A Cancer Cell Program Promotes T Cell Exclusion and Resistance to Checkpoint Blockade.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) produce durable responses in some melanoma patients, but many patients derive no clinical benefit, and the molecular underpinnings of such resistance remain elusive. Here, we leveraged single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) from 33 melanoma tumors and computational analyses to interrogate malignant cell states that promote immune evasion. We identified a resistance program expressed by malignant cells that is associated with T cell exclusion and immune evasion. The program is expressed prior to immunotherapy, characterizes cold niches in situ, and predicts clinical responses to anti-PD-1 therapy in an independent cohort of 112 melanoma patients. CDK4/6-inhibition represses this program in individual malignant cells, induces senescence, and reduces melanoma tumor outgrowth in mouse models in vivo when given in combination with immunotherapy. Our study provides a high-resolution landscape of ICI-resistant cell states, identifies clinically predictive signatures, and suggests new therapeutic strategies to overcome immunotherapy resistance.

Neoadjuvant-Adjuvant or Adjuvant-Only Pembrolizumab in Advanced Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Whether pembrolizumab given both before surgery (neoadjuvant therapy) and after surgery (adjuvant therapy), as compared with pembrolizumab given as adjuvant therapy alone, would increase event-free survival among patients with resectable stage III or IV melanoma is unknown. METHODS: In a phase 2 trial, we randomly assigned patients with clinically detectable, measurable stage IIIB to IVC melanoma that was amenable to surgical resection to three doses of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab, surgery, and 15 doses of adjuvant pembrolizumab (neoadjuvant-adjuvant group) or to surgery followed by pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for a total of 18 doses) for approximately 1 year or until disease recurred or unacceptable toxic effects developed (adjuvant-only group). The primary end point was event-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Events were defined as disease progression or toxic effects that precluded surgery; the inability to resect all gross disease; disease progression, surgical complications, or toxic effects of treatment that precluded the initiation of adjuvant therapy within 84 days after surgery; recurrence of melanoma after surgery; or death from any cause. Safety was also evaluated. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 14.7 months, the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group (154 patients) had significantly longer event-free survival than the adjuvant-only group (159 patients) (P = 0.004 by the log-rank test). In a landmark analysis, event-free survival at 2 years was 72% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64 to 80) in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 49% (95% CI, 41 to 59) in the adjuvant-only group. The percentage of patients with treatment-related adverse events of grades 3 or higher during therapy was 12% in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 14% in the adjuvant-only group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with resectable stage III or IV melanoma, event-free survival was significantly longer among those who received pembrolizumab both before and after surgery than among those who received adjuvant pembrolizumab alone. No new toxic effects were identified. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and Merck Sharp and Dohme; S1801 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03698019.).

Individualised neoantigen therapy mRNA-4157 (V940) plus pembrolizumab versus pembrolizumab monotherapy in resected melanoma (KEYNOTE-942): a randomised, phase 2b study.

BACKGROUND: Checkpoint inhibitors are standard adjuvant treatment for stage IIB-IV resected melanoma, but many patients recur. Our study aimed to evaluate whether mRNA-4157 (V940), a novel mRNA-based individualised neoantigen therapy, combined with pembrolizumab, improved recurrence-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival versus pembrolizumab monotherapy in resected high-risk melanoma. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised, phase 2b, adjuvant study of mRNA-4157 plus pembrolizumab versus pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients, enrolled from sites in the USA and Australia, with completely resected high-risk cutaneous melanoma. Patients with completely resected melanoma (stage IIIB-IV) were assigned 2:1 to receive open-label mRNA-4157 plus pembrolizumab or pembrolizumab monotherapy. mRNA-4157 was administered intramuscularly (maximum nine doses) and pembrolizumab intravenously (maximum 18 doses) in 3-week cycles. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This ongoing trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03897881. FINDINGS: From July 18, 2019, to Sept 30, 2021, 157 patients were assigned to mRNA-4157 plus pembrolizumab combination therapy (n=107) or pembrolizumab monotherapy (n=50); median follow-up was 23 months and 24 months, respectively. Recurrence-free survival was longer with combination versus monotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] for recurrence or death, 0·561 [95% CI 0·309-1·017]; two-sided p=0·053), with lower recurrence or death event rate (24 [22%] of 107 vs 20 [40%] of 50); 18-month recurrence-free survival was 79% (95% CI 69·0-85·6) versus 62% (46·9-74·3). Most treatment-related adverse events were grade 1-2. Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 25% of patients in the combination group and 18% of patients in the monotherapy group, with no mRNA-4157-related grade 4-5 events. Immune-mediated adverse event frequency was similar for the combination (37 [36%]) and monotherapy (18 [36%]) groups. INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant mRNA-4157 plus pembrolizumab prolonged recurrence-free survival versus pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with resected high-risk melanoma and showed a manageable safety profile. These results provide evidence that an mRNA-based individualised neoantigen therapy might be beneficial in the adjuvant setting. FUNDING: Moderna in collaboration with Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Rahway, NJ, USA.

