. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate our experience with neoadjuvant systemic therapy in high-risk stage III patients. METHODS: Retrospective review of patients with advanced stage III disease who received neoadjuvant therapy between August 2009 and August 2016 at Mayo Clinic Rochester. RESULTS: Twenty-three cases met our inclusion criteria, 16 with resectable disease and 7 with unresectable disease. No patients with resectable disease and one patient with borderline resectable disease progressed regionally, prohibiting surgical resection. Five of seven patients with unresectable disease were down-staged to a resectable state. Six of twenty-three (26%) had a CR and five are alive at last follow-up. Fifteen of twenty three patients (65%) progressed with a median progression free survival of 11 months; however, the 5 year overall survival estimate was 84%. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant systemic therapy is a reasonable approach for patients with advanced but resectable/borderline resectable disease and the risk of losing regional control is low. Our data also suggest some patients with unresectable disease will be converted to resectable and a complete clinical response to treatment can be obtained in approximately one quater of patients.

Incidence and Management of Immune-Related Adverse Events in Patients Undergoing Treatment with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The unleashing of the immune system in an effort to fight cancer has proven to be an incredible advance in the war on cancer. However that breakthrough has come with a price in the form of serious and potentially fatal immune-related adverse events (irAEs). RECENT FINDINGS: Rapid recognition and early intervention is imperative to avoid significant morbidity and mortality. Additionally, providers need to be aware that there are still new, rare, and long-term emerging irAEs that were not previously reported in clinical trials. Because of the significant difference between irAEs and those caused by chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy, providers must have a thorough understanding of which events would be considered immune related and require treatment. This review will cover descriptions of the most common and uncommon but serious irAEs experienced by patients on immunotherapy, as well as management of these irAEs.

Social support and its implications in older, early-stage breast cancer patients in CALGB 49907 (Alliance A171301).

BACKGROUND: Studies point to a direct association between social support and better cancer outcomes. This study examined whether baseline social support is associated with better survival and fewer chemotherapy-related adverse events in older, early-stage breast cancer patients. METHODS: This study is a pre-planned secondary analysis of CALGB 49907/Alliance A171301, a randomized trial that compared standard adjuvant chemotherapy versus capecitabine in breast cancer patients 65 years of age or older. A subset reported on the extent of their social support with questionnaires that were completed 6 times over 2 years. RESULTS: The median age of this 331-patient cohort was 72 years (range: 65, 90); 179 (55%) were married, and 210 (65%) lived with someone. One hundred forty-five patients (46%) described a social network of 0-10 people; 110 (35%) of 11-25; and 58 (19%) of 26 or more. The Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) social support survey revealed that the median scores (range) for emotional/informational, tangible, positive social interaction, and affectionate social support were 94 (3, 100), 94 (0, 100), 96 (0, 100), and 100 (8, 100), respectively. Social support scores appeared stable over 2 years and higher (more support) than in other cancer settings. No statistically significant associations were observed between social support and survival and adverse events in multivariate analyses. However, married patients had smaller tumors, and those with arthritis reported less social support. CONCLUSION: Although social support did not predict survival and adverse events, the exploratory but plausible inverse associations with larger tumors and arthritis suggest that social support merits further study.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: incidence and characteristics of persistent symptoms and future directions NCCTG N08C3 (Alliance).

BACKGROUND: Despite newer agents, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) continues to remain a distressing side effect to a proportion of patients undergoing systemic anti-cancer therapy. METHODS: We recently performed an unplanned secondary analysis on a previously reported negative phase III trial (N08C3) looking at the efficacy of gabapentin/placebo in combination with dexamethasone and a 5HT3 receptor antagonist in the prevention of CINV for 413 patients undergoing regimens with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). In the current study, we attempted to better understand the higher than expected rate of overall patient satisfaction, despite a low complete response rate in both arms. Additionally, we looked at patient variables and their relationship to rates of CINV. RESULTS: Approximately one third of patients experienced more than mild nausea and reported scores on the Functional Living Index-Emesis that indicated interference with activities. Thirty-five percent reported nausea greater than 2.5 on a scale of 0 to 10 (0 being none), 19 % reported at least one emetic episode, and 49 % reported taking rescue medication. Nausea and vomiting on day 1, cisplatin therapy, and history of motion sickness significantly predicted delayed CINV. Age, combination chemotherapy (HEC with moderately emetogenic), and getting treatment for breast cancer predicted CINV on day 1. DISCUSSION: These data confirm previous reports that subgroups of patients may be more prone to acute and delayed CINV. Future CINV study design may benefit from a more individualized approach to CINV management, targeting those patients who are truly at risk for CINV despite continued drug development efforts.

