Curing Stage IV Melanoma: Where Have We Been and Where Are We?

Little more than 10 years ago, metastatic melanoma was considered to have one of the poorest cancer outcomes, associated with a median overall survival of 6-8 months. Cytotoxic chemotherapy offered modest response rates of 20%-30%, but no clear survival benefit. Patients were routinely enrolled in clinical trials as their first-line therapy in the search for effective novel therapeutics. Remarkable developments in molecular biology, cancer genomics, immunology, and drug discovery have dominated the early part of the 21st century, and nowhere have the benefits been better realized than in the transformation of outcomes for patients with metastatic melanoma: since 2011, 14 new agents have been approved that significantly increase survival, with long-term remissions and, possibly now, potential for cure. Even so, there is still much work to be done, given that most treated patients still die of their disease. Although most survival gains have so far been realized for cutaneous melanoma, improving treatment options for those 10% of patients with rarer, noncutaneous melanomas is a high priority. Key novel therapeutic approaches aimed at improving outcomes with potential for curing patients with melanoma are considered.

A three-arm randomised phase II study of the MEK inhibitor selumetinib alone or in combination with paclitaxel in metastatic uveal melanoma.

AIMS: The MAPK pathway is constitutively activated in uveal melanoma (UM). Selumetinib (AZD6244, ARRY-142886), a MEK inhibitor, has shown limited activity as monotherapy in metastatic UM. Pre-clinical studies support synergistic cytotoxic activity for MEK inhibitors combined with taxanes, and here we sought to assess the clinical efficacy of combining selumetinib and paclitaxel. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-seven patients with metastatic UM who had not received prior chemotherapy were randomised to selumetinib alone, or combined with paclitaxel with or without interruption in selumetinib two days before paclitaxel. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). After amendment, the combination arms were combined for analysis and the sample size adjusted to detect a hazard ratio (HR): 0.55, 80% power at 1-sided 5% significance level. RESULTS: The median PFS in the combination arms was 4.8 months (95% CI: 3.8 - 5.6) compared with 3.4 months (2.0 - 3.9) in the selumetinib arm (HR 0.62 [90% CI 0.41 - 0.92], 1-sided p-value = 0.022). ORR was 14% and 4% in the combination and monotherapy arms respectively. Median OS was 9 months for the combination and was not significantly different from selumetinib alone (10 months) with HR of 0.98 [90% CI 0.58 - 1.66], 1-sided p-value = 0.469. Toxicity was in keeping with the known profiles of the agents involved. CONCLUSIONS: SelPac met its primary endpoint, demonstrating an improvement in PFS for combination selumetinib and paclitaxel. No improvement in OS was observed, and the modest improvement in PFS is not practice changing.

Nilotinib in KIT-driven advanced melanoma: Results from the phase II single-arm NICAM trial.

Mucosal (MM) and acral melanomas (AM) are rare melanoma subtypes of unmet clinical need; 15%-20% harbor KIT mutations potentially targeted by small-molecule inhibitors, but none yet approved in melanoma. This multicenter, single-arm Phase II trial (NICAM) investigates nilotinib safety and activity in KIT mutated metastatic MM and AM. KIT mutations are identified in 39/219 screened patients (18%); of 29/39 treated, 26 are evaluable for primary analysis. Six patients were alive and progression free at 6 months (local radiology review, 25%); 5/26 (19%) had objective response at 12 weeks; median OS was 7.7 months; ddPCR assay correctly identifies KIT alterations in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in 16/17 patients. Nilotinib is active in KIT-mutant AM and MM, comparable to other KIT inhibitors, with demonstrable activity in nonhotspot KIT mutations, supporting broadening of KIT evaluation in AM and MM. Our results endorse further investigations of nilotinib for the treatment of KIT-mutated melanoma. This clinical trial was registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN39058880) and EudraCT (2009-012945-49).

A randomised phase 2 study of intermittent versus continuous dosing of dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAFV600 mutant advanced melanoma (INTERIM).

