Immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in Australia: a retrospective real world cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To review the outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment of advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) outside clinical trials. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective observational study; review of patient records in fifteen Australian institutions. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: All Australian adults with locally advanced or metastatic CSCC not amenable to curative surgery or radiotherapy treated with ICIs, 5 May 2017 - 23 May 2022, through a cemiplimab compassionate access scheme (Therapeutic Goods Administration Special Access Scheme) or who personally covered the cost of pembrolizumab prior to the start of the access scheme. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Best overall response rate (ORR) according to standardised assessment criteria using the hierarchy: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST 1.1), the modified World Health Organization clinical response criteria, and the Positron Emission Tomography Response Criteria (PERCIST 1.0); overall and progression-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 286 people with advanced CSCC received ICI therapy during May 2017 - May 2022 (cemiplimab, 270; pembrolizumab, 16). Their median age was 75.2 years (range, 39.3-97.5 years) and 232 were men (81%); median follow-up time was 12.2 months (interquartile range, 5.5-20.5 months). Eighty-eight people (31%) were immunocompromised, 27 had autoimmune disease, and 59 of 277 (21%) had ECOG performance scores of 2 or 3. The ORR was 60% (166 of 278 evaluable patients): complete responses were recorded for 74 (27%) and partial responses for 92 patients (33%). Twelve-month overall survival was 78% (95% confidence interval [CI], 72-83%); progression-free survival was 65% (95% CI, 58-70%). Poorer ECOG performance status was associated with poorer overall survival (per unit: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 3.0; 95% CI, 2.0-4.3) and progression-free survival (aHR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.8-3.3), as was being immunocompromised (overall: aHR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-3.0; progression-free: aHR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.7). Fifty-five people (19%) reported immune-related adverse events of grade 2 or higher; there were no treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSION: In our retrospective study, the effectiveness and toxicity of ICI therapy were similar to those determined in clinical trials. Our findings suggest that ICIs could be effective and well tolerated by people with advanced CSCC who are ineligible for clinical trials.

Genomic Profiling of Metastatic Basal cell Carcinoma Reveals Candidate Drivers of Disease and Therapeutic Targets.

Basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) are human beings' most common malignant tumors. Most are easily managed by surgery or topical therapies, and metastasis is rare. Although BCCs can become locally advanced, metastatic BCCs are very uncommon and may be biologically distinct. We assessed the clinicopathologic characteristics of 17 patients with metastatic BCC and pursued whole-exome sequencing of tumor and germline DNA from 8 patients. Genomic profiling revealed aberrant activation of Hedgehog signaling and alterations in GLI transcriptional regulators and Notch and Hippo signaling. Matched local recurrences of primary BCCs and metastases from 3 patients provided evidence of a clonal origin in all cases. Mutations associated with YAP inhibition were found exclusively in 2 hematogenously-spread lung metastases, and metastatic BCCs were enriched for mutations in the YAP/TAZ-binding domain of TEAD genes. Accordingly, YAP/TAZ nuclear localization was associated with metastatic types and Hippo mutations, suggesting an enhanced oncogenic role in hematogenously-spread metastases. Mutations in RET, HGF, and phosphatidylinositol 3­kinase (PI3K)/protein kinase B (AKT) signaling were enriched compared with a cohort of low clinical-risk BCCs. Our results implicate Hippo and PI3K/AKT dysregulation in metastatic progression of BCCs, making these potential therapeutic targets in metastatic disease. The common clonal origin of matched recurrent and metastatic BCCs suggests that molecular profiling can assist in determining the nature/origin of poorly differentiated metastatic tumors of uncertain type. Genes and pathways enriched for mutations in this cohort are candidate drivers of metastasis and can be used to identify patients at high risk of metastasis who may benefit from aggressive local treatment and careful clinical follow-up.

Metastatic primary breast neuroendocrine neoplasms: a case series.