Phase III double-blind, placebo-controlled study of gabapentin for the prevention of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy, NCCTG N08C3 (Alliance).

BACKGROUND: Despite targeted antiemetics, data support an unmet need related to the management of delayed nausea and vomiting (NV). Promising pilot data informed this phase III trial evaluating gabapentin for delayed NV from highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). METHODS: Participants were randomized to receive prophylactic treatment with 20 mg of dexamethasone and a 5HT3 receptor antagonist (RA) on the day of chemotherapy, followed by gabapentin 300 mg twice a day and dexamethasone (dex) or placebo and dex after HEC. Gabapentin/placebo was started the day of chemotherapy and continued through day 5 for the first chemotherapy cycle, whereas dex was titrated down on days 2-4. The primary end point was complete response (CR), defined as no emesis and no use of rescue medications on days 2-6, using an NV diary. The percentages of those in each group with a CR were compared by Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Four hundred thirty patients were enrolled in this study. Forty-seven percent of patients in the gabapentin arm and 41% in the placebo arm had a CR (P = .23). Mean number of emesis episodes was <0.5 daily, and mean nausea severity was < 2 (mild). In both arms, patient satisfaction with NV control was greater than 8 (with 10 being perfectly satisfied). There were no significant differences in unwanted side effects. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, gabapentin did not significantly improve delayed NV. Patients were satisfied with the control of their nausea and vomiting irrespective of arm. The use of a 5HT3 RA and dexamethasone provided good control of nausea and vomiting for most patients.

Keeping an Eye Out for Immunotherapy Toxicity: A Case of Unilateral Ptosis Caused by Ipilimumab/Nivolumab Therapy.

Despite ocular adverse events from immune checkpoint inhibitors being uncommon, they are still important complications to be aware of. We present the case of metastatic melanoma on ipilimumab/nivolumab in a patient who developed immunotherapy complications with delayed diagnosis because the only presenting symptom was unilateral ptosis. We reviewed the literature for relevant and important ocular and neurological complications of immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Real-world outcomes with immuno-oncology therapies in advanced melanoma: final results of the OPTIMIzE registry study.

Aim: The OPTIMIzE registry study evaluated real-world outcomes in patients with advanced melanoma receiving immuno-oncology therapies. Materials and methods: Data were collected for patients treated with anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1) monotherapy (nivolumab or pembrolizumab; n = 147) or nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 81) from 2015-2017 and followed for ≥3 years. Results: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus anti-PD-1 monotherapy was associated with a nonsignificantly lower risk of death (adjusted HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.54-1.28; p = 0.41), higher disease control rate (72 vs 56%; p = 0.04), and stable quality of life, but more grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (54 vs 26%; p < 0.0001). Conclusion: These results support the use of immuno-oncology therapy in advanced melanoma.

Melanoma is a serious form of skin cancer that develops from melanocytes, which are pigment cells that give the skin, hair, and other tissues their color. At advanced stages of spread, melanoma can be life-threatening. However, immunotherapy, a type of therapy that helps the body's immune system to destroy cancer cells, allows some patients with advanced melanoma to live longer. The OPTIMIzE study looked at how well patients with advanced melanoma did when treated with different immunotherapies. These patients were treated in a real-world setting, such as a doctor's office, and were not participating in a clinical trial. Compared with clinical trials, real-world studies like the OPTIMIzE study may include a more varied group of patients because of the less selective study enrollment requirements. In the OPTIMIzE study, patients were treated with either a single immunotherapy (nivolumab or pembrolizumab alone) or a combination of two immunotherapies (nivolumab plus ipilimumab). Both single and combination immunotherapies were effective and tolerable. Patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab had greater tumor shrinkage than patients receiving nivolumab or pembrolizumab alone, but with more side effects from their treatment. Despite the occurrence of side effects with both single and combination immunotherapies, patients reported that their quality of life remained stable while being treated. The OPTIMIzE study shows that immunotherapy is effective and tolerable for patients with advanced melanoma in the real-world setting. This information may help doctors with selecting treatments for their patients with advanced melanoma. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02780089 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Identification and Characterization of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Induced Toxicities From Electronic Health Records Using Natural Language Processing.

