Catastrophic chemotherapy toxicity leading to diagnosis of Fanconi anaemia due to FANCD1/BRCA2 during adulthood: description of an emerging phenotype.

Fanconi anaemia due to biallelic loss of BRCA2 (Fanconi anaemia subtype D1) is traditionally diagnosed during childhood with cancer rates historically reported as 97% by 5.2 years. This report describes an adult woman with a history of primary ovarian failure, who was diagnosed with gastrointestinal adenocarcinoma and BRCA2-associated Fanconi anaemia at 23 years of age, only after she suffered severe chemotherapy toxicity. The diagnostic challenges include atypical presentation, initial false-negative chromosome fragility testing and variant classification. It highlights gastrointestinal adenocarcinoma as a consideration for adults with biallelic BRCA2 pathogenic variants with implications for surveillance. After over 4 years, the patient has no evidence of gastrointestinal cancer recurrence although the tumour was initially considered only borderline resectable. The use of platinum-based chemotherapy, to which heterozygous BRCA2 carriers are known to respond, may have had a beneficial anticancer effect, but caution is advised given its extreme immediate toxicity at standard dosing. Fanconi anaemia should be considered as a cause for women with primary ovarian failure of unknown cause and referral to cancer genetic services recommended when there is a family history of cancer in the hereditary breast/ovarian cancer spectrum.

Phase I study of the anti-endothelin B receptor antibody-drug conjugate DEDN6526A in patients with metastatic or unresectable cutaneous, mucosal, or uveal melanoma.

Background Endothelin B receptor (ETBR) is involved in melanoma pathogenesis and is overexpressed in metastatic melanoma. The antibody-drug conjugate DEDN6526A targets ETBR and is comprised of the humanized anti-ETBR monoclonal antibody conjugated to the anti-mitotic agent monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE). Methods This Phase I study evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and anti-tumor activity of DEDN6526A (0.3-2.8 mg/kg) given every 3 weeks (q3w) in patients with metastatic or unresectable cutaneous, mucosal, or uveal melanoma. Results Fifty-three patients received a median of 6 doses of DEDN6526A (range 1-49). The most common drug-related adverse events (>25% across dose levels) were fatigue, peripheral neuropathy, nausea, diarrhea, alopecia, and chills. Three patients in dose-escalation experienced a dose-limiting toxicity (infusion-related reaction, increased ALT/AST, and drug-induced liver injury). Based on cumulative safety data across all dose levels, the recommended Phase II dose (RP2D) for DEDN6526A was 2.4 mg/kg intravenous (IV) q3w. The pharmacokinetics of antibody-conjugated MMAE and total antibody were dose-proportional at doses ranging from 1.8-2.8 mg/kg. A trend toward faster clearance was observed at doses of 0.3-1.2 mg/kg. There were 6 partial responses (11%) in patients with metastatic cutaneous or mucosal melanoma, and 17 patients (32%) had prolonged stable disease ≥6 months. Responses were independent of BRAF mutation status but did correlate with ETBR expression. Conclusion DEDN6526A administered at the RP2D of 2.4 mg/kg q3w had an acceptable safety profile and showed evidence of anti-tumor activity in patients with cutaneous, mucosal, and uveal melanoma. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01522664.

Elevated levels of tumour apolipoprotein D independently predict poor outcome in breast cancer patients.