BACKGROUND: BRAF+MEK inhibitors extend life expectancy of patients with BRAFV600 mutant advanced melanoma. Acquired resistance limits duration of benefit, but preclinical and case studies suggest intermittent dosing could overcome this limitation. INTERIM was a phase 2 trial evaluating an intermittent dosing regimen. METHODS: Patients with BRAFV600 mutant advanced melanoma due to start dabrafenib+trametinib were randomised to receive either continuous (CONT), or intermittent (INT; dabrafenib d1-21, trametinib d1-14 every 28 days) dosing. A composite primary endpoint included progression-free survival (PFS) and quality of life (QoL). Secondary endpoints included response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs). Mutant BRAFV600E ctDNA was measured by droplet digital PCR (ddPCR), using mutant allele frequency of > 1 % as the detection threshold. RESULTS: 79 patients (39 INT, 40 CONT) were recruited; median age 67 years, 65 % AJCC (7th ed) stage IV M1c, 29 % had brain metastases. With 19 months median follow-up, INT was inferior in all efficacy measures: median PFS 8.5 vs 10.7mo (HR 1.39, 95 %CI 0.79-2.45, p = 0.255); median OS 18.1mo vs not reached (HR 1.69, 95 %CI 0.87-3.28, p = 0.121), ORR 57 % vs 77 %. INT patients experienced fewer treatment-related AEs (76 % vs 88 %), but more grade > 3 AEs (53 % vs 42 %). QoL favoured CONT. Detection of BRAFV600E ctDNA prior to treatment correlated with worse OS (HR 2.55, 95 %CI 1.25-5.21, p = 0.01) in both arms. A change to undetected during treatment did not significantly predict better OS. CONCLUSION: INTERIM findings are consistent with other recent clinical trials reporting that intermittent dosing does not improve efficacy of BRAF+MEK inhibitors.

Comparison of three-weekly and six-weekly pembrolizumab United Kingdom prescribing practice for advanced and resected melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab is approved for the treatment of advanced and resected melanoma and was originally licensed as a three-weekly infusion (Q3W). In April 2019, a six-weekly infusion schedule (Q6W) was also approved. We retrospectively reviewed pembrolizumab prescribing for patients with melanoma across multiple United Kingdom (UK) centres to compare the safety and efficacy of Q6W with Q3W in real-world clinical practice. METHODS: Case notes for melanoma patients treated with pembrolizumab between April 2019 and August 2020 at eight UK centres were reviewed. Prespecified baseline characteristics of the Q3W and Q6W cohorts were compared, as well as toxicity and efficacy outcomes. Prescribers were surveyed about their prescribing practice. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-seven patients were included: 116 commenced Q3W and 161 commenced Q6W pembrolizumab. The proportion of Q6W prescriptions varied by the centre (range 32-88%). Patient factors associated with an increased likelihood of receiving Q3W over Q6W were preexisting autoimmune comorbidity (odds ratio [OR] 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.12-0.82) and treatment for advanced (versus resected) disease (OR 0.54; 95%CI 0.33-0.90). Toxicity outcomes were broadly similar for Q6W and Q3W: 14.9% versus 15.5% ≥ grade 3 Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Estimated 12-month recurrence-free survival for adjuvantly treated patients was 78.9% for Q6W and 74.2% for Q3W (hazard ratio [HR] 0.93; 95%CI 0.50-1.73). Estimated 12-month progression-free survival for advanced patients was 41.8% for Q6W and 55.9% for Q3W (HR 1.21, 95%CI 0.67-2.18). CONCLUSIONS: Q6W is an appropriate option for administering pembrolizumab, given the opportunity to reduce the health service resource burden.

First-Line, Fixed-Duration Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Followed by Nivolumab in Clinically Diverse Patient Populations With Unresectable Stage III or IV Melanoma: CheckMate 401.

PURPOSE: To address the paucity of data in patients with historically poor outcomes, we conducted the single-arm phase IIIb CheckMate 401 study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab monotherapy in clinically diverse patient populations with advanced melanoma. METHODS: Treatment-naive patients with unresectable stage III-IV melanoma received nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks (four doses) followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg (240 mg following a protocol amendment) once every 2 weeks for ≤24 months. The primary end point was the incidence of grade 3-5 select treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Overall survival (OS) was a secondary end point. Outcomes were evaluated in subgroups defined by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS), brain metastasis status, and melanoma subtype. RESULTS: In total, 533 patients received at least one dose of study drug. Grade 3-5 select TRAEs affecting the GI (16%), hepatic (15%), endocrine (11%), skin (7%), renal (2%), and pulmonary (1%) systems occurred in the all-treated population; similar incidence rates were observed across all subgroups. At 21.6 months' median follow-up, 24-month OS rates were 63% in the all-treated population, 44% in the ECOG PS 2 subgroup (including patients with cutaneous melanoma only), 71% in the brain metastasis subgroup, 36% in the ocular/uveal melanoma subgroup, and 38% in the mucosal melanoma subgroup. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab monotherapy was tolerable in patients with advanced melanoma and poor prognostic characteristics. Efficacy was similar between the all-treated population and patients with brain metastases. Reduced efficacy was observed in patients with ECOG PS 2, ocular/uveal melanoma, and/or mucosal melanoma, highlighting the continued need for novel treatment options for these difficult-to-treat patients.