Ziv-aflibercept plus pembrolizumab in patients with advanced melanoma resistant to anti-PD-1 treatment.

BACKGROUND: Vascular endothelial growth factor is associated with reduced immune response and impaired anti-tumor activity. Combining antiangiogenic agents with immune checkpoint inhibition can overcome this immune suppression and enhance treatment efficacy. METHODS: This study investigated the combination of ziv-aflibercept anti-angiogenic therapy with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced melanoma resistant to anti-PD-1 treatment. Baseline and on-treatment plasma and PBMC samples were analyzed by multiplex protein assay and mass cytometry, respectively. RESULTS: In this Phase 1B study (NCT02298959), ten patients with advanced PD-1-resistant melanoma were treated with a combination of ziv-aflibercept (at 2-4 mg/kg) plus pembrolizumab (at 2 mg/kg), administered intravenously every 2 weeks. Two patients (20%) achieved a partial response, and two patients (20%) experienced stable disease (SD) as the best response. The two responders had mucosal melanoma, while both patients with SD had ocular melanoma. The combination therapy demonstrated clinical activity and acceptable safety, despite the occurrence of adverse events. Changes in plasma analytes such as platelet-derived growth factor and PD-L1 were explored, indicating potential alterations in myeloid cell function. Higher levels of circulating CXCL10 in non-responding patients may reflect pro-tumor activity. Specific subsets of γδ T cells were associated with poor clinical outcomes, suggesting impaired γδ T-cell function in non-responding patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although limited by sample size and follow-up, these findings highlight the potential of the combination of ziv-aflibercept antiangiogenic therapy with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced melanoma resistant to anti-PD-1 treatment and the need for further research to improve outcomes in anti-PD-1-resistant melanoma. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02298959.

Corrigendum: An immunogenic personal neoantigen vaccine for patients with melanoma.

This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/nature22991.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor gastritis is often associated with concomitant enterocolitis, which impacts the clinical course.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal immune-related adverse events are frequently caused by immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and often require interruption of cancer treatment. Compared with ICI colitis and enteritis, limited information exists about ICI gastritis. This study characterized clinical features and treatment outcomes of ICI gastritis. METHODS: Consecutive cancer patients who received ICIs and underwent endoscopy with gastric biopsies while on ICIs from 2011 to 2021 were retrospectively assessed. Specific histopathologic features identified ICI gastritis. RESULTS: Of 6450 ICI-treated patients, 162 (2.5%) underwent endoscopy with gastric biopsies. ICI gastritis was identified in 54 (33%) biopsied patients; 38 (70%) had concurrent ICI enteritis/colitis and 16 (30%) had isolated ICI gastritis. Dyspepsia (38%) and bloating (25%) were the most frequent symptoms of isolated ICI gastritis. Compared with patients with concomitant enteritis/colitis, patients with isolated gastritis were less likely to have diarrhea (13% vs 68%; p < .001) or abdominal pain (19% vs 47%; p = .07). Patients with isolated ICI gastritis less frequently required glucocorticoids (69% vs 92%; p = .04) and had lower incidence of ICI hold/withdrawal (13% vs 42%; p = .06). There was no association between severity or extent of luminal inflammation and antitumor response (p = .85 and p = .44, respectively). Endoscopically, gastric mucosa appeared normal in 11 (20%) patients with biopsy-proven ICI gastritis. CONCLUSION: ICI gastritis may present alone or more commonly with concurrent enteritis/colitis, which may differentiate its clinical course. Gastric biopsies are required to diagnose a substantial minority of endoscopically normal, clinically significant cases. Most patients with isolated gastritis can continue ICI therapy uninterrupted, but a notable proportion require glucocorticoids. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Immune checkpoint inhibitors are effective anticancer treatments, but can cause inflammatory toxicities, including of the stomach (gastritis), intestine, and colon. Limited information is available on gastritis triggered by these agents. Adult patients with cancer who were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors and had an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with biopsies of the stomach were examined. More than two-thirds (70%) of people with checkpoint inhibitor gastritis also had inflammatory changes of the small intestine and/or colon. Compared with patients with isolated checkpoint gastritis, the subgroup with concomitant enteritis/colitis more frequently had abdominal pain, diarrhea, needed steroids, and/or needed to pause or stop antitumor therapy.