AIMS: Apolipoprotein D (ApoD) is a protein that is regulated by androgen and oestrogen, and is a major constituent of breast cysts. Although ApoD has been reported to be a marker of breast cancer, its prognostic importance in invasive breast cancer is unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between ApoD protein expression, oestrogen receptor-α (ERα) expression and androgen receptor (AR) expression in predicting breast cancer outcome. METHODS AND RESULTS: ApoD levels were measured by the use of immunohistochemistry and video image analysis on tissue sections from a breast cancer cohort (n = 214). We assessed the associations of ApoD expression with disease-free survival (DFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), and overall survival (OS). We also assessed the relationship between ApoD expression, AR expression and ERα expression in predicting OS. ApoD expression (>1% ApoD positivity) was found in 72% (154/214) of tissues. High ApoD positivity (≥20.7%, fourth quartile) was an independent predictor of MFS and OS, and conferred a 2.2-fold increased risk of developing metastatic disease and a 2.1-fold increased risk of breast cancer-related death. ApoD positivity was not associated with AR or ERα nuclear positivity. However, patients with (≥1%) ERα-positive cancers with low (<20.7%) ApoD positivity, or those showing high (≥78%) AR positivity and low (<20.7%) ApoD positivity had better OS than other patient groups. CONCLUSIONS: ApoD expression could be used to predict breast cancer prognosis independently of ERα and AR expression.

Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma (KEYNOTE-006): post-hoc 5-year results from an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab improved progression-free survival and overall survival versus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma and is now a standard of care in the first-line setting. However, the optimal duration of anti-PD-1 administration is unknown. We present results from 5 years of follow-up of patients in KEYNOTE-006. METHODS: KEYNOTE-006 was an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study done at 87 academic institutions, hospitals, and cancer centres in 16 countries. Patients aged at least 18 years with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, ipilimumab-naive histologically confirmed advanced melanoma with known BRAFV600 status and up to one previous systemic therapy were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to intravenous pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks or every 3 weeks or four doses of intravenous ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Treatments were assigned using a centralised, computer-generated allocation schedule with blocked randomisation within strata. Exploratory combination of data from the two pembrolizumab dosing regimen groups was not protocol-specified. Pembrolizumab treatment continued for up to 24 months. Eligible patients who discontinued pembrolizumab with stable disease or better after receiving at least 24 months of pembrolizumab or discontinued with complete response after at least 6 months of pembrolizumab and then progressed could receive an additional 17 cycles of pembrolizumab. Co-primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival. Efficacy was analysed in all randomly assigned patients, and safety was analysed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. Exploratory assessment of efficacy and safety at 5 years' follow-up was not specified in the protocol. Data cutoff for this analysis was Dec 3, 2018. Recruitment is closed; the study is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01866319. FINDINGS: Between Sept 18, 2013, and March 3, 2014, 834 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab (every 2 weeks, n=279; every 3 weeks, n=277), or ipilimumab (n=278). After a median follow-up of 57·7 months (IQR 56·7-59·2) in surviving patients, median overall survival was 32·7 months (95% CI 24·5-41·6) in the combined pembrolizumab groups and 15·9 months (13·3-22·0) in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·73, 95% CI 0·61-0·88, p=0·00049). Median progression-free survival was 8·4 months (95% CI 6·6-11·3) in the combined pembrolizumab groups versus 3·4 months (2·9-4·2) in the ipilimumab group (HR 0·57, 95% CI 0·48-0·67, p<0·0001). Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 96 (17%) of 555 patients in the combined pembrolizumab groups and in 50 (20%) of 256 patients in the ipilimumab group; the most common of these events were colitis (11 [2%] vs 16 [6%]), diarrhoea (ten [2%] vs seven [3%]), and fatigue (four [<1%] vs three [1%]). Any-grade serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 75 (14%) patients in the combined pembrolizumab groups and in 45 (18%) patients in the ipilimumab group. One patient assigned to pembrolizumab died from treatment-related sepsis. INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab continued to show superiority over ipilimumab after almost 5 years of follow-up. These results provide further support for use of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced melanoma. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Cediranib in patients with alveolar soft-part sarcoma (CASPS): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Alveolar soft-part sarcoma (ASPS) is a rare soft-tissue sarcoma that is unresponsive to chemotherapy. Cediranib, a tyrosine-kinase inhibitor, has shown substantial activity in ASPS in non-randomised studies. The Cediranib in Alveolar Soft Part Sarcoma (CASPS) study was designed to discriminate the effect of cediranib from the intrinsically indolent nature of ASPS. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 2 trial, we recruited participants from 12 hospitals in the UK (n=7), Spain (n=3), and Australia (n=2). Patients were eligible if they were aged 16 years or older; metastatic ASPS that had progressed in the previous 6 months; had an ECOG performance status of 0-1; life expectancy of more than 12 weeks; and adequate bone marrow, hepatic, and renal function. Participants had to have no anti-cancer treatment within 4 weeks before trial entry, with exception of palliative radiotherapy. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1), with allocation by use of computer-generated random permuted blocks of six, to either cediranib (30 mg orally, once daily) or matching placebo tablets for 24 weeks. Treatment was supplied in number-coded bottles, masking participants and clinicians to assignment. Participants were unblinded at week 24 or sooner if they had progression defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1); those on placebo crossed over to cediranib and all participants continued on treatment until progression or death. The primary endpoint was percentage change in sum of target marker lesion diameters between baseline and week 24 or progression if sooner, assessed in the evaluable population (all randomly assigned participants who had a scan at week 24 [or sooner if they progressed] with target marker lesions measured). Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01337401; the European Clinical Trials database, number EudraCT2010-021163-33; and the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN63733470 recruitment is complete and follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between July 15, 2011, and July 29, 2016, of 48 participants recruited, all were randomly assigned to cediranib (n=32) or placebo (n=16). 23 (48%) were female and the median age was 31 years (IQR 27-45). Median follow-up was 34·3 months (IQR 23·7-55·6) at the time of data cutoff for these analyses (April 11, 2018). Four participants in the cediranib group were not evaluable for the primary endpoint (one did not start treatment, and three did not have their scan at 24 weeks). Median percentage change in sum of target marker lesion diameters for the evaluable population was -8·3% (IQR -26·5 to 5·9) with cediranib versus 13·4% (IQR 1·1 to 21·3) with placebo (one-sided p=0·0010). The most common grade 3 adverse events on (blinded) cediranib were hypertension (six [19%] of 31) and diarrhoea (two [6%]). 15 serious adverse reactions in 12 patients were reported; 12 of these reactions occurred on open-label cediranib, and the most common symptoms were dehydration (n=2), vomiting (n=2), and proteinuria (n=2). One probable treatment-related death (intracranial haemorrhage) occurred 41 days after starting open-label cediranib in a patient who was assigned to placebo in the masked phase. INTERPRETATION: Given the high incidence of metastatic disease and poor long-term prognosis of ASPS, together with the lack of efficacy of conventional chemotherapy, our finding of significant clinical activity with cediranib in this disease is an important step towards the goal of long-term disease control for these young patients. Future clinical trials in ASPS are also likely to involve immune checkpoint inhibitors. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK and AstraZeneca.