A first census of skin cancer specialist nurses across UK secondary care trusts.

BACKGROUND: Skin cancer specialist nurses (SCSNs) support patients and work alongside healthcare professionals throughout the care pathway. Skin cancer management is rapidly evolving, with increasing and more complex treatment options now available, so the need for patient support is growing. While SCSNs are a major source of that support, the provision of SCSN resource across the UK has never previously been assessed. We therefore undertook a first SCSN census on 1st June 2021. METHODS: An electronic survey was disseminated to UK hospital trusts and registered skin cancer healthcare professionals. Responses were identifiable only by the respective trust name. RESULTS: 112 responses from 87 different secondary care trusts were received; 92% of trusts reporting having at least 1 established SCSN post. Average SCSN staffing per trust was 2.4 (range 0-7) whole time equivalents, managing an average caseload of 83 (range 6-400) patients per week. SCSN workload had increased in 82% hospitals in the previous year and 30% of trusts reported being under-resourced. Most SCSN time was spent managing melanoma (as opposed to non-melanoma skin cancer) patients linked to surgical services. Regional variations existed, particularly associated with provision of lymphoedema services, nurse prescribing skills and patient access to clinical trials. The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a marked increase in SCSN-led telemedicine clinics, but loss of training and education opportunities. CONCLUSIONS: SCSNs based in secondary care hospitals play a major role supporting both clinicians and patients throughout the care pathway. This first UK census confirmed that SCSN workload is increasing and in one third of hospital trusts, the work was reported to outstrip the staffing available to manage the volume of work. Regional variations in SCSN resource, workload and job role, as well as availability of certain skin cancer services were identified, providing valuable information to healthcare commissioners concerned with service improvement.

Phase 1 study of the pan-RAF inhibitor tovorafenib in patients with advanced solid tumors followed by dose expansion in patients with metastatic melanoma.

PURPOSE: Genomic alterations of BRAF and NRAS are oncogenic drivers in malignant melanoma and other solid tumors. Tovorafenib is an investigational, oral, selective, CNS-penetrant, small molecule, type II pan­RAF inhibitor. This first-in-human phase 1 study explored the safety and antitumor activity of tovorafenib. METHODS: This two-part study in adult patients with relapsed or refractory advanced solid tumors included a dose escalation phase and a dose expansion phase including molecularly defined cohorts of patients with melanoma. Primary objectives were to evaluate the safety of tovorafenib administered once every other day (Q2D) or once weekly (QW), and to determine the maximum-tolerated and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) on these schedules. Secondary objectives included evaluation of antitumor activity and tovorafenib pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: Tovorafenib was administered to 149 patients (Q2D n = 110, QW n = 39). The RP2D of tovorafenib was defined as 200 mg Q2D or 600 mg QW. In the dose expansion phase, 58 (73%) of 80 patients in Q2D cohorts and 9 (47%) of 19 in the QW cohort had grade ≥ 3 adverse events. The most common of these overall were anemia (14 patients, 14%) and maculo-papular rash (8 patients, 8%). Responses were seen in 10 (15%) of 68 evaluable patients in the Q2D expansion phase, including in 8 of 16 (50%) patients with BRAF mutation-positive melanoma naïve to RAF and MEK inhibitors. In the QW dose expansion phase, there were no responses in 17 evaluable patients with NRAS mutation-positive melanoma naïve to RAF and MEK inhibitors; 9 patients (53%) had a best response of stable disease. QW dose administration was associated with minimal accumulation of tovorafenib in systemic circulation in the dose range of 400-800 mg. CONCLUSIONS: The safety profile of both schedules was acceptable, with QW dosing at the RP2D of 600 mg QW preferred for future clinical studies. Antitumor activity of tovorafenib in BRAF-mutated melanoma was promising and justifies continued clinical development across multiple settings. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01425008.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic upon pancreatic cancer treatment (CONTACT Study): a UK national observational cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: CONTACT is a national multidisciplinary study assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic upon diagnostic and treatment pathways among patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). METHODS: The treatment of consecutive patients with newly diagnosed PDAC from a pre-COVID-19 pandemic cohort (07/01/2019-03/03/2019) were compared to a cohort diagnosed during the first wave of the UK pandemic ('COVID' cohort, 16/03/2020-10/05/2020), with 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: Among 984 patients (pre-COVID: n = 483, COVID: n = 501), the COVID cohort was less likely to receive staging investigations other than CT scanning (29.5% vs. 37.2%, p = 0.010). Among patients treated with curative intent, there was a reduction in the proportion of patients recommended surgery (54.5% vs. 76.6%, p = 0.001) and increase in the proportion recommended upfront chemotherapy (45.5% vs. 23.4%, p = 0.002). Among patients on a non-curative pathway, fewer patients were recommended (47.4% vs. 57.3%, p = 0.004) or received palliative anti-cancer therapy (20.5% vs. 26.5%, p = 0.045). Ultimately, fewer patients in the COVID cohort underwent surgical resection (6.4% vs. 9.3%, p = 0.036), whilst more patients received no anti-cancer treatment (69.3% vs. 59.2% p = 0.009). Despite these differences, there was no difference in median overall survival between the COVID and pre-COVID cohorts, (3.5 (IQR 2.8-4.1) vs. 4.4 (IQR 3.6-5.2) months, p = 0.093). CONCLUSION: Pathways for patients with PDAC were significantly disrupted during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, with fewer patients receiving standard treatments. However, no significant impact on survival was discerned.

