COLUMBUS 7-year update: A randomized, open-label, phase III trial of encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib in patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with encorafenib plus binimetinib and encorafenib monotherapy is associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with vemurafenib in patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. We report results from the 7-year analysis of COLUMBUS part 1 (NCT01909453) at 99.7 months (median duration between randomization and data cutoff). METHODS: 577 patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma who were treatment-naive or progressed after first-line immunotherapy were randomized 1:1:1 to encorafenib 450 mg once daily (QD) plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily (BID) (n = 192), vemurafenib 960 mg BID (n = 191), or encorafenib monotherapy 300 mg QD (n = 194). No prior BRAF/MEK inhibitor was allowed. RESULTS: Seven-year PFS and OS rates (95 % CI) were 21.2 % (14.7-28.4 %) and 27.4 % (21.2-33.9%) in the encorafenib plus binimetinib arm and 6.4 % (2.1-14.0 %) and 18.2 % (12.8-24.3 %) in the vemurafenib arm, respectively. Median melanoma-specific survival (95 % CI) was 36.8 months (27.7-51.5 months) in the encorafenib plus binimetinib arm and 19.3 months (14.8-25.9 months) in the vemurafenib arm. Thirty-four long-term responders (complete/partial response ongoing at 7 years) were identified across arms. CONCLUSIONS: This is the longest follow-up from a phase III trial of BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination in BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. Safety results were consistent with the known tolerability profile of encorafenib plus binimetinib. Results support the long-term efficacy and known safety of encorafenib plus binimetinib in this population and provide new insights on long-term responders. Interactive data visualization is available at the COLUMBUS dashboard (https://clinical-trials.dimensions.ai/columbus7/).

Sequential immunotherapy and targeted therapy for metastatic BRAF V600 mutated melanoma: 4-year survival and biomarkers evaluation from the phase II SECOMBIT trial.

No prospective data were available prior to 2021 to inform selection between combination BRAF and MEK inhibition versus dual blockade of programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) and cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) as first-line treatment options for BRAFV600-mutant melanoma. SECOMBIT (NCT02631447) was a randomized, three-arm, noncomparative phase II trial in which patients were randomized to one of two sequences with immunotherapy or targeted therapy first, with a third arm in which an 8-week induction course of targeted therapy followed by a planned switch to immunotherapy was the first treatment. BRAF/MEK inhibitors were encorafenib plus binimetinib and checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab plus nivolumab. Primary outcome of overall survival was previously reported, demonstrating improved survival with immunotherapy administered until progression and followed by BRAF/MEK inhibition. Here we report 4-year survival outcomes, confirming long-term benefit with first-line immunotherapy. We also describe preliminary results of predefined biomarkers analyses that identify a trend toward improved 4-year overall survival and total progression-free survival in patients with loss-of-function mutations affecting JAK or low baseline levels of serum interferon gamma (IFNy). These long-term survival outcomes confirm immunotherapy as the preferred first-line treatment approach for most patients with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma, and the biomarker analyses are hypothesis-generating for future investigations of predictors of durable benefit with dual checkpoint blockade and targeted therapy.

Combined immunotherapy in melanoma patients with brain metastases: A multicenter international study.

BACKGROUND: Ipilimumab plus nivolumab (COMBO) is the standard treatment in asymptomatic patients with melanoma brain metastases (MBM). We report a retrospective study aiming to assess the outcome of patients with MBM treated with COMBO outside clinical trials. METHODS: Consecutive patients treated with COMBO have been included. Demographics, steroid treatment, Central Nervous System (CNS)-related symptoms, BRAF status, radiotherapy or surgery, response rate (RR), progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) have been analyzed. RESULTS: 376 patients were included: 262 received COMBO as first-line and 114 as a subsequent line of therapy, respectively. In multivariate analysis, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) (≥1 vs 0) [HR 1.97 (1.46-2.66)], extracerebral metastases [HR 1.92 (1.09-3.40)], steroid use at the start of COMBO [HR 1.59 (1.08-2.38)], CNS-related symptoms [HR 1.59 (1.08-2.34)], SRS (Stereotactic radiosurgery) [HR 0.63 (0.45-0.88)] and surgery [HR 0.63 (0.43-0.91)] were associated with OS. At a median follow-up of 30 months, the median OS (mOS) in the overall population was 21.3 months (18.1-24.5), whilst OS was not yet reached in treatment-naive patients, steroid-free at baseline. In patients receiving COMBO after BRAF/MEK inhibitors(i) PFS at 1-year was 15.7%. The dose of steroids (dexamethasone < vs ≥ 4 mg/day) was not prognostic. SRS alongside COMBO vs COMBO alone in asymptomatic patients prolonged survival. (p = 0.013). Toxicities were consistent with previous studies. An independent validation cohort (n = 51) confirmed the findings. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate remarkable long-term survival in treatment-naïve, asymptomatic, steroid-free patients, as well as in those receiving SRS plus COMBO. PFS and OS were poor in patients receiving COMBO after progressing to BRAF/MEKi.