Certainty within uncertainty: a qualitative study of the experience of metastatic melanoma patients undergoing pembrolizumab immunotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the lived experiences of patients with metastatic melanoma undergoing checkpoint inhibitor treatment. We conducted a feasibility study of a supportive care intervention for melanoma patients being treated with pembrolizumab. Here, we report a secondary objective of the study, which was to explore the lived experience of being on pembrolizumab treatment for advanced melanoma. METHODS: Twenty-eight participants with metastatic melanoma were recruited across two cohorts, all receiving 3-weekly immunotherapy treatment. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 26 participants once at 9 weeks. Thematic analysis using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) was performed with multiple iterations of data review to achieve consensus. RESULTS: Three overarching themes were identified; here, we report the first and most dominant theme: how metastatic melanoma patients live within uncertain spaces. Although immunotherapy increases overall survival, metastatic melanoma patients live within an uncertain spectrum. They confront uncertainty related to immunotherapy treatment, their disease trajectory, family relationships, and decision-making. Melanoma patients attempt to normalize their lives, engaging in their usual activities. Uncertainty increases prior to active treatment and intensifies during investigation phases. CONCLUSIONS: Despite progress in melanoma patient treatment and outcomes, these patients face sustained uncertainty about their disease trajectory.

A supportive care intervention for people with metastatic melanoma being treated with immunotherapy: a pilot study assessing feasibility, perceived benefit, and acceptability.

INTRODUCTION: Increasing numbers of metastatic melanoma (MM) patients are receiving immunotherapy treatment, including pembrolizumab, and the impact on their well-being is underexplored. OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility of a multimodal supportive care program to MM patients being treated with pembrolizumab. METHODS: This pre-post-test feasibility cohort study recruited MM participants treated with pembrolizumab: (i) supportive care intervention with usual care and (ii) usual care. The intervention comprised comprehensive medical assessment by supportive care physician (SCP), exercise physiologist (EP), and dietitian then a tailored supportive care program. Programs included exercise, dietary advice, non-invasive complementary therapies, and psychology consultation. Outcome measures included adherence, patient-reported symptoms, anxiety and depression, and toxicity. Descriptive data are reported. RESULTS: We recruited 28 participants: 13 intervention and 15 control; three did not complete the study. Most were male, with median age 66 (range 42-85) years. All intervention participants completed baseline assessments with SCP, EP, and dietitian. Two missed follow-up with EP or dietitian. Symptoms most troubling at baseline were as follows: fatigue (n = 6), sleep (n = 6), general aches and pains (n = 5), and memory (n = 4). All intervention participants were prescribed 16 exercise sessions; 8 (50%) completed all; overall exercise adherence was 85%. Integrative therapies were accessed by 85% (11) participants. Immunotherapy-related adverse event rates were low and SCP consultation identified symptoms not captured by CTCAE 4.0. CONCLUSIONS: A holistic supportive care intervention tailored to individual needs is feasible. The symptom burden in MM patients was low. Further investigation of the intervention is warranted, focused on populations with higher symptom burden to improve outcomes.

Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab for advanced melanoma: final overall survival results of a multicentre, randomised, open-label phase 3 study (KEYNOTE-006).

BACKGROUND: Interim analyses of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-006 study showed superior overall and progression-free survival of pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma. We present the final protocol-specified survival analysis. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients from 87 academic institutions, hospitals, and cancer centres in 16 countries (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Colombia, France, Germany, Israel, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, UK, and USA). We randomly assigned participants (1:1:1) to one of two dose regimens of pembrolizumab, or one regimen of ipilimumab, using a centralised, computer-generated allocation schedule. Treatment assignments used blocked randomisation within strata. Eligible patients were at least 18 years old, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, at least one measurable lesion per Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1), unresectable stage III or IV melanoma (excluding ocular melanoma), and up to one previous systemic therapy (excluding anti-CTLA-4, PD-1, or PD-L1 agents). Secondary eligibility criteria are described later. Patients were excluded if they had active brain metastases or active autoimmune disease requiring systemic steroids. The primary outcome was overall survival (defined as the time from randomisation to death from any cause). Response was assessed per RECIST v1.1 by independent central review at week 12, then every 6 weeks up to week 48, and then every 12 weeks thereafter. Survival was assessed every 12 weeks, and final analysis occurred after all patients were followed up for at least 21 months. Primary analysis was done on the intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned patients) and safety analyses were done in the treated population (all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment). Data cutoff date for this analysis was Dec 3, 2015. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01866319. FINDINGS: Between Sept 18, 2013, and March 3, 2014, 834 patients with advanced melanoma were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive intravenous pembrolizumab every 2 weeks (n=279), intravenous pembrolizumab every 3 weeks (n=277), or intravenous ipilimumab every 3 weeks (ipilimumab for four doses; n=278). One patient in the pembrolizumab 2 week group and 22 patients in the ipilimumab group withdrew consent and did not receive treatment. A total of 811 patients received at least one dose of study treatment. Median follow-up was 22·9 months; 383 patients died. Median overall survival was not reached in either pembrolizumab group and was 16·0 months with ipilimumab (hazard ratio [HR] 0·68, 95% CI 0·53-0·87 for pembrolizumab every 2 weeks vs ipilimumab; p=0·0009 and 0·68, 0·53-0·86 for pembrolizumab every 3 weeks vs ipilimumab; p=0·0008). 24-month overall survival rate was 55% in the 2-week group, 55% in the 3-week group, and 43% in the ipilimumab group. INTERPRETATION: Substantiating the results of the interim analyses of KEYNOTE-006, pembrolizumab continued to provide superior overall survival versus ipilimumab, with no difference between pembrolizumab dosing schedules. These conclusions further support the use of pembrolizumab as a standard of care for advanced melanoma. FUNDING: Merck & Co.