BACKGROUND: Breast neuroendocrine neoplasms represent a rare subtype of breast cancer which have not been well studied or characterised, particularly in the metastatic setting. AIM: To present clinicopathological characteristics, treatment and outcomes of a series of patients with metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma of the breast and review the current literature. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review to identify and describe patients with metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma of the breast at our centre between 2011 and 2021. Medical records, pathology and imaging results were examined to evaluate the clinical and histopathological features as well as the treatment pathways and prognosis of these patients. RESULTS: We present a series of seven female patients with metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma of the breast, as defined by the World Health Organization classification, over a period of 10 years (2011-2021) from a single centre. Median age at diagnosis was 48 years (range 39-63). Six of seven tissue samples expressed synaptophysin and chromogranin and were also oestrogen and progesterone receptor positive; median Ki-67 index was 50% (range 20-90%). All seven patients had demonstrated avidity on 18 F-FDG PET imaging, and the six who underwent 68 Ga-DOTATATE PET all had significant avidity. Treatment modalities and sequencing varied, but all patients received chemotherapy during their disease course. Six patients received three or more lines of treatment. Median overall survival was 31.8 months (range 3.7-108.6). Median progression-free survival (PFS) with first-line therapy for metastatic disease was 5.8 months (range 1.8-37.8). CONCLUSIONS: This series shows the use of multiple modalities in treating this disease, with different sequencing in different patients. Despite multiple modalities used in the first-line setting, first-line PFS remains short. Larger series and further molecular characterisation are required to aid clinicians in managing this condition and to guide optimal treatment sequencing to improve outcomes in this rare patient group.

PD-1 Blockade with Cemiplimab in Advanced Cutaneous Squamous-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: No systemic therapies have been approved for the treatment of advanced cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma. This cancer may be responsive to immune therapy, because the mutation burden of the tumor is high and the disease risk is strongly associated with immunosuppression. In the dose-escalation portion of the phase 1 study of cemiplimab, a deep and durable response was observed in a patient with metastatic cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma. METHODS: We report the results of the phase 1 study of cemiplimab for expansion cohorts of patients with locally advanced or metastatic cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma, as well as the results of the pivotal phase 2 study for a cohort of patients with metastatic disease (metastatic-disease cohort). In both studies, the patients received an intravenous dose of cemiplimab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) every 2 weeks and were assessed for a response every 8 weeks. In the phase 2 study, the primary end point was the response rate, as assessed by independent central review. RESULTS: In the expansion cohorts of the phase 1 study, a response to cemiplimab was observed in 13 of 26 patients (50%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 30 to 70). In the metastatic-disease cohort of the phase 2 study, a response was observed in 28 of 59 patients (47%; 95% CI, 34 to 61). The median follow-up was 7.9 months in the metastatic-disease cohort of the phase 2 study. Among the 28 patients who had a response, the duration of response exceeded 6 months in 57%, and 82% continued to have a response and to receive cemiplimab at the time of data cutoff. Adverse events that occurred in at least 15% of the patients in the metastatic-disease cohort of the phase 2 study were diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, constipation, and rash; 7% of the patients discontinued treatment because of an adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma, cemiplimab induced a response in approximately half the patients and was associated with adverse events that usually occur with immune checkpoint inhibitors. (Funded by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02383212 and NCT02760498 .).

Cemiplimab in locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: results from an open-label, phase 2, single-arm trial.

BACKGROUND: Cemiplimab has shown substantial antitumour activity in patients with metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Patients with locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma have poor prognosis with conventional systemic therapy. We present a primary analysis of the safety and antitumour activity of cemiplimab in patients with locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. METHODS: This pivotal open-label, phase 2, single-arm trial was done across 25 outpatient clinics, primarily at academic medical centres, in Australia, Germany, and the USA. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years with histologically confirmed locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1) received cemiplimab 3 mg/kg intravenously over 30 min every 2 weeks for up to 96 weeks. Tumour measurements were done every 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was objective response, defined as the proportion of patients with complete or partial response, according to independent central review as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 for radiological scans and WHO criteria for medical photography. Data cutoff was Oct 10, 2018, when the fully enrolled cohort reached the prespecified timepoint for the primary analysis. Analyses were done as per the intention-to-treat principle. The safety analysis comprised all patients who received at least one dose of cemiplimab. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02760498. FINDINGS: Between June 14, 2016, and April 25, 2018, 78 patients were enrolled and treated with cemiplimab. The median duration of study follow-up was 9·3 months (IQR 5·1-15·7) at the time of data cutoff. An objective response was observed in 34 (44%; 95% CI 32-55) of 78 patients. The best overall response was ten (13%) patients with a complete response and 24 (31%) with a partial response. Grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 34 (44%) of 78 patients; the most common were hypertension in six (8%) patients and pneumonia in four (5%). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 23 (29%) of 78 patients. One treatment-related death was reported that occurred after onset of aspiration pneumonia. INTERPRETATION: Cemiplimab showed antitumour activity and an acceptable safety profile in patients with locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma for whom there was no widely accepted standard of care. FUNDING: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi.