Hedgehog Inhibitors Beyond Clinical Complete Response in Basal Cell Carcinoma: Should I Stop or Should I Go?

INTRODUCTION: In advanced basal cell carcinoma (BCC), the issue of whether Hedgehog inhibitors (HHIs) should be stopped or not after clinical complete response (cCR) achievement remains an unmet clinical need. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, multicenter study across 7 Italian dermato-oncology units including patients with BCC who continued vismodegib after cCR between 2012 and 2019. We assessed the relationship between the duration of vismodegib intake (days to cCR [DTCR], days to stop after cCR [DTS], total treatment days [TTD]), and disease-free survival (DFS). Reasons to stop vismodegib were (R1) toxicity and (R2) disease recurrence. The relationship between DTCR, DTS, TTD, and DFS in the whole population and in R1 subgroup was assessed by Pearson's correlation coefficient (P < .05) and Bayesian statistics (BF10). RESULTS: Sixty-eight BCC patients with a median (m) age of 75.5 years (39-100) were included. Most patients were male (N = 43, 63%), without Gorlin syndrome (N = 56, 82%) and with head and neck area as primary site (N = 51, 75%). After cCR, out of 68 patients, 90% (N = 61/68) discontinued vismodegib: 82% (N = 50/61) due to toxicity (R1), and 18% (N = 11/61) due to recurrence (R2). Conversely, 10% (N = 7/68) continued vismodegib until last follow-up. In the whole population (N = 68), cCR was achieved with a mDTCR of 180.50 days. DFS showed a significant correlation with DTS (P < .01, BF10 = 39.2) and TTD (P < .01, BF10 = 35566), while it was not correlated to DTCR (BF10 < 0.1). The analysis of R1 subgroup (N = 50) confirmed these results. DFS correlated with DTS in all recurrent patients (N = 38, r = 0.44, P < .01) and in the recurrent patients who stopped vismodegib for toxicity (N = 26, r = 0.665, P < .01). DFS was longer when vismodegib was maintained for >2 months after cCR (mDFS > 2 months, N = 54 vs. ≤ 2 months, N = 14: 470 vs. 175 d, P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Our retrospective results suggest that HHIs should be continued after cCR to improve DFS in BCC.

Characteristics of Real-World Patients with High-Risk BRAFV600E/K-Mutated Melanoma Receiving Adjuvant Treatment with Dabrafenib Plus Trametinib After Surgical Resection, Through the Italian Managed Access Program.

Purpose: Real-world data from patients with BRAFV600-mutated, resected, stage III melanoma treated with dabrafenib plus trametinib as adjuvant targeted therapy are limited, and it is important to gain an understanding of the characteristics of this patient population, as well as of the patient journey. Here we aimed to describe the characteristics, dosage reductions and discontinuations in patients with BRAFV600E/K-mutated melanoma receiving adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib after surgical resection through an Italian managed access program (MAP). Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had completely resected cutaneous melanoma with confirmed BRAF V600E or V600K mutation, or initially resectable lymph node recurrence after a diagnosis of stage I or II melanoma. The starting dose of dabrafenib and trametinib was 150 mg twice daily and 2 mg once daily, respectively. Results: A total of 557 patients received dabrafenib plus trametinib through the MAP (stage III resected disease at inclusion, 554). Median age was 54.0 years, and 40.2% of patients were female. The proportion of all treated patients who required a dose reduction was low (10.8%) as was the proportion of patients who discontinued treatment (13.5%). The main reason for treatment discontinuation was adverse events (36.0%). Conclusion: New treatments, including BRAF-targeted therapies and immunotherapy, have transformed the natural history of melanoma. This is the largest study to date describing patients treated with dabrafenib plus trametinib in routine clinical practice in Italy between 2018 and 2019. Results highlight the characteristics of the patients treated and their journey, as well as the tolerable safety profile of dabrafenib plus trametinib in a real-world patient population.

Italian nivolumab Expanded Access Programme in melanoma adjuvant setting: patient outcomes and safety profile.