Pembrolizumab versus Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: The immune checkpoint inhibitor ipilimumab is the standard-of-care treatment for patients with advanced melanoma. Pembrolizumab inhibits the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint and has antitumor activity in patients with advanced melanoma. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled, phase 3 study, we assigned 834 patients with advanced melanoma in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab (at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram of body weight) every 2 weeks or every 3 weeks or four doses of ipilimumab (at 3 mg per kilogram) every 3 weeks. Primary end points were progression-free and overall survival. RESULTS: The estimated 6-month progression-free-survival rates were 47.3% for pembrolizumab every 2 weeks, 46.4% for pembrolizumab every 3 weeks, and 26.5% for ipilimumab (hazard ratio for disease progression, 0.58; P<0.001 for both pembrolizumab regimens versus ipilimumab; 95% confidence intervals [CIs], 0.46 to 0.72 and 0.47 to 0.72, respectively). Estimated 12-month survival rates were 74.1%, 68.4%, and 58.2%, respectively (hazard ratio for death for pembrolizumab every 2 weeks, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.83; P=0.0005; hazard ratio for pembrolizumab every 3 weeks, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.90; P=0.0036). The response rate was improved with pembrolizumab administered every 2 weeks (33.7%) and every 3 weeks (32.9%), as compared with ipilimumab (11.9%) (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Responses were ongoing in 89.4%, 96.7%, and 87.9% of patients, respectively, after a median follow-up of 7.9 months. Efficacy was similar in the two pembrolizumab groups. Rates of treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 to 5 severity were lower in the pembrolizumab groups (13.3% and 10.1%) than in the ipilimumab group (19.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The anti-PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival and had less high-grade toxicity than did ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma. (Funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme; KEYNOTE-006 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01866319.).

Nivolumab in previously untreated melanoma without BRAF mutation.

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

Standard-dose pembrolizumab in combination with reduced-dose ipilimumab for patients with advanced melanoma (KEYNOTE-029): an open-label, phase 1b trial.

