An Online Decision Aid for Patients With Metastatic Melanoma­Results of the Randomized Controlled Trial "PEF-Immun".

BACKGROUND: Treatment decisions in metastatic melanoma (MM) depend on patient preferences and require the patients' involvement in the decision-making process. Patients often feel overwhelmed by the complexity of treatment options with their individual advantages and disadvantages. We developed an online patient decision aid (PtDA) to facilitate shared decision making (SDM). METHODS: We conducted a two-center, two-armed, prospective, open randomized controlled trial with MM patients who were facing a decision about first-line treatment. They were randomly allotted (1:1) to the use or non-use of the PtDA before discussing the choice of treatment with a physician (intervention group [IG] and control group [CG], respectively). The primary endpoint of the study was patient knowledge about first-line treatment options (multiple-choice test, 10 items, range 0-40 points). The secondary endpoints were the degree of SDM (ratings of audio recordings of the patient-physician discussions by third-party observers) and satisfaction with the decision that was taken on later follow-up. RESULTS: 120 of the 128 randomized patients completed the baseline questionnaire and were included in the analysis (59% male, median age 66 years). The primary endpoint, i.e., the mean difference in knowledge after discussion with a physician, was significantly higher in the intervention group (mean difference -3.22, 95% CI [-6.32;-0.12], p = 0.042). No difference was found in either of the secondary endpoints (SDM and satisfaction with the decision). The patients in the intervention group rated the PtDA as very useful. CONCLUSION: PtDA improved MM patients' knowledge about their options for treatment. Both patients who used it and patients who did not were highly satisfied with their treatment decisions. Additional physician training seems necessary to promote SDM.

Cytokine release syndrome-like serum responses after COVID-19 vaccination are frequent and clinically inapparent under cancer immunotherapy.

Patients with cancer frequently receive immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), which may modulate immune responses to COVID-19 vaccines. Recently, cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was observed in a patient with cancer who received BTN162b2 vaccination under ICI treatment. Here, we analyzed adverse events and serum cytokines in patients with 23 different tumors undergoing (n = 64) or not undergoing (n = 26) COVID-19 vaccination under ICI therapy in a prospectively planned German single-center cohort study (n = 220). We did not observe clinically relevant CRS (≥grade 2) after vaccination (95% CI 0-5.6%; Common Terminology of Adverse Events v.5.0) in this small cohort. Within 4 weeks after vaccination, serious adverse events occurred in eight patients (12.5% 95% CI 5.6-23%): six patients were hospitalized due to events common under cancer therapy including immune related adverse events and two patients died due to conditions present before vaccination. Despite absence of CRS symptoms, a set of pairwise-correlated CRS-associated cytokines, including CXCL8 and interleukin-6 was >1.5-fold upregulated in 40% (95% CI 23.9-57.9%) of patients after vaccination. Hence, elevated cytokine levels are common and not sufficient to establish CRS diagnosis.

TCR-Directed Therapy in the Treatment of Metastatic Uveal Melanoma.

Metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM) is one of the most rapidly progressing tumors, with a bad prognosis and no standard-of-care treatment. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized cancer therapy and improved overall survival in patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma (mCM). However, this approach has been largely unimpressive, with no significant impact on the survival of mUM patients. Technical advances in immunotherapies have led to the development of novel T cell receptor (TCR)-based approaches to fight cancer. For the first time in over 50 years, compelling evidence demonstrates the power of TCR-based approaches for survival in mUM patients. Hence, this review summarizes novel TCR-based immunotherapeutic strategies currently in clinical studies for mUM treatment. We also discuss the potential combinational treatments to these strategies to maximize the clinical benefits.

Immune-related adverse events of COVID-19 vaccination in skin cancer patients receiving immune-checkpoint inhibitor treatment.

To date, few data are available regarding Adverse events (AEs) in cancer patients who are vaccinated for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) while being actively treated with Immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We aimed to assess the safety of COVID-19 vaccines approved in Germany. Specifically, we investigated the frequency of general side effects and immune-related AEs of COVID-19 vaccination. A triage survey was used to collect the following information for patients with metastatic skin cancer: vaccine type, date of receipt of each dose of vaccine, and self-reported side effects. Clinical data were retrieved from the patients' medical records. Of 130 patients with metastatic skin cancer, 89 patients were on immunotherapy and received COVID-19 vaccination. Of these 89 patients (median age: 64 years; 57 [64%] men), 89% had melanoma, and 71% received ICI therapy with a PD-1 antibody. Eighty-eight percent received an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination. The median follow-up time was 125 days after the first vaccination, and 84 days after the second. The most common observed side effects were mild to moderate pain at the injection site (40%), followed by fatigue (24%). Grade 3 irAEs were reported in eight patients, seven of whom were on nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination treatment. Of the 19 patients vaccinated within 72 h before/after ICI, five developed irAEs within 17 days (1-17 days). This small cohort study suggests that approved COVID-19 vaccinations are safe for use in cancer patients receiving ICIs. However, some precautions should be taken, especially regarding the timing of vaccination and ICI treatment.