Dose-escalation trial of combination dabrafenib, trametinib, and AT13387 in patients with BRAF-mutant solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Combination BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy is an active regimen in patients who have BRAF V600E-mutated tumors; however, the clinical efficacy of this therapy is limited by resistance. Preclinically, the addition of heat shock protein 90 (HSP90) inhibition improves the efficacy of BRAF inhibitor therapy in both BRAF inhibitor-sensitive and BRAF inhibitor-resistant mutant cell lines. METHODS: Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program study 9557 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02097225) is a phase 1 study that was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of the small-molecule HSP90 inhibitor, AT13387, in combination with dabrafenib and trametinib in BRAF V600E/K-mutant solid tumors. Correlative analyses evaluated the expression of HSP90 client proteins and chaperones. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients with metastatic, BRAF V600E-mutant solid tumors were enrolled using a 3 + 3 design at four dose levels, and 21 patients were evaluable for efficacy assessment. The most common tumor type was colorectal cancer (N = 12). Dose-limiting toxicities occurred in one patient at dose level 3 and in one patient at dose level 4; specifically, myelosuppression and fatigue, respectively. The maximum tolerated dose was oral dabafenib 150 mg twice daily, oral trametinib 2 mg once daily, and intravenous AT13387 260 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15. The best response was a partial response in two patients and stable disease in eight patients, with an overall response rate of 9.5% (90% exact confidence interval [CI], 2%-27%), a disease control rate of 47.6% (90% CI, 29%-67%), and a median overall survival of 5.1 months (90% CI, 3.4-7.6 months). There were no consistent proteomic changes associated with response or resistance, although responders did have reductions in BRAF expression, and epidermal growth factor receptor downregulation using HSP90 inhibition was observed in one patient who had colorectal cancer. CONCLUSIONS: HSP90 inhibition combined with BRAF/MEK inhibition was safe and produced evidence of modest disease control in a heavily pretreated population. Additional translational work may identify tumor types and resistance mechanisms that are most sensitive to this approach.

A phase I/II study of LY3022855 with BRAF/MEK inhibition in patients with Melanoma.

BRAF/MEK targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibition have dramatically improved disease control and survival of patients with advanced melanoma. However, most patients do not have durable benefit from either of these therapies. BRAF targeted therapy often has a limited duration of efficacy due to the development of resistance. Pre-clinical data suggest that one possible way to overcome resistance to BRAF/MEK targeted therapy may be the addition of CSF1R inhibition. In this phase I/II study we evaluated the safety and efficacy of LY3022855, an anti-colony stimulating factor-1 receptor (CSF-1R) monoclonal antibody in combination with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib and the MEK inhibitor cobimetinib in patients with BRAF V600E/K mutant metastatic melanoma. The trial was terminated early due to discontinuation of the development program for LY3022855 by the sponsor. Between August 2017 and May 2018 five pts were enrolled. Three patients experienced grade 3 events that were deemed possibly related to LY3022855. There were no grade 4 or grade 5 events related to LY3022855. One of the 5 patients had a complete response (CR), whereas the other 4 had progressive disease (PD). Median progression free survival was 3.9 months (90% CI: 1.9-37.2 mos). CSF1R inhibition with LY3022855 in combination with BRAF/MEK inhibition with vemurafenib and cobimetinib was difficult to tolerate in a small melanoma population. One response was observed in this small sample of patients suggesting this combination might be worthy of further exploration.

A phase I/II study of MCS110 with BRAF/MEK inhibition in patients with melanoma after progression on BRAF/MEK inhibition.