BACKGROUND: Reduced-dose nivolumab in combination with standard-dose ipilimumab improves objective response and progression-free survival compared with standard-dose ipilimumab alone, but increases toxicity. We assessed the safety and anti-tumour activity of standard-dose pembrolizumab in combination with reduced-dose ipilimumab. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 1b trial, we recruited patients from 12 medical centres in Australia, New Zealand, and the USA. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years, had advanced melanoma, had an Eastern Coooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, had measurable disease according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1, had adequate organ function, had resolution of toxic effects of the most recent previous chemotherapy to grade 1 or less, had no active autoimmune disease requiring systemic steroids or immunosuppressive agents, had no active non-infectious pneumonitis, had no uncontrolled thyroid dysfunction or diabetes, had no active brain metastases, and had not received previous immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Patients received intravenous pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg plus intravenous ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by intravenous pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks for up to 2 years or disease progression, intolerable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or investigator decision. The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability. The proportion of patients achieving an objective response assessed per RECIST version 1.1 by independent central review and overall survival were secondary endpoints. We also assessed progression-free survival. The primary endpoint was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of combination therapy. Activity was assessed in all enrolled patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02089685. Enrolment into this cohort is closed, but patients are still being monitored for safety and anti-tumour activity. FINDINGS: Between Jan 13, 2015, and Sept 17, 2015, we enrolled and treated 153 patients. As of the Oct 17, 2016, cutoff date, median follow-up was 17·0 months (IQR 14·8-18·8). 110 (72%) of 153 patients received all four pembrolizumab plus ipilimumab doses; 64 (42%) remained on pembrolizumab monotherapy. 110 grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 69 (45%) patients. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Treatment-related adverse events led to discontinuation of pembrolizumab and ipilimumab in 22 (14%) patients, including 17 (11%) who discontinued both treatments for the same event and five (3%) who discontinued ipilimumab for one event and later discontinued pembrolizumab for another. 12 (8%) patients discontinued ipilimumab only and 14 (9%) discontinued pembrolizumab only because of treatment-related adverse events. 158 immune-mediated adverse events of any grade occurred in 92 (60%) patients, and 50 immune-mediated adverse events of grade 3-4 occurred in 42 (27%) patients; the most common immune-mediated adverse events were hypothyroidism (25 [16%]) and hyperthyroidism (17 [11%]). 93 (61% [95% CI 53-69]) patients achieved an objective response. Estimated 1 year progression-free survival was 69% (95% CI 60-75), and estimated 1 year overall survival was 89% (95% CI 83-93). INTERPRETATION: Standard-dose pembrolizumab given in combination with four doses of reduced-dose ipilimumab followed by standard-dose pembrolizumab has a manageable toxicity profile and provides robust anti-tumour activity in patients with advanced melanoma. These data suggest that standard-dose pembrolizumab plus reduced-dose ipilimumab might be a tolerable, efficacious treatment option for patients with advanced melanoma. A randomised phase 2 trial of alternative dosing strategies of this combination is underway. FUNDING: Merck & Co, Inc.

Ipilimumab 10 mg/kg versus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma: a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: A phase 2 trial suggested increased overall survival and increased incidence of treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events with ipilimumab 10 mg/kg compared with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg in patients with advanced melanoma. We report a phase 3 trial comparing the benefit-risk profile of ipilimumab 10 mg/kg versus 3 mg/kg. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial was done in 87 centres in 21 countries worldwide. Patients with untreated or previously treated unresectable stage III or IV melanoma, without previous treatment with BRAF inhibitors or immune checkpoint inhibitors, were randomly assigned (1:1) with an interactive voice response system by the permuted block method using block size 4 to ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or 3 mg/kg, administered by intravenous infusion for 90 min every 3 weeks for four doses. Patients were stratified by metastasis stage, previous treatment for metastatic melanoma, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. The patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population and safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is completed and was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01515189. FINDINGS: Between Feb 29, and July 9, 2012, 727 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to ipilimumab 10 mg/kg (365 patients; 364 treated) or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (362 patients; all treated). Median follow-up was 14·5 months (IQR 4·6-42·3) for the ipilimumab 10 mg/kg group and 11·2 months (4·9-29·4) for the ipilimumab 3 mg/kg group. Median overall survival was 15·7 months (95% CI 11·6-17·8) for ipilimumab 10 mg/kg compared with 11·5 months (9·9-13·3) for ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (hazard ratio 0·84, 95% CI 0·70-0·99; p=0·04). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea (37 [10%] of 364 patients in the 10 mg/kg group vs 21 [6%] of 362 patients in the 3 mg/kg group), colitis (19 [5%] vs nine [2%]), increased alanine aminotransferase (12 [3%] vs two [1%]), and hypophysitis (ten [3%] vs seven [2%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 133 (37%) patients in the 10 mg/kg group and 66 (18%) patients in the 3 mg/kg group; four (1%) versus two (<1%) patients died from treatment-related adverse events. INTERPRETATION: In patients with advanced melanoma, ipilimumab 10 mg/kg resulted in significantly longer overall survival than did ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, but with increased treatment-related adverse events. Although the treatment landscape for advanced melanoma has changed since this study was initiated, the clinical use of ipilimumab in refractory patients with unmet medical needs could warrant further assessment. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Oxidized LDL activates blood platelets through CD36/NOX2-mediated inhibition of the cGMP/protein kinase G signaling cascade.