Neoadjuvant dabrafenib combined with trametinib for resectable, stage IIIB-C, BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma (NeoCombi): a single-arm, open-label, single-centre, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib therapy improves relapse-free survival in patients with resected stage III melanoma. We aimed to ascertain the proportion of patients who would have a pathological response and a response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) after neoadjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib therapy for resectable clinical stage III melanoma. METHODS: NeoCombi was a single-arm, open-label, single-centre, phase 2 study done at Melanoma Institute Australia (Sydney, NSW, Australia). Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed, resectable, RECIST-measurable, clinical stage IIIB-C (American Joint Committee on Cancer [AJCC] 7th edition), BRAFV600-mutant melanoma, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or lower. Patients received 150 mg dabrafenib orally, twice daily, plus 2 mg trametinib orally, once daily, for 52 weeks (12 weeks of neoadjuvant therapy before complete resection of the pre-therapy tumour bed, and 40 weeks of adjuvant therapy thereafter). CT and PET scans were done at baseline and before resection. The primary outcomes were the proportion of patients achieving a complete pathological response and the proportion of patients achieving a response according to RECIST at week 12, analysed as per protocol. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01972347, and follow-up of patients is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Aug 20, 2014, and April 19, 2017, 40 patients were screened, of whom 35 eligible patients were enrolled, received neoadjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib, and underwent resection. At the data cutoff (Sept 24, 2018), median follow-up was 27 months (IQR 21-36). At resection, 30 (86%) patients achieved a RECIST response; 16 (46%; 95% CI 29-63) had a complete response and 14 (40%; 24-58) had a partial response. Five patients (14%; 95% CI 5-30) had stable disease, and no patients progressed. After resection and pathological evaluation, all 35 patients achieved a pathological response, of whom 17 (49%; 95% CI 31-66) patients had a complete pathological response and 18 (51%; 95% CI 34-69) had a non-complete pathological response. Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in six (17%) of 35 patients and grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in ten (29%) patients. No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Neoadjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib therapy could be considered in the management of RECIST-measurable resectable stage III melanoma as it led to a high proportion of patients achieving a complete response according to RECIST and a high proportion of patients achieving a complete pathological response, with no progression during neoadjuvant therapy. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline; Novartis; National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia; and Melanoma Institute Australia.