BACKGROUND: Prognosis for patients with metastatic melanoma has been improved dramatically with the development of BRAF/MEK directed therapy and immune checkpoint inhibition. However, resistance to therapy remains a challenge, particularly with BRAF/MEK targeted therapy which often has a limited duration of efficacy. Pre-clinical data suggest that adding CSF1 inhibition to BRAF/MEK targeted therapy may reduce resistance and increase efficacy. METHODS: We performed a phase I/II study to determine the safety and efficacy of CSF1 inhibition with MCS110 in combination with BRAF/MEK inhibition with dabrafenib/trametinib in patients with BRAF V600E/K mutant metastatic melanoma. The trial was terminated early due to a decision by the study sponsor to cease further development of MCS110. RESULTS: Between September 2018 to July 2019 six patients were enrolled on the study. Patients were evenly split between female (50%) and male (50%) with a median age of 59.5 yrs. (26-71). Five patients experienced grade 3 toxicities that were possibly related to one of the therapies, there were no grade 4 or grade 5 events. One patient had a partial response (PR) by RECIST 1.1, one patient had stable disease (SD), 3 patients had disease progression (PD). Median progression free survival was 2.3 months (90% CI: 1.3 mos to not reached). CONCLUSION: MCS110 in combination with dabrafenib and trametinib was reasonably well tolerated in a small melanoma population. One response was observed in this small sample of patients suggesting this combination might be worthy of further exploration.

An immunogenic personal neoantigen vaccine for patients with melanoma.

Effective anti-tumour immunity in humans has been associated with the presence of T cells directed at cancer neoantigens, a class of HLA-bound peptides that arise from tumour-specific mutations. They are highly immunogenic because they are not present in normal tissues and hence bypass central thymic tolerance. Although neoantigens were long-envisioned as optimal targets for an anti-tumour immune response, their systematic discovery and evaluation only became feasible with the recent availability of massively parallel sequencing for detection of all coding mutations within tumours, and of machine learning approaches to reliably predict those mutated peptides with high-affinity binding of autologous human leukocyte antigen (HLA) molecules. We hypothesized that vaccination with neoantigens can both expand pre-existing neoantigen-specific T-cell populations and induce a broader repertoire of new T-cell specificities in cancer patients, tipping the intra-tumoural balance in favour of enhanced tumour control. Here we demonstrate the feasibility, safety, and immunogenicity of a vaccine that targets up to 20 predicted personal tumour neoantigens. Vaccine-induced polyfunctional CD4+ and CD8+ T cells targeted 58 (60%) and 15 (16%) of the 97 unique neoantigens used across patients, respectively. These T cells discriminated mutated from wild-type antigens, and in some cases directly recognized autologous tumour. Of six vaccinated patients, four had no recurrence at 25 months after vaccination, while two with recurrent disease were subsequently treated with anti-PD-1 (anti-programmed cell death-1) therapy and experienced complete tumour regression, with expansion of the repertoire of neoantigen-specific T cells. These data provide a strong rationale for further development of this approach, alone and in combination with checkpoint blockade or other immunotherapies.

Cytokine changes during immune-related adverse events and corticosteroid treatment in melanoma patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) often cause immune-related adverse events (irAEs), most of which are treated with corticosteroids despite evidence suggesting that corticosteroids may blunt antitumor efficacy. We sought to identify cytokine changes that correlate with irAEs and study the impact of corticosteroid treatment on cytokine levels. METHODS: We analyzed expression of 34 cytokines in 52 melanoma patients who developed irAEs during therapy with ICIs. Luminex serum assay was performed at baseline, 1, 2, and 3 months after starting ICI. Baseline cytokine levels and longitudinal log2 fold-change was compared with incidence and grade of irAEs. Cytokine patterns were compared between patients based on development of irAEs and steroid treatment. RESULTS: There were no differences in baseline cytokine levels between patients who developed grade 1-2 irAEs (N = 28) vs. grade 3-4 irAEs (N = 24). Dermatitis patients (N = 8) had significantly higher baseline Ang-1 (p = 0.006) and CD40L (p = 0.005). Pneumonitis patients (N = 4) had significantly higher baseline IL-17 (p = 0.009). Colitis patients (N = 8) had a trend toward decreased GCSF (p = 0.08). Through Spearman's correlation analysis, patients who developed irAEs without receiving corticosteroids (N = 23) exhibited harmonization of cytokine fold-change, with 0/276 pairwise comparisons demonstrating significant divergence. In contrast, corticosteroid treatment in patients with irAEs (N = 15) altered fold-change to a discordant pattern (42/276 diverged, 15.2%). This discordant cytokine pattern in patients receiving corticosteroids is similar to the cytokine pattern in patients who did not develop irAEs (N = 8) during the longitudinal profiling period (41/276, 14.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Baseline levels of certain cytokines correlate with specific irAEs in melanoma patients receiving ICIs. irAEs drive a concordant pattern of cytokine fold-change, which is disrupted by corticosteroid treatment.