Oxidized low-density lipoprotein (oxLDL) promotes unregulated platelet activation in dyslipidemic disorders. Although oxLDL stimulates activatory signaling, it is unclear how these events drive accelerated thrombosis. Here, we describe a mechanism for oxLDL-mediated platelet hyperactivity that requires generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). Under arterial flow, oxLDL triggered sustained generation of platelet intracellular ROS, which was blocked by CD36 inhibitors, mimicked by CD36-specific oxidized phospholipids, and ablated in CD36(-/-) murine platelets. oxLDL-induced ROS generation was blocked by the reduced NAD phosphate oxidase 2 (NOX2) inhibitor, gp91ds-tat, and absent in NOX2(-/-) mice. The synthesis of ROS by oxLDL/CD36 required Src-family kinases and protein kinase C (PKC)-dependent phosphorylation and activation of NOX2. In functional assays, oxLDL abolished guanosine 3',5'-cyclic monophosphate (cGMP)-mediated signaling and inhibited platelet aggregation and arrest under flow. This was prevented by either pharmacologic inhibition of NOX2 in human platelets or genetic ablation of NOX2 in murine platelets. Platelets from hyperlipidemic mice were also found to have a diminished sensitivity to cGMP when tested ex vivo, a phenotype that was corrected by infusion of gp91ds-tat into the mice. This study demonstrates that oxLDL and hyperlipidemia stimulate the generation of NOX2-derived ROS through a CD36-PKC pathway and may promote platelet hyperactivity through modulation of cGMP signaling.

Programmed death ligand 1 expression in triple-negative breast cancer is associated with tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes and improved outcome.

AIMS: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients generally have a poor outcome; there is a pressing need to identify more effective therapeutic strategies. Clinical trials targeting programmed death 1/programmed death ligand 1 (PD1/PDL1) in melanoma and non-small-cell lung cancer have reported high response rates, and tumoral PDL1 expression has been suggested as a potential biomarker to enrich for patient response to these treatments. There are only very limited data to date reporting the expression of PDL1 in TNBC. METHODS AND RESULTS: PDL1 immunohistochemistry was performed on 161 primary TNBCs and assessed in the tumour as well as immune cells in the stromal compartment. PDL1 expression was very common in TNBC, expressed in the tumour cell membrane (64%), cytoplasm (80%) and stromal (93%) cellular compartments. Cytoplasmic tumoral expression of PDL1 was associated with a lower risk of breast cancer-specific death [hazard ratio (HR) 0.45, P = 0.035] while stromal PDL1 expression was associated with a lower rate of deaths from all causes (HR 0.305, P = 0.0042). Membranous expression of PDL1 was not associated with outcome. While both PDL1 expression and tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes were associated with a better outcome, only lymphovascular invasion and high tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes were independently prognostic for breast cancer-specific death. CONCLUSION: While PDL1 expression is frequent in TNBC, it was not independently prognostic. There were differences in outcome depending on the cellular compartment of PDL1 expression. These data provide further impetus for investigating the utility of immune checkpoint therapies in TNBC, given the clinical significance of tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and PDL1 expression in this cohort.

Characterization of lipid metabolism in a novel immortalized human hepatocyte cell line.