Identification of the optimal combination dosing schedule of neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab in macroscopic stage III melanoma (OpACIN-neo): a multicentre, phase 2, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The outcome of patients with macroscopic stage III melanoma is poor. Neoadjuvant treatment with ipilimumab plus nivolumab at the standard dosing schedule induced pathological responses in a high proportion of patients in two small independent early-phase trials, and no patients with a pathological response have relapsed after a median follow up of 32 months. However, toxicity of the standard ipilimumab plus nivolumab dosing schedule was high, preventing its broader clinical use. The aim of the OpACIN-neo trial was to identify a dosing schedule of ipilimumab plus nivolumab that is less toxic but equally effective. METHODS: OpACIN-neo is a multicentre, open-label, phase 2, randomised, controlled trial. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years, had a WHO performance status of 0-1, had resectable stage III melanoma involving lymph nodes only, and measurable disease according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Patients were enrolled from three medical centres in Australia, Sweden, and the Netherlands, and were randomly assigned (1:1:1), stratified by site, to one of three neoadjuvant dosing schedules: group A, two cycles of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg plus nivolumab 1 mg/kg once every 3 weeks intravenously; group B, two cycles of ipilimumab 1 mg/kg plus nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks intravenously; or group C, two cycles of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks directly followed by two cycles of nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks intravenously. The investigators, site staff, and patients were aware of the treatment assignment during the study participation. Pathologists were masked to treatment allocation and all other data. The primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with grade 3-4 immune-related toxicity within the first 12 weeks and the proportion of patients achieving a radiological objective response and pathological response at 6 weeks. Analyses were done in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02977052, and is ongoing with an additional extension cohort and to complete survival analysis. FINDINGS: Between Nov 24, 2016 and June 28, 2018, 105 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 89 (85%) eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to one of the three groups. Three patients were excluded after randomisation because they were found to be ineligible, and 86 received at least one dose of study drug; 30 patients in group A, 30 in group B, and 26 in group C (accrual to this group was closed early upon advice of the Data Safety Monitoring Board on June 4, 2018 because of severe adverse events). Within the first 12 weeks, grade 3-4 immune-related adverse events were observed in 12 (40%) of 30 patients in group A, six (20%) of 30 in group B, and 13 (50%) of 26 in group C. The difference in grade 3-4 toxicity between group B and A was -20% (95% CI -46 to 6; p=0·158) and between group C and group A was 10% (-20 to 40; p=0·591). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were elevated liver enzymes in group A (six [20%)]) and colitis in group C (five [19%]); in group B, none of the grade 3-4 adverse events were seen in more than one patient. One patient (in group A) died 9·5 months after the start of treatment due to the consequences of late-onset immune-related encephalitis, which was possibly treatment-related. 19 (63% [95% CI 44-80]) of 30 patients in group A, 17 (57% [37-75]) of 30 in group B, and nine (35% [17-56]) of 26 in group C achieved a radiological objective response, while pathological responses occurred in 24 (80% [61-92]) patients in group A, 23 (77% [58-90]) in group B, and 17 (65% [44-83]) in group C. INTERPRETATION: OpACIN-neo identified a tolerable neoadjuvant dosing schedule (group B: two cycles of ipilimumab 1 mg/kg plus nivolumab 3 mg/kg) that induces a pathological response in a high proportion of patients and might be suitable for broader clinical use. When more mature data confirm these early observations, this schedule should be tested in randomised phase 3 studies versus adjuvant therapies, which are the current standard-of-care systemic therapy for patients with stage III melanoma. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Validation of the 8th edition UICC/AJCC TNM staging system for HPV associated oropharyngeal cancer patients managed with contemporary chemo-radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: To compare outcomes of high-risk human papilloma virus-related oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (HPV OPSCC) treated with modern radiation treatment (RT) and daily image-guidance, staged with the 7th versus the 8th Edition (Ed) Union for International Cancer Control (UICC)/American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) TNM staging systems. METHODS: All eligible patients with HPV OPSCC treated definitively over a 10-year period (2007-2016) at a single institution were included. Protocols consisting of either RT or chemo-radiation (CRT) (weekly cisplatin or cetuximab) +/- neoadjuvant chemotherapy for those with bulky disease were used. All patients were Fluorine-18-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) staged at baseline and at intervals for up to 2 years post-treatment. Patients received parotid-sparing intensity modulated or volumetric modulated arc therapy with simultaneous integrated boost to either 70Gy in 35 fractions or 66Gy in 30 fractions. The overall survival (OS) was determined for each stage using the 7th Ed and subsequently with the updated 8th Ed staging system. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-three patients were analysed. Patient stage groupings varied between the 7th and 8th Eds respectively; Stage I (0.7% vs 64.7%), Stage II (8.5% vs 22.2%), stage III (21.6% vs 12.4%) and stage IV (69.3% vs 0.7%). In the 7th Ed, the 5 year probability of OS for stages I to III was 90%, versus stage IV 85.5%. There was no statistically significant difference between the staging groups (p = 0.85). In the 8th Ed there was a statistically significant difference in 5 year OS for stage I and stage II disease (96.9% vs 77.1% respectively; p < 0.0001), but not between stage II and III disease (p = 0.98). CONCLUSIONS: The new 8th Ed UICC/AJCC TNM staging system better discriminates between stage I and Stage II HPV OPSCC with respect to OS compared with the 7th Ed staging system. Further investigation is required for stage III or IV patients.

Characteristics and outcomes of oncology unit patients requiring admission to an Australian intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced malignancies have historically been considered poor candidates for admission to the intensive care unit (ICU); however, prognosis is continually improving, and requirements for ICU access are increasing. AIM: To understand the characteristics and outcomes of oncology unit patients admitted to an Australian ICU and identify potential prognostic factors. METHODS: A single-centre, retrospective, cohort study conducted at a tertiary public hospital with a quaternary ICU in Sydney, Australia. All patients admitted under the medical oncology team requiring ICU admission between June 2014 and June 2016 were evaluated. Clinical outcomes were determined including mortality, ICU requirements (ventilation, dialysis, vasopressors, infection) and prognostic scores (Acute Physiologic and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score). RESULTS: There were 96 patients with mean age 61 years, 58% were male and 76% had metastatic disease. Most were receiving palliative treatment (89%), with recent chemotherapy (43%), immunotherapy (10%) and other therapies (5%). Of the 10 patients with recent immunotherapy, three (all with melanoma) required ICU admission due to immunotoxicity; 13% were admitted due to an oncological emergency. Mean APACHE II score was 17 (standard deviation (SD) 5.33), mean SOFA score was 3.99 (SD 2.70), ICU mortality was 5% and hospital mortality was 22%. Using multivariate logistic regression analysis, cancer stage, infection during ICU admission, intracranial mass effect on ICU admission and SOFA score were associated with 30-day mortality. CONCLUSION: Our patient population had good short-term survival outcomes despite most receiving palliative treatment. Cancer patients can achieve positive outcomes after ICU admission, and appropriate selection of patients is crucial.