Development and validation of a web-based patient decision aid for immunotherapy for patients with metastatic melanoma: study protocol for a multicenter randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic melanoma and their physicians are confronted with a complex decision regarding first-line therapy. Risks and benefits vary considerably between various treatment options. With this in mind, we aim to develop and evaluate a patient decision aid (PtDA) to inform patients about the risks and benefits of treatment options, namely, immunotherapy as monotherapy, immunotherapy as combination therapy, and treatment with BRAF/MEK inhibitors. We aim to test whether the use of this PtDA before medical consultation will increase patients' knowledge of treatment options and thus promote shared decision-making (SDM) and patient decision satisfaction. METHODS: In total, 128 patients with metastatic melanoma from two German cancer centers will be randomized to the intervention group (IG), receiving access to the PtDA before medical consultation, or the control group (CG), receiving treatment as usual (TAU), i.e., medical consultation alone. There will be three major assessment points (before intervention, T0; after intervention, T1; and 3 months after intervention, T2). The main outcome is the patient's knowledge of their treatment options, measured by a self-developed, piloted multiple-choice test at T1. Secondary outcome measures will include the extent of SDM during medical consultation, assessed by Observer OPTION 5, and patient decision satisfaction, assessed by the Satisfaction with Decision Scale (SwD), at T1 and T2. DISCUSSION: This trial will assess the effectiveness of a developed PtDA to enhance patient knowledge of treatment options for metastatic melanoma, SDM, and patient decision satisfaction. If the efficacy can be proven, the PtDA will be implemented nationwide in Germany to close a relevant gap in the education and care of patients with metastatic melanoma. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04240717 . Registered on 27 January 2020.

Expression of Potential Targets for Cell-Based Therapies on Melanoma Cells.

Tumor antigen-specific redirection of cytotoxic T cells (CTLs) or natural killer (NK) cells including chimeric antigen receptor (CAR-) and T cell receptor (TCR-) cell therapy is currently being evaluated in different tumor entities including melanoma. Expression of melanoma-specific antigen recognized by the respective CAR or TCR directly or presented by HLA molecules is an indispensable prerequisite for this innovative therapy. In this study, we investigated in 168 FFPE tumor specimens of patients with stage I-IV melanoma the protein expression of HER2, TRP2, ABCB5, gp100, p53, and GD2 by immunohistochemistry (IHC). These results were correlated with clinical parameters. Membrane expression of HER2 and GD2 was also investigated in ten melanoma cell lines by flow cytometry for which corresponding tumors were analyzed by IHC. Our results demonstrated that gp100 was the most frequently overexpressed protein (61%), followed by TRP2 (50%), GD2 (38%), p53 (37%), ABCB5 (17%), and HER2 (3%). TRP2 expression was higher in primary tumors compared to metastases (p = 0.005). Accordingly, TRP2 and ABCB5 expression was significantly associated with lower tumor thickness of the primary (p = 0.013 and p = 0.025). There was no association between protein expression levels and survival in advanced melanoma patients. Flow cytometric analysis revealed abundant surface expression of GD2 and HER2 in all melanoma cell lines. The discordant HER2 expression in situ and in vitro suggests a tissue culture associated induction. In summary, our data support the use of gp100 and GD2 as a potential target for developing engineered TCR- or CAR-cell therapies, respectively, against melanoma.

Radiosensibilisierung durch BRAF Inhibitoren.