The development of hepatocyte cell models that represent fatty acid partitioning within the human liver would be beneficial for the study of the development and progression of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). We sought to develop and characterize a novel human liver cell line (LIV0APOLY) to establish a model of lipid accumulation using a physiological mixture of fatty acids under low- and high-glucose conditions. LIV0APOLY cells were compared with a well-established cell line (HepG2) and, where possible, primary human hepatocytes. LIV0APOLY cells were found to proliferate and express some mature liver markers and were wild type for the PNPLA3 (rs738409) gene, whereas HepG2 cells carried the Ile(148)Met variant that is positively associated with liver fat content. Intracellular triglyceride content was higher in HepG2 than in LIV0APOLY cells; exposure to high glucose and/or exogenous fatty acids increased intracellular triglyceride in both cell lines. Triglyceride concentrations in media were higher from LIV0APOLY compared with HepG2 cells. Culturing LIV0APOLY cells in high glucose increased a marker of endoplasmic reticulum stress and attenuated insulin-stimulated Akt phosphorylation whereas low glucose and exogenous fatty acids increased AMPK phosphorylation. Although LIV0APOLY cells and primary hepatocytes stored similar amounts of exogenous fatty acids as triglyceride, more exogenous fatty acids were partitioned toward oxidation in the LIV0APOLY cells than in primary hepatocytes. LIV0APOLY cells offer the potential to be a renewable cellular model for studying the effects of exogenous metabolic substrates on fatty acid partitioning; however, their usefulness as a model of lipoprotein metabolism needs to be further explored.

Equivocal ALK fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH) cases may benefit from ancillary ALK FISH probe testing.

AIMS: Accurate assessment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene rearrangement in non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) is critical to identify patients who are likely to respond to crizotinib. The aim of this study was to evaluate the ALK/EML4 TriCheck FISH probe in a series of NSCLCs enriched for tumours with equivocal ALK status. METHODS AND RESULTS: ALK FISH was prospectively performed on 45 NSCLCs with the ALK/EML4 TriCheck probe (ZytoVision) and the Vysis ALK break-apart probe (Abbott Molecular). ALK immunohistochemistry was performed with 5A4 and D5F3 antibodies. Fourteen cases had equivocal ALK status, based on borderline or focal FISH positivity, an atypical FISH pattern, or discrepancy between ALK FISH and immunohistochemistry. Four of the 14 equivocal cases showed discordance between the two FISH probes. All other cases were concordant. The TriCheck probe showed that, of 31 unequivocal cases, 15 were ALK-rearranged, and 60% of these had EML4 as the translocation partner. Within the group of 14 equivocal cases, 12 showed rearrangement with the Tricheck probe; only one of these showed EML4 rearrangement. Of the six equivocal cases that received crizotinib, four showed clinical benefit. CONCLUSIONS: The ALK/EML4 TriCheck FISH probe may be useful for the detection of ALK rearrangements, especially in borderline or atypical cases, where an additional unique ALK FISH probe may provide further confirmation of rearrangement.

Ipilimumab-induced toxicities and the gastroenterologist.

Ipilimumab has been shown to improve overall survival in patients with advanced melanoma. Ipilimumab acts through immune-modulation, and is recognized to cause potentially severe immune-related adverse events (irAEs) including dermatitis, colitis, thyroiditis, hypophysitis, and hepatitis. The acceptance of ipilimumab as a treatment for metastatic melanoma means patients will continue to be treated with this agent and gastroenterologists will be increasingly called upon to assist in managing severe autoimmune-related hepatitis and colitis. To date, the recommendations for managing irAEs secondary to ipilimumab have been steroids at a moderate dose of prednisolone (1 mg/kg) as well as immunosuppressive agents such as mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) for steroid-refractory hepatitis and infliximab in the management of corticosteroid-refractory colitis. However, the dosing and the duration of immunosuppressive therapy have not been systematically studied in the setting of treating ipilimumab-induced irAEs. Therefore, additional immune-modifying agents and/or a change in dosing may be required to manage severe irAEs unresponsive to existing treatment recommendations. We describe a treatment paradigm illustrated by a series of five patients who experienced irAEs. In three cases of metastatic melanoma, ipilimumab-induced hepatitis was successfully treated with high-dose parenteral pulsed methylprednisolone. In two other melanoma patients with ipilimumab-induced colitis, one patient had satisfactory resolution of his colitis with high-dose corticosteroid therapy alone and the other patient required infliximab infusion. We have reviewed the current literature and management algorithms for ipilimumab-induced irAEs. Treatment options and the rationale for their use are discussed, including the use of pulsed high-dose steroids, MMF, azathioprine and calcineurin inhibitors.