Adjuvant vemurafenib in resected, BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma (BRIM8): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Systemic adjuvant treatment might mitigate the high risk of disease recurrence in patients with resected stage IIC-III melanoma. The BRIM8 study evaluated adjuvant vemurafenib monotherapy in patients with resected, BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma. METHODS: BRIM8 was a phase 3, international, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study that enrolled 498 adults (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed stage IIC-IIIA-IIIB (cohort 1) or stage IIIC (cohort 2) BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma that was fully resected. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive voice or web response system to receive twice-daily adjuvant oral vemurafenib 960 mg tablets or matching placebo for 52 weeks (13 × 28-day cycles). Randomisation was done by permuted blocks (block size 6) and was stratified by pathological stage and region in cohort 1 and by region in cohort 2. The investigators, patients, and sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, evaluated separately in each cohort. Hierarchical analysis of cohort 2 before cohort 1 was prespecified. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01667419. FINDINGS: The study enrolled 184 patients in cohort 2 (93 were assigned to vemurafenib and 91 to placebo) and 314 patients in cohort 1 (157 were assigned to vemurafenib and 157 to placebo). At the time of data cutoff (April 17, 2017), median study follow-up was 33·5 months (IQR 25·9-41·6) in cohort 2 and 30·8 months (25·5-40·7) in cohort 1. In cohort 2 (patients with stage IIIC disease), median disease-free survival was 23·1 months (95% CI 18·6-26·5) in the vemurafenib group versus 15·4 months (11·1-35·9) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·80, 95% CI 0·54-1·18; log-rank p=0·26). In cohort 1 (patients with stage IIC-IIIA-IIIB disease) median disease-free survival was not reached (95% CI not estimable) in the vemurafenib group versus 36·9 months (21·4-not estimable) in the placebo group (HR 0·54 [95% CI 0·37-0·78]; log-rank p=0·0010); however, the result was not significant because of the prespecified hierarchical prerequisite for the primary disease-free survival analysis of cohort 2 to show a significant disease-free survival benefit. Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 141 (57%) of 247 patients in the vemurafenib group and 37 (15%) of 247 patients in the placebo group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in the vemurafenib group were keratoacanthoma (24 [10%] of 247 patients), arthralgia (17 [7%]), squamous cell carcinoma (17 [7%]), rash (14 [6%]), and elevated alanine aminotransferase (14 [6%]), although all keratoacanthoma events and most squamous cell carcinoma events were by default graded as grade 3. In the placebo group, grade 3-4 adverse events did not exceed 2% for any of the reported terms. Serious adverse events were reported in 40 (16%) of 247 patients in the vemurafenib group and 25 (10%) of 247 patients in the placebo group. The most common serious adverse event was basal cell carcinoma, which was reported in eight (3%) patients in each group. One patient in the vemurafenib group of cohort 2 died 2 months after admission to hospital for grade 3 hypertension; however, this death was not considered to be related to the study drug. INTERPRETATION: The primary endpoint of disease-free survival was not met in cohort 2, and therefore the analysis of cohort 1 showing a numerical benefit in disease-free survival with vemurafenib versus placebo in patients with resected stage IIC-IIIA-IIIB BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma must be considered exploratory only. 1 year of adjuvant vemurafenib was well tolerated, but might not be an optimal treatment regimen in this patient population. FUNDING: F Hoffman-La Roche Ltd.