PURPOSE: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized cancer treatment, yet their use is associated with immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Estimating the prevalence and patient impact of these irAEs in the real-world data setting is critical for characterizing the benefit/risk profile of ICI therapies beyond the clinical trial population. Diagnosis codes, such as International Classification of Diseases codes, do not comprehensively illustrate a patient's care journey and offer no insight into drug-irAE causality. This study aims to capture the relationship between ICIs and irAEs more accurately by using augmented curation (AC), a natural language processing-based innovation, on unstructured data in electronic health records. METHODS: In a cohort of 9,290 patients treated with ICIs at Mayo Clinic from 2005 to 2021, we compared the prevalence of irAEs using diagnosis codes and AC models, which classify drug-irAE pairs in clinical notes with implied textual causality. Four illustrative irAEs with high patient impact-myocarditis, encephalitis, pneumonitis, and severe cutaneous adverse reactions, abbreviated as MEPS-were analyzed using corticosteroid administration and ICI discontinuation as proxies of severity. RESULTS: For MEPS, only 70% (n = 118) of patients found by AC were also identified by diagnosis codes. Using AC models, patients with MEPS received corticosteroids for their respective irAE 82% of the time and permanently discontinued the ICI because of the irAE 35.9% (n = 115) of the time. CONCLUSION: Overall, AC models enabled more accurate identification and assessment of patient impact of ICI-induced irAEs not found using diagnosis codes, demonstrating a novel and more efficient strategy to assess real-world clinical outcomes in patients treated with ICIs.

Proton Craniospinal Irradiation with Immunotherapy in Two Patients with Leptomeningeal Disease from Melanoma.

Introduction: Proton craniospinal irradiation (pCSI) is a treatment option for leptomeningeal disease (LMD), which permits whole neuroaxis treatment while minimizing toxicity. Despite this, patients inevitably experience progression. Adding systemic therapy to pCSI may improve outcomes. Methods: In this single-institution retrospective case series, we present the feasibility of treatment with pCSI (30Gy, 10 fractions) and an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) in two sequential patients with LMD from melanoma. Results: The first patient developed LMD related to BRAF V600E-mutant melanoma after prior ICI and BRAF-targeted therapy. After pCSI with concurrent nivolumab, the addition of relatlimab, and BRAF-targeted therapy, he remained alive 7 months after LMD diagnosis despite central nervous system progression. The second patient developed LMD related to BRAF-wildtype melanoma after up-front ICI. He received pCSI with concurrent ipilimumab and nivolumab, then nivolumab maintenance. Though therapy was held for ICI hepatitis, the patient remained progression-free 5 months after LMD diagnosis. Conclusion: Adding an ICI to pCSI is feasible for patients with LMD and demonstrates a tolerable toxicity profile. While prospective evaluation is ultimately warranted, pCSI with ICI may confer survival benefits, even after prior ICI.

Defining the Role of the Advanced Practice Provider Within the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program.