HINTERGRUND: In der letzten Zeit wurden in der Literatur vermehrt erhöhte Hauttoxizitäten während einer Kombinationstherapie mit BRAF Inhibitoren und Radiotherapie beschrieben. MATERIAL UND METHODIK: Wir berichten über sieben Melanompatienten in einem nicht resezierbaren Stadium III oder IV, die eine kombinierte Behandlung aus Bestrahlung und BRAF-Inhibitor erhielten. ERGEBNISSE: Bei allen Patienten konnte durch die Kombinationstherapie ein gutes lokales Ansprechen erreicht werden. Nur bei zwei Patienten wurde eine schwere Radiodermatitis (CTCAE Grad 3 bzw. 4) beobachtet. Bei diesen Patienten, die beide Vemurafenib erhielten, trat die Radiodermatitis nach ein bzw. zwei Wochen auf und resultierte in einer Unterbrechung der BRAF-Inhibitor Behandlung.. Die kumulative Dosis bis zum Zeitpunkt der Strahlendermatitis betrug 10 Gy bzw. 35 Gy. Bei allen anderen Vemurafenibpatienten konnten nur milde Reaktionen im Sinne einer Radiodermatitis CTCAE Grad 2, beim Dabrafenibpatienten CTCAE Grade 1 diagnostiziert werden. Bei einem Patienten wurde eine Recalldermatitis nach 14 Tagen einer beendeten Strahlentherapie mit einer kumulativen Dosis von 30 Gy diagnostiziert. SCHLUSSFOLGERUNGEN: Schwere Toxizitätsreaktionen der Haut unter einer BRAF-Inhibitionen treten nicht häufig auf und sind meistens gut therapierbar. Deshalb sollte die Kombinationstherapie bei aggressiv wachsenden Melanomen eine Therapieoption bleiben. Obwohl ein erhöhtes Risiko der Hauttoxizität unter einer Kombinationstherapie von Radiatio und BRAF-Inhibitoren besteht, wird diese von den meisten Patienten gut toleriert. Sequenzielle Therapie anstelle von gleichzeitiger Behandlung scheint die Toxizitätreaktionen nicht zu verhindern.

Radiosensitization by BRAF inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Increased skin toxicity during combination therapy with a BRAF inhibitor and radiation therapy has recently been reported. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We present seven melanoma patients with non-resectable stage III or IV disease and concomitant treatment with a BRAF inhibitor and radiation therapy. RESULTS: In all patients, combination therapy yielded a good local response. Only two patients, both on vemurafenib, showed severe radiation dermatitis (CTCAE grade 3/4) after one and two weeks, respectively, resulting in interruption of BRAF inhibitor treatment. The respective cumulative radiation dose was 10 Gy and 35 Gy. The remaining vemurafenib patients displayed only mild radiation dermatitis CTCAE grade 2; the only dabrafenib patient CTCAE grade 1. In one patient, recall dermatitis was diagnosed 14 days after completion of radiation therapy with a cumulative dose of 30 Gy. CONCLUSIONS: Severe skin toxicity caused by BRAF inhibitor-induced radiosensitization is not common and usually amenable to treatment. Thus, combination treatment should remain a therapeutic option, especially in melanoma patients characterized by aggressive tumor growth. Although there is an increased risk of skin toxicity during combination therapy, it is usually well tolerated by most patients. Sequential - instead of simultaneous - treatment does not seem to prevent such toxicity reactions.

Reconsideration of Serial Visual Reversal Learning in Octopus (Octopus vulgaris) from a Methodological Perspective.

Octopuses (Octopus vulgaris) are generally considered to possess extraordinary cognitive abilities including the ability to successfully perform in a serial reversal learning task. During reversal learning, an animal is presented with a discrimination problem and after reaching a learning criterion, the signs of the stimuli are reversed: the former positive becomes the negative stimulus and vice versa. If an animal improves its performance over reversals, it is ascribed advanced cognitive abilities. Reversal learning has been tested in octopus in a number of studies. However, the experimental procedures adopted in these studies involved pre-training on the new positive stimulus after a reversal, strong negative reinforcement or might have enabled secondary cueing by the experimenter. These procedures could have all affected the outcome of reversal learning. Thus, in this study, serial visual reversal learning was revisited in octopus. We trained four common octopuses (O. vulgaris) to discriminate between 2-dimensional stimuli presented on a monitor in a simultaneous visual discrimination task and reversed the signs of the stimuli each time the animals reached the learning criterion of ≥80% in two consecutive sessions. The animals were trained using operant conditioning techniques including a secondary reinforcer, a rod that was pushed up and down the feeding tube, which signaled the correctness of a response and preceded the subsequent primary reinforcement of food. The experimental protocol did not involve negative reinforcement. One animal completed four reversals and showed progressive improvement, i.e., it decreased its errors to criterion the more reversals it experienced. This animal developed a generalized response strategy. In contrast, another animal completed only one reversal, whereas two animals did not learn to reverse during the first reversal. In conclusion, some octopus individuals can learn to reverse in a visual task demonstrating behavioral flexibility even with a refined methodology.