Clinical and biological markers predictive of treatment response associated with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) offers limited benefits, but survival outcomes vary. Reliable predictive response biomarkers to guide patient management are lacking. METHODS: Patient performance status, tumour burden (determined by the presence or absence of liver metastases), plasma protein biomarkers (CA19-9, albumin, C-reactive protein and neutrophils) and circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) were assessed in 146 patients with metastatic PDAC prior to starting either concomitant or sequential nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine chemotherapy in the SIEGE randomised prospective clinical trial, as well as during the first 8 weeks of treatment. Correlations were made with objective response, death within 1 year and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Initial poor patient performance status, presence of liver metastases and detectable mutKRAS ctDNA all correlated with worse OS after adjusting for the different biomarkers of interest. Objective response at 8 weeks also correlated with OS (P = 0.026). Plasma biomarkers measured during treatment and prior to the first response assessment identified ≥10% decrease in albumin at 4 weeks predicted for worse OS (HR 4.75, 95% CI 1.43-16.94, P = 0.012), while any association of longitudinal evaluation of mutKRAS ctDNA with OS was unclear (ß = 0.024, P = 0.057). CONCLUSIONS: Readily measurable patient variables can aid the prediction of outcomes from combination chemotherapy used to treat metastatic PDAC. The role of mutKRAS ctDNA as a tool to guide treatment warrants further exploration. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN71070888; ClinialTrials.gov (NCT03529175).

Circulating galectin-1 delineates response to bevacizumab in melanoma patients and reprograms endothelial cell biology.

Blockade of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling with bevacizumab, a humanized anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody (mAb), or with receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors, has improved progression-free survival and, in some indications, overall survival across several types of cancers by interrupting tumor angiogenesis. However, the clinical benefit conferred by these therapies is variable, and tumors from treated patients eventually reinitiate growth. Previously we demonstrated, in mouse tumor models, that galectin-1 (Gal1), an endogenous glycan-binding protein, preserves angiogenesis in anti-VEGF-resistant tumors by co-opting the VEGF receptor (VEGFR)2 signaling pathway in the absence of VEGF. However, the relevance of these findings in clinical settings is uncertain. Here, we explored, in a cohort of melanoma patients from AVAST-M, a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled phase 3 trial of adjuvant bevacizumab versus standard surveillance, the role of circulating plasma Gal1 as part of a compensatory mechanism that orchestrates endothelial cell programs in bevacizumab-treated melanoma patients. We found that increasing Gal1 levels over time in patients in the bevacizumab arm, but not in the observation arm, significantly increased their risks of recurrence and death. Remarkably, plasma Gal1 was functionally active as it was able to reprogram endothelial cell biology, promoting migration, tubulogenesis, and VEGFR2 phosphorylation. These effects were prevented by blockade of Gal1 using a newly developed fully human anti-Gal1 neutralizing mAb. Thus, using samples from a large-scale clinical trial from stage II and III melanoma patients, we validated the clinical relevance of Gal1 as a potential mechanism of resistance to bevacizumab treatment.

WNT5A-ROR2 axis mediates VEGF dependence of BRAF mutant melanoma.