Combination nivolumab and ipilimumab or nivolumab alone in melanoma brain metastases: a multicentre randomised phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab monotherapy and combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab increase proportions of patients achieving a response and survival versus ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma; however, efficacy in active brain metastases is unknown. We aimed to establish the efficacy and safety of nivolumab alone or in combination with ipilimumab in patients with active melanoma brain metastases. METHODS: This multicentre open-label randomised phase 2 trial was done at four sites in Australia, in three cohorts of immunotherapy-naive patients aged 18 years or older with melanoma brain metastases. Patients with asymptomatic brain metastases with no previous local brain therapy were randomly assigned using the biased coin minimisation method, stratified by site, in a 30:24 ratio (after a safety run-in of six patients) to cohort A (nivolumab plus ipilimumab) or cohort B (nivolumab). Patients with brain metastases in whom local therapy had failed, or who had neurological symptoms, or leptomeningeal disease were enrolled in non-randomised cohort C (nivolumab). Patients in cohort A received intravenous nivolumab 1 mg/kg combined with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, then nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks; patients in cohort B or cohort C received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was intracranial response from week 12. Primary and safety analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis in all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02374242, and is ongoing for the final survival analysis. FINDINGS: Between Nov 4, 2014, and April 21, 2017, 79 patients were enrolled; 36 in cohort A, 27 in cohort B, and 16 in cohort C. One patient in cohort A and two in cohort B were found to be ineligible and excluded from the study before receiving the study drug. At the data cutoff (Aug 28, 2017), with a median follow up of 17 months (IQR 8-25), intracranial responses were achieved by 16 (46%; 95% CI 29-63) of 35 patients in cohort A, five (20%; 7-41) of 25 in cohort B, and one (6%; 0-30) of 16 in cohort C. Intracranial complete responses occurred in six (17%) patients in cohort A, three (12%) in cohort B, and none in cohort C. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 34 (97%) of 35 patients in cohort A, 17 (68%) of 25 in cohort B, and eight (50%) of 16 in cohort C. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 19 (54%) patients in cohort A, four (16%) in cohort B, and two (13%) in cohort C. No treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Nivolumab combined with ipilimumab and nivolumab monotherapy are active in melanoma brain metastases. A high proportion of patients achieved an intracranial response with the combination. Thus, nivolumab combined with ipilimumab should be considered as a first-line therapy for patients with asymptomatic untreated brain metastases. FUNDING: Melanoma Institute Australia and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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.

The 12-month analysis from Basal Cell Carcinoma Outcomes with LDE225 Treatment (BOLT): A phase II, randomized, double-blind study of sonidegib in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The hedgehog pathway inhibitor sonidegib demonstrated meaningful tumor shrinkage in more than 90% of patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma (BCC) or metastatic BCC in the BCC Outcomes with LDE225 Treatment study. OBJECTIVE: This report provides long-term follow-up data collected up to 12 months after the last patient was randomized. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind phase II study, patients were randomized 1:2 to sonidegib 200 or 800 mg. The primary end point was objective response rate assessed by central review. RESULTS: Objective response rates in the 200- and 800-mg arms were 57.6% and 43.8% in locally advanced BCC and 7.7% and 17.4% in metastatic BCC, respectively. Among the 94 patients with locally advanced BCC who responded, only 18 progressed or died and more than 50% had responses lasting longer than 6 months. In addition, 4 of 5 responders with metastatic BCC maintained an objective response. Grade 3/4 adverse events and those leading to discontinuation were less frequent with sonidegib 200 versus 800 mg (38.0% vs 59.3%; 27.8% vs 37.3%, respectively). LIMITATIONS: No placebo or comparator arms were used because sonidegib demonstrated efficacy in advanced BCC in a phase I study, and the hedgehog pathway inhibitor vismodegib was not yet approved. CONCLUSION: With longer follow-up, sonidegib demonstrated sustained tumor responses in patients with advanced BCC.

Treatment with two different doses of sonidegib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic basal cell carcinoma (BOLT): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma have limited treatment options. Hedgehog pathway signalling is aberrantly activated in around 95% of tumours. We assessed the antitumour activity of sonidegib, a Hedgehog signalling inhibitor, in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma. METHODS: BOLT is an ongoing multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 2 trial. Eligible patients had locally advanced basal cell carcinoma not amenable to curative surgery or radiation or metastatic basal cell carcinoma. Patients were randomised via an automated system in a 1:2 ratio to receive 200 mg or 800 mg oral sonidegib daily, stratified by disease, histological subtype, and geographical region. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response, assessed in the primary efficacy analysis population (patients with fully assessable locally advanced disease and all those with metastatic disease) with data collected up to 6 months after randomisation of the last patient. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01327053. FINDINGS: Between July 20, 2011, and Jan 10, 2013, we enrolled 230 patients, 79 in the 200 mg sonidegib group, and 151 in the 800 mg sonidegib group. Median follow-up was 13·9 months (IQR 10·1-17·3). In the primary efficacy analysis population, 20 (36%, 95% CI 24-50) of 55 patients receiving 200 mg sonidegib and 39 (34%, 25-43) of 116 receiving 800 mg sonidegib achieved an objective response. In the 200 mg sonidegib group, 18 (43%, 95% CI 28-59) patients who achieved an objective response, as assessed by central review, were noted among the 42 with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma and two (15%, 2-45) among the 13 with metastatic disease. In the 800 mg group, 35 (38%, 95% CI 28-48) of 93 patients with locally advanced disease had an objective response, as assessed by central review, as did four (17%, 5-39) of 23 with metastatic disease. Fewer adverse events leading to dose interruptions or reductions (25 [32%] of 79 patients vs 90 [60%] of 150) or treatment discontinuation (17 [22%] vs 54 [36%]) occurred in patients in the 200 mg group than in the 800 mg group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were raised creatine kinase (five [6%] in the 200 mg group vs 19 [13%] in the 800 mg group) and lipase concentration (four [5%] vs eight [5%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 11 (14%) of 79 patients in the 200 mg group and 45 (30%) of 150 patients in the 800 mg group. INTERPRETATION: The benefit-to-risk profile of 200 mg sonidegib might offer a new treatment option for patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma, a population that is difficult to treat. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

The nature and management of metastatic melanoma after progression on BRAF inhibitors: effects of extended BRAF inhibition.

BACKGROUND: The v-raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B (BRAF) inhibitor (BRAFi) drugs dabrafenib and vemurafenib have high response rates in BRAF-mutant, metastatic melanoma; however, 50% of patients progress by 7 months. In this study, the authors examined the nature and management of disease progression (PD) on BRAFi treatment, including characteristics and outcomes of patients who received continued BRAFi treatment beyond disease progression (TBP). METHODS: Clinicopathologic data at baseline and at the time of PD were collected for all patients with BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma who received BRAFi monotherapy within clinical trials between July 2009 and September 2012. Management and survival after PD were examined, including continued BRAFi TBP (> 28 days beyond Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor [RECIST]-defined PD). RESULTS: Ninety-five of 114 BRAFi-treated patients had PD. Fifty-three of those 95 patients (56%) progressed in extracranial sites alone, 18% (17 of 95 patients) progressed in intracranial and extracranial sites simultaneously, and 16% (15 of 95 patients) progressed in intracranial sites alone. Twenty-nine of the 95 patients (31%) who had PD progressed in a single site or organ, 48% (46 of 95 patients) progressed in existing metastases only, and 18% (17 of 95 patients) had new metastases alone. At the time of PD, 35 of 95 patients (37%) received no subsequent systemic treatment, 20% (19 of 95 patients) changed systemic treatments, and 39% (37 of 95 patients) continued BRAFi TBP for a median of 97 days. BRAFi TBP and known prognostic factors (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, lactate dehydrogenase, RECIST sum of the greatest dimensions of target lesions) were associated with overall survival (OS) from the time of PD; however, in multivariable analysis, BRAFi TBP improved OS (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.93; P = .029). CONCLUSIONS: Most BRAFi-treated patients progressed in existing extracranial sites, and 31% progressed in isolated sites. Compared with cessation, continued BRAFi TBP is associated with prolonged OS even after adjusting for potential prognostic factors at PD.

Intra-arterial infusion and chemo-embolization for melanoma liver metastases.

This article will review the rationale for hepatic arterial administration of agents to treat melanoma liver metastases, the techniques and practical considerations pertinent to hepatic arterial therapy, the variety of agents that have been used and the reported outcomes. Recent and emerging developments will be highlighted and the potential role of liver-directed therapies in the context of molecular advances and improved systemic therapy will be discussed.

An elusive prostate tumour: Metastatic microcystic cribriform carcinoma presenting with imaging-histologic discordance.

Microcystic adenocarcinoma is an uncommon histologic variant of prostate carcinoma. Despite its rarity, it has gained increasing recognition over the past decade for its diagnostic challenges and unclear prognostic significance. Herein, we describe a rare case of metastatic microcystic prostate adenocarcinoma, presenting with discordance between imaging and histologic findings. This report highlights the diagnostic and therapeutic challenges of this pathological entity and the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration in the management of intermediate-risk prostate cancer.