PURPOSE: Oncology advanced practice providers (APPs), including nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, physician assistants, and clinical pharmacists, contribute significantly to quality cancer care. Understanding the research-related roles of APPs in the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) could lead to enhanced protocol development, trial conduct, and accrual. METHODS: The 2022 NCORP Landscape Assessment Survey asked two questions about the utilization and roles of APPs in the NCORP. RESULTS: A total of 271 practice groups completed the 2022 survey, with a response rate of 90%. Of the 259 nonpediatric exclusive practice groups analyzed in this study, 92% used APPs for clinical care activities and 73% used APPs for research activities. APPs most often provided clinical care for patients enrolled in trials (97%), followed by assistance with coordination (65%), presenting/explaining clinical trials (59%), screening patients (49%), ordering investigational drugs (37%), and consenting participants (24%). Some groups reported APPs as an enrolling investigator (18%) and/or participating in institutional oversight/selection of trials (15%). Only 5% of NCORP sites reported APPs as a site primary investigator for trials, and very few (3%) reported APPs participating in protocol development. CONCLUSION: Practice groups report involving APPs in clinical research within the NCORP network; however, opportunities for growth exists. As team-based care has enhanced clinical practice in oncology, this same approach can be used to enhance successful research. Suggested strategies include supporting APP research-related time, recognition, and education. The findings of this survey and subsequent recommendations may be applied to all adult oncology practices that participate in clinical research.

A Phase I Trial of Nab-Paclitaxel/Bevacizumab (AB160) Nano-Immunoconjugate Therapy for Gynecologic Malignancies.

PURPOSE: AB160 is a 160-nm nano-immunoconjugate consisting of nab-paclitaxel (ABX) nanoparticles noncovalently coated with bevacizumab (BEV) for targeted delivery into tissues expressing high levels of VEGF. Preclinical data showed that AB160 resulted in greater tumor targeting and tumor inhibition compared with sequential treatment with ABX then BEV. Given individual drug activity, we investigated the safety and toxicity of AB160 in patients with gynecologic cancers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A 3+3 phase I trial was conducted with three potential dose levels in patients with previously treated endometrial, cervical, and platinum-resistant ovarian cancer to ascertain the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). AB160 was administered intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle (ABX 75-175 mg/m2, BEV 30-70 mg/m2). Pharmacokinetic analyses were performed. RESULTS: No dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) were seen among the three dose levels tested. Grade 3/4 toxicities included neutropenia, thromboembolic events, and leukopenia. DL2 (ABX 150 mg/m2, BEV 60 mg/m2) was chosen as the RP2D. Seven of the 19 patients with measurable disease (36.8%) had confirmed partial responses (95% confidence interval, 16.3%-61.6%). Pharmacokinetic analyses demonstrated that AB160 allowed 50% higher paclitaxel dosing and that paclitaxel clearance mirrored that of therapeutic antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: The safety profile and clinical activity of AB160 supports further clinical testing in patients with gynecologic cancers; the RP2D is DL2 (ABX 150 mg/m2, BEV 60 mg/m2).

Neoadjuvant cobimetinib and atezolizumab with or without vemurafenib for high-risk operable Stage III melanoma: the Phase II NeoACTIVATE trial.

Both targeted therapies and immunotherapies provide benefit in resected Stage III melanoma. We hypothesized that the combination of targeted and immunotherapy given prior to therapeutic lymph node dissection (TLND) would be tolerable and drive robust pathologic responses. In NeoACTIVATE (NCT03554083), a Phase II trial, patients with clinically evident resectable Stage III melanoma received either 12 weeks of neoadjuvant vemurafenib, cobimetinib, and atezolizumab (BRAF-mutated, Cohort A, n = 15), or cobimetinib and atezolizumab (BRAF-wild-type, Cohort B, n = 15) followed by TLND and 24 weeks of adjuvant atezolizumab. Here, we report outcomes from the neoadjuvant portion of the trial. Based on intent to treat analysis, pathologic response (≤50% viable tumor) and major pathologic response (complete or near-complete, ≤10% viable tumor) were observed in 86.7% and 66.7% of BRAF-mutated and 53.3% and 33.3% of BRAF-wild-type patients, respectively (primary outcome); these exceeded pre-specified benchmarks of 50% and 30% for major pathologic response. Grade 3 and higher toxicities, primarily dermatologic, occurred in 63% during neoadjuvant treatment (secondary outcome). No surgical delays nor progression to regional unresectability occurred (secondary outcome). Peripheral blood CD8 + TCM cell expansion associated with favorable pathologic responses (exploratory outcome).