PURPOSE: Despite recent advances, approximately 50% of patient with metastatic melanoma eventually succumb to the disease. Patients with melanomas harboring a BRAF mutation (BRAFMut) have a worse prognosis than those with wildtype (BRAFWT) tumors. Unexpectedly, interim AVAST-M Phase III trial data reported benefit from adjuvant anti-VEGF bevacizumab only in the BRAFMut group. We sought to find mechanisms underpinning this sensitivity. METHODS: We investigated this finding in vitro and in vivo using melanoma cell lines and clones generated by BRAFV600E knock-in on a BRAFWT background. RESULTS: Compared with BRAFWT cells, isogenic BRAFV600E clones secreted more VEGF and exhibited accelerated growth rates as spheroids and xenografts, which were more vascular and proliferative. Recapitulating AVAST-M findings, bevacizumab affected only BRAFV600E xenografts, inducing significant tumor growth delay, reduced vascularity and increased necrosis. We identified 814 differentially expressed genes in isogenic BRAFV600E/BRAFWT clones. Of 61 genes concordantly deregulated in clinical melanomas ROR2 was one of the most upregulated by BRAFV600E. ROR2 was shown to be RAF-MEK regulated in BRAFV600E cells and its depletion suppressed VEGF secretion down to BRAFWT levels. The ROR2 ligand WNT5A was also overexpressed in BRAFMut melanomas, and in ROR2-overexpressing BRAFV600E cells MEK inhibition downregulated WNT5A and VEGF secretion. CONCLUSIONS: These data implicate WNT5A-ROR2 in VEGF secretion, vascularity, adverse outcomes and bevacizumab sensitivity of BRAFMut melanomas, suggesting that this axis has potential therapeutic relevance.

Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocyte Therapy in Melanoma: Facts to the Future.

Adoptive cell therapy with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) is gaining momentum and demonstrating durable responses in patients with advanced melanoma. Although increasingly considered as a treatment option for select patients with melanoma, TIL therapy is not yet approved by any regulatory agency. Pioneering studies with first-generation TIL therapy, undertaken before the advent of modern melanoma therapeutics, demonstrated clinical efficacy and remarkable long-term overall survival, reaching beyond 20 months for responding patients. TIL therapy is a multistep process of harvesting patient-specific tumor-resident T cells from tumors, ex vivo T-cell expansion, and re-infusion into the same patient after a lymphodepleting preparative regimen, with subsequent supportive IL2 administration. Objective response rates between 30% and 50% have consistently been observed in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic melanoma, including those who have progressed after modern immune checkpoint inhibitors and BRAF targeted agents, a population with high unmet medical need. Although significant strides have been made in modern TIL therapeutics, refinement strategies to optimize patient selection, enhance TIL production, and improve efficacy are being explored. Here, we review past and present experience, current challenges, practical considerations, and future aspirations in the evolution of TIL therapy for the treatment of melanoma as well as other solid tumors.

Burden of cancer trial participation: A qualitative sub-study of the INTERIM feasibility RCT.

OBJECTIVE: A qualitative sub-study was carried out within a larger phase II feasibility trial, to identify and describe the burden experienced by advanced melanoma patients participating in a clinical trial and the factors affecting their capacity to cope with the burden. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with fourteen patients with advanced melanoma recruited from National Health Service hospitals in the United Kingdom. Qualitative analysis was undertaken using a framework analysis approach. Normalisation process theory was applied to the concept of research participation burden in order to interpret and categorise findings. RESULTS: Burdens of participation were identified as arising from making sense of the trial and treatment; arranging transport, appointment and prescriptions; enacting management strategies and enduring side effects; reflecting on trial documents and treatment efficacy, and emotional and mental effects of randomisation and treatment side effects. Factors reported as influencing capacity include personal attributes and skills, physical and cognitive abilities and support network. DISCUSSION: This is the first study to highlight the substantial burden faced by patients with advanced melanoma in a clinical trial and factors that may lessen or worsen the burden. Consideration of identified burdens during trial design and execution will reduce the burden experienced by research participants.

The different faces of metastatic melanoma in the gastrointestinal tract.

Melanoma is the most aggressive form of skin cancer, with tendency to spread to any organ of the human body, including the gastrointestinal tract (GIT). The diagnosis of metastases to the GIT can be difficult, as they may be clinically silent for somewhile and may occur years after the initial melanoma diagnosis. CT imaging remains the standard modality for staging and surveillance of melanoma patients, and in most cases, it will be the first imaging modality to identify GIT lesions. However, interpretation of CT studies in patients with melanoma can be challenging as lesions may be subtle and random in distribution, as well as sometimes mimicking other conditions. Even so, early diagnosis of GIT metastases is critical to avoid emergency hospitalisations, whilst surgical intervention can be curative in some cases. In this review, we illustrate the various imaging presentations of melanoma metastases within the GIT, discuss the clinical aspects and offer advice on investigation and management. We offer tips intended to aid radiologists in their diagnostic skills and interpretation of melanoma imaging scans.