INTRODUCTION: The CheckMate 238 randomised study demonstrated the relevant benefit in terms of recurrence-free survival (RFS) of nivolumab versus ipilimumab in resected stage IIIB-C or IV melanoma patients with a tolerable safety profile. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From November 2018 to June 2019, 611 patients with stage III and IV resected melanoma were enroled to receive nivolumab as part of an Italian Expanded Access Programme (EAP). According to stages, 77% were stage III while 141 (23%) were stage IV with no evidence of disease (NED). Among stage III, 121 patients had IIIA (19.8%). RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 23 months, the RFS in the Intention-to-Treat (ITT) population was 76.6% at 1 year and 59.6% at 2 years; 1- and 2-year distant metastasis-free survival were 83.7% and 71.2%, respectively. The overall survival rate in the ITT population was 93.8% at 1 year and 85.5% at 2 years. No significant differences in RFS were observed according to BRAF status. Treatment-related adverse events of grades 3-4 occurred in 11.5% of patients. CONCLUSION: This paper reports the results of the Italian Nivolumab EAP in the adjuvant setting of stage III and IV NED melanoma patients. Our results confirm in a real-life setting the clinical activity and safety of nivolumab reported in the CheckMate238 registrative/pivotal. The enroled cohort of 611 patients highlights the relevant clinical need in this setting, also confirmed by the very short accrual time, representing one of the largest series reported as adjuvant EAP with the longest follow-up.

Atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib in patients with melanoma with CNS metastases (TRICOTEL): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Targeted therapy and immunotherapy have shown intracranial activity in melanoma with CNS metastases, but there remains an unmet need, particularly for patients with symptomatic CNS metastases. We aimed to evaluate atezolizumab in combination with cobimetinib or vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in patients with melanoma with CNS metastases. METHODS: TRICOTEL was a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study done in two cohorts: a BRAFV600 wild-type cohort and a BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort, recruited at 21 hospitals and oncology centres in Brazil, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with previously untreated metastatic melanoma, brain metastases of 5 mm or larger in at least one dimension, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less. Patients in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort received intravenous atezolizumab (840 mg, days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle) plus oral cobimetinib (60 mg once daily, days 1-21). Patients in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort received intravenous atezolizumab (840 mg, days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle) plus oral vemurafenib (720 mg twice daily) plus oral cobimetinib (60 mg once daily, days 1-21); atezolizumab was withheld in cycle 1. Treatment was continued until progression, toxicity, or death. The primary outcome was intracranial objective response rate confirmed by assessments at least 4 weeks apart, as assessed by independent review committee (IRC) using modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1. Because of early closure of the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort, the primary endpoint of intracranial objective response rate by IRC assessment was not done in this cohort; intracranial objective response rate by investigator assessment was reported instead. Efficacy and safety were analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is closed to enrolment and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03625141. FINDINGS: Between Dec 13, 2018, and Dec 7, 2020, 65 patients were enrolled in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort; the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort was closed early after enrolment of 15 patients. Median follow-up was 9·7 months (IQR 6·3-15·0) for the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort and 6·2 months (3·5-23·0) for the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort. Intracranial objective response rate was 42% (95% CI 29-54) by IRC assessment in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort and 27% (95% CI 8-55) by investigator assessment in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort. Treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 41 (68%) of 60 patients who received atezolizumab plus vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort, the most common of which were lipase increased (15 [25%] of 60 patients) and blood creatine phosphokinase increased (11 [18%]). Eight (53%) of 15 patients treated with atezolizumab plus cobimetinib in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort had treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events, most commonly anaemia (two [13%]) and dermatitis acneiform (two [13%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 14 (23%) of 60 patients who received triplet therapy in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort and two (13%) of 15 in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort. No treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Atezolizumab plus vemurafenib and cobimetinib provided intracranial activity in patients with BRAFV600-mutated melanoma with CNS metastases. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Long-term strategies for management of advanced basal cell carcinoma with hedgehog inhibitors.

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC), the most common type of skin cancer, is characterized by aberrant activation of the hedgehog molecular pathway. Systemic therapy is indicated when local approaches, such as surgery and radiation, are inappropriate. In this article, a group of clinical experts recommends the long-term management strategy for advanced BCC patients treated with systemic therapy. The hedgehog inhibitors sonidegib and vismodegib are first-line treatments for advanced BCC with a long-lasting response, but long-term treatment with hedgehog inhibitors is often challenged by tolerability issues. However, several strategies for adverse effect management are available, such as dose interruptions, on-label alternate-day dosing and supportive medications. In conclusion, although BCC shows a high tumor mutational burden that favors a response to immunotherapy, experts recommend keeping patients on hedgehog inhibitors limiting immunotherapy to those who developed resistance during hedgehog inhibitor therapy or in case of persisting toxicity despite long-term management of adverse events.

Outcomes in patients with BRAFV600-mutated melanoma and brain metastases at baseline treated with dabrafenib plus trametinib.

BACKGROUND: Brain metastases (BM) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels above the upper limit of normal (ULN) are associated with poor prognosis in patients with melanoma. Although treatment with the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib and the MEK inhibitor trametinib have demonstrated long-term clinical benefit in patients with melanