Triplet combination of BRAF, MEK and PD-1/PD-L1 blockade in melanoma: the more the better?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Patients with advanced or metastatic v-raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1 (BRAF)-mutated melanoma can be treated with a BRAF inhibitor in combination with a MAPK/ERK kinase (MEK) inhibitor, achieving high but short-lived response rates. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), in contrast, give lower response rates but more durable responses. Preclinical and translational data indicate that combining BRAF and MEK inhibitors with ICI could exceed the limitations of each class and potentially lead to longer lasting responses. RECENT FINDINGS: Vemurafenib, dabrafenib and encorafenib are designed to block mutated forms of BRAF, which cause abnormal signalling inside cancer cells leading to tumour growth. Trametinib, binimetinib and cobimetinib are designed to target and inhibit MEK1/2, proteins in a cell signalling pathway that help cell growth and survival. Pembrolizumab, nivolumab, durvalumab and atezolizumab are ICIs which can inhibit the pathway of programmed death-1/ programmed death-ligand-1 proteins, allowing tumours to avoid detection by the immune system. SUMMARY: Treating patients with targeted therapy would allow the release of antigens from tumour cells, which could be more easily acknowledged by the immune system. Efficacy can also be increased by combining ICIs with the aim of maintaining a longer response. The possibility to administer three drugs in combination, would allow to induce tumour regression and produce an immune response with a synergistic effect.

Immunotherapy in metastatic melanoma: a novel scenario of new toxicities and their management.

Checkpoint inhibitors can cause an imbalance in immune tolerance that may clinically manifest as immune-related adverse events (irAEs). These events may involve many organs and tissues, including the skin, gastrointestinal (GI) tract, liver, endocrine system, kidneys, central nervous system (CNS), eyes and lungs. The incidence of irAEs appears to be lower with anti-programmed death antigen-1/programmed death antigen-ligand-1 agents than with the anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein-4 antibody ipilimumab. Combined immunotherapy does not appear to be associated with novel safety signals compared with monotherapy, but more organs may be involved. Increased experience and the use of algorithms for the most common irAEs have resulted in severe toxicity and related deaths being reduced. However, continuous vigilance, especially regarding less common events, is needed to better characterize the wide spectrum of clinical manifestations.

Early fatigue in cancer patients receiving PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors: an insight from clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Fatigue was reported as the most common any-grade adverse event (18.3%), and the most common grade 3 or higher immune-related adverse event (irAE) (0.89%) in patients receiving PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors in clinical trial. METHODS: The aim of this retrospective multicenter study was to evaluate the correlations between "early ir-fatigue", "delayed ir-fatigue", and clinical outcomes in cancer patients receiving PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in clinical practice. RESULTS: 517 patients were evaluated. After the 12-weeks landmark selection, 386 (74.7%) patients were eligible for the clinical outcomes analysis. 40.4% were NSCLC, 42.2% were melanoma, 15.3% renal cell carcinoma and 2.1% other malignancies. 76 patients (19.7%) experienced early ir-fatigue (within 1 month from treatment commencement), while 150 patients (38.9%) experienced delayed ir-fatigue. Early ir-fatigue was significantly related to shortened PFS (HR = 2.29 [95% CI 1.62-3.22], p < 0.0001) and OS (HR = 2.32 [95% CI 1.59-3.38], p < 0.0001) at the multivariate analysis. On the other hand, we found a significant association between the occurrence of early ir-fatigue, ECOG-PS ≥ 2 (p < 0.0001), and disease burden (p = 0.0003). Delayed ir-fatigue was not significantly related to PFS nor OS. CONCLUSIONS: Early ir-fatigue seems to be negative prognostic parameter, but to proper weight its role we must to consider the predominant role of performance status, which was related to early ir-fatigue in the study population.

Prognostic role of disease extent and lymphocyte-monocyte ratio in advanced melanoma.