Vitamin D intake is associated with decreased risk of immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced colitis.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of predictive markers informing on the risk of colitis in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). The aim of this study was to identify potential factors associated with development of ICI colitis. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of melanoma patients at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute who received PD-1, CTLA-4, or combination ICIs between May 2011 to October 2017. Clinical and laboratory characteristics associated with pathologically confirmed ICI colitis were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression analyses. External confirmation was performed on an independent cohort from Massachusetts General Hospital. RESULTS: The discovery cohort included 213 patients of whom 37 developed ICI colitis (17%). Vitamin D use was recorded in 66/213 patients (31%) before starting ICIs. In multivariable regression analysis, vitamin D use conferred significantly reduced odds of developing ICI colitis (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.1-0.9). These results were also demonstrated in the confirmatory cohort (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.2-0.9) of 169 patients of whom 49 developed ICI colitis (29%). Pre-treatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) ≥5 predicted reduced odds of colitis (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.1-0.9) only in the discovery cohort. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to report that among patients treated with ICIs, vitamin D intake is associated with reduced risk for ICI colitis. This finding is consistent with prior reports of prophylactic use of vitamin D in ulcerative colitis and graft-versus-host-disease. This observation should be validated prospectively in future studies.

The Evolution of Adjuvant Therapy for Melanoma.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The past decade has been a time of remarkable advancement in the field of adjuvant therapy for patients with resected high-risk melanoma. Here, we review the data for adjuvant melanoma and raise questions about the best choice of therapy for an individual patient. RECENT FINDINGS: There have been several new adjuvant approvals including immunotherapy and targeted therapy approaches. Nivolumab is approved for patients with nodal involvement or metastatic disease after resection. Pembrolizumab is approved for patients with nodal involvement after resection. In addition, the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib is approved in patients' nodal involvement after resection whose tumors harbor BRAFV600E/K mutations. New therapeutic opportunities have provided promising options for patients with high-risk disease. These advances have significantly challenged the previous standard-of-care for this population of patients. Data is still forthcoming regarding durability of benefit and safety of these new treatments.

Sequential administration of nivolumab and ipilimumab with a planned switch in patients with advanced melanoma (CheckMate 064): an open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Concurrent administration of the immune checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and ipilimumab has shown greater efficacy than either agent alone in patients with advanced melanoma, albeit with more high-grade adverse events. We assessed whether sequential administration of nivolumab followed by ipilimumab, or the reverse sequence, could improve safety without compromising efficacy. METHODS: We did this randomised, open-label, phase 2 study at nine academic medical centres in the USA. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma (treatment-naive or who had progressed after no more than one previous systemic therapy, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1) were randomly assigned (1:1) to induction with intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks for six doses followed by a planned switch to intravenous ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, or the reverse sequence. Randomisation was done by an independent interactive voice response system with a permuted block schedule (block size four) without stratification factors. After induction, both groups received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was treatment-related grade 3-5 adverse events until the end of the induction period (week 25), analysed in the as-treated population. Secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients who achieved a response at week 25 and disease progression at weeks 13 and 25. Overall survival was a prespecified exploratory endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01783938, and is ongoing but no longer enrolling patients. FINDINGS: Between April 30, 2013, and July 21, 2014, 140 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to nivolumab followed by ipilimumab (n=70) or to the reverse sequence of ipilimumab followed by nivolumab (n=70), of whom 68 and 70 patients, respectively, received at least one dose of study drug and were included in the analyses. The frequencies of treatment-related grade 3-5 adverse events up to week 25 were similar in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group (34 [50%; 95% CI 37·6-62·4] of 68 patients) and in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group (30 [43%; 31·1-55·3] of 70 patients). The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events during the whole study period were colitis (ten [15%]) in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group vs 14 [20%] in the reverse sequence group), increased lipase (ten [15%] vs 12 [17%]), and diarrhoea (eight [12%] vs five [7%]). No treatment-related deaths occurred. The proportion of patients with a response at week 25 was higher with nivolumab followed by ipilimumab than with the reverse sequence (28 [41%; 95% CI 29·4-53·8] vs 14 [20%; 11·4-31·3]). Progression was reported in 26 (38%; 95% CI 26·7-50·8) patients in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group and 43 (61%; 49·0-72·8) patients in the reverse sequence group at week 13 and in 26 (38%; 26·7-50·8) and 42 (60%; 47·6-71·5) patients at week 25, respectively. After a median follow-up of 19·8 months (IQR 12·8-25·7), median overall survival was not reached in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group (95% CI 23·7-not reached), whereas over a median follow-up of 14·7 months (IQR 5·6-23·9) in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group, median overall survival was 16·9 months (95% CI 9·2-26·5; HR 0·48 [95% CI 0·29-0·80]). A higher proportion of patients in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group achieved 12-month overall survival than in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group (76%; 95% CI 64-85 vs 54%; 42-65). INTERPRETATION: Nivolumab followed by ipilimumab appears to be a more clinically beneficial option compared with the reverse sequence, albeit with a higher frequency of adverse events. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Rapid progression of intracranial melanoma metastases controlled with combined BRAF/MEK inhibition after discontinuation of therapy: a clinical challenge.

Novel systemic therapies with anti-tumor activity in the brain including small molecules targeting BRAF and MEK, and immune checkpoint inhibition, offer the possibility of improved control of intracranial disease. A number of prospective trials support the judicious use of modern systemic therapies in patients with melanoma and limited brain metastases .The intracranial clinical course of patients who progress extracranially on BRAF/MEK inhibition remains poorly described in the literature. In this report, we highlight a series of clinical cases, with rapid progression of intracranial disease following discontinuation of dabrafenib/trametinib for extracranial disease progression or toxicity, a previously unreported finding in the medical literature with significant implications for patient care.

Melanoma arising in a nevus of Ito: novel genetic mutations and a review of the literature on cutaneous malignant transformation of dermal melanocytosis.

Dermal melanocytosis refers to a spectrum of benign melanocytic proliferations that includes Mongolian spot, nevus of Ota and nevus of Ito. These lesions most commonly occur in persons of Asian or African descent and are often present at birth or develop during childhood. Very rarely, dermal melanocytoses undergo malignant transformation. There have been only 13 reports in the literature of primary cutaneous melanoma arising in dermal melanocytoses. We report a case of a Chinese woman with melanoma arising in a congenital nevus of Ito. We performed targeted next-generation sequencing of the tumor which revealed mutations of GNAQ and BAP1, suggesting that alterations in these two genes led to malignant transformation of the nevus of Ito. We also provide a summary of reports in the literature regarding primary cutaneous melanoma arising in the context of dermal melanocytosis.

Phase 2 study of sunitinib in patients with metastatic mucosal or acral melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Patients with mucosal and acral melanomas have limited treatment options and a poor prognosis. Mutations of the KIT oncogene in these melanoma subtypes provide a potential therapeutic target. METHODS: A multicenter phase 2 trial of sunitinib was conducted in patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma of a mucosal or acral primary origin. Patients were treated in 2 cohorts: cohort A received sunitinib at a dose of 50 mg daily for 4 weeks of a 6-week cycle, and cohort B received sunitinib at a dose of 37.5 mg daily on a continuous basis. Dose reductions were permitted for treatment-related toxicities, and tumor assessments were performed every 2 months. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients were enrolled: 21 in cohort A and 31 in cohort B. Four patients had confirmed partial responses, which lasted 5 to 10 months (1 with a KIT mutation). In both cohorts, the proportion of patients alive and progression-free at 2 months was 52% (95% confidence interval, 38%-66%); this was significantly larger than the hypothesized null of 5%. There was no significant difference in response or overall survival between the 25% of patients with a KIT mutation and those without one (response rate, 7.7% vs 9.7%; overall survival, 6.4 vs 8.6 months). The overall disease control rate was 44%, and a high rate of toxicity was associated with the treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Sunitinib showed activity in the treatment of mucosal and acral melanoma that was not dependent on the presence of a KIT mutation. However, the medication was poorly tolerated, and there were no prolonged responses. Cancer 2015;121:4007-4015. © 2015 American Cancer Society.

Is There a Current Role for Combination Chemotherapy or High-Dose Interleukin 2 in Melanoma?

ABSTRACT: Immune checkpoint inhibition and targeted therapies have revolutionized the treatment of melanoma. However, chemotherapy and interleukin 2 (IL-2) therapy may still have a role in the later-line treatment of patients who do not have durable responses to other treatments. Chemotherapy can work transiently in patients whose disease has progressed on immune checkpoint inhibitors and for whom there are no appropriate targeted therapy options. High-dose IL-2 therapy can still be effective for a very small number of patients following progression on other therapies. In addition, modified IL-2 agents and IL-2 in combination with tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte therapy may play a role in future treatments for melanoma.