Advanced melanoma (AM) represents the leading cause of death from skin cancer. To date, the crucial role of the immune system in AM pathogenesis and progression is well known, but the prognostic value of clinicopathological characteristics remains unclear. Lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) is an ascertained prognostic indicator and previous data showed that AM patients treated with BRAF and MEK inhibitors with normal LDH values and fewer than three metastatic sites achieved a better outcome. Moreover, the neutrophil-to-lymphocytes ratio and the lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR) have been suggested as other potential prognostic factors. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of LMR together with other clinical biomarkers in patients with AM. We retrospectively analyzed 162 consecutive patients with AM treated between January 2010 and March 2016. Outcome was measured in terms of overall survival (OS). In our cohort, the BRAF mutation was present in 74 (46%) patients. Overall, 42 and 26% of the patients received targeted therapy and immunotherapy, respectively. After 48 months of follow-up, 129 (78%) patients died; the median OS was 12.8 months. High LMR was associated with the following clinicopathological characteristics: absence of central nervous system localization (P = 0.011), fewer than three metastatic sites (P = 0.014), and normal LDH (P = 0.006). In multivariate analysis, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status >1 [hazard ratio (HR) 7.87, P = 0.001], high LDH (HR 2.76, P = 0.006), and high LMR (HR 0.76, P = 0.033) were associated significantly with OS. In conclusion, LMR seems to be associated with OS. Further prospective investigations are needed to confirm these data and introduce peripheral blood cell count in daily clinical use.

New Frontiers in the Pathobiology and Treatment of Cancer Regimen-Related Mucosal Injury.

Mucositis is a common complication of chemotherapy, radiotherapy and targeted agents. It often affects compliance to anticancer therapies as it frequently causes schedule delays, interruptions or discontinuations of treatment. Moreover, the economic impact related to the management of mucositis is topical and several estimations of additional hospital costs due to this clinical condition have been recently reported. The ability to determine risk factors for mucositis, to early detect its onset, to assess correctly the degree of this toxicity and to plan its multidisciplinary management are all key elements to guarantee the quality of life of patients and to avoid useless dose reduction or interruption of treatment. The pathogenesis of mucositis is multifactorial and it is classily subdivided into oral and gastrointestinal mucositis according to its anatomic presentation. Treatment and patients' related factors might help in predicting the frequency and the potential degree of symptoms onset. Here we discuss about clinical presentation and pathogenesis of mucositis in relation to different kinds of treatments. Moreover, we focus on therapeutic and prevention strategies, describing past and present management according to international guidelines and the most promising new data about agents potentially able to further improve the treatment of mucositis in the next future.

Axitinib after Sunitinib in Metastatic Renal Cancer: Preliminary Results from Italian "Real-World" SAX Study.

Axitinib is an oral angiogenesis inhibitor, currently approved for treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) after failure of prior treatment with Sunitinib or cytokine. The present study is an Italian Multi-Institutional Retrospective Analysis that evaluated the outcomes of Axitinib, in second-line treatment of mRCC. The medical records of 62 patients treated with Axitinib, were retrospectively reviewed. The Progression Free Survival (PFS), the Overall Survival (OS), the Objective Response Rate (ORR), the Disease Control Rate (DCR), and the safety profile of axitinib and sunitinib-axitinib sequence, were the primary endpoint. The mPFS was 5.83 months (95% CI 3.93-7.73 months). When patients was stratified by Heng score, mPFS was 5.73, 5.83, 10.03 months according to poor, intermediate, and favorable risk group, respectively. The mOS from the start of axitinib was 13.3 months (95% CI 8.6-17.9 months); the observed ORR and DCR were 25 and 71%, respectively. When stratified patients by subgroups defined by duration of prior therapy with Sunitinib (≤ vs. >median duration), there was a statistically significant difference in mPFS with 8.9 (95% CI 4.39-13.40 months) vs. 5.46 months (95% CI 4.04-6.88 months) for patients with a median duration of Sunitinib >13.2 months. DCR and ORR to previous Sunitinib treatment was associated with longer statistically mPFS, 7.23 (95% CI 3.95-10.51 months, p = 0.01) and 8.67 (95% CI 4.0-13.33 months, p = 0.008) vs. 2.97 (95% CI 0.65-5.27 months, p = 0.01) and 2.97 months (95% CI 0.66-5.28 months, p = 0.01), respectively. Overall Axitinib at standard schedule of 5 mg bid, was well-tolerated. The most common adverse events of all grades were fatig (25.6%), hypertension (22.6%), gastro-intestinal disorders (25.9%), and hypothyroidism (16.1%). The sequence Sunitinib-Axitinib was well-tolerated without worsening in side effects, with a median OS of 34.7 months (95% CI 18.4-51.0 months). Our results are consistent with the available literature; this retrospective analysis confirms that Axitinib is effective and safe in routine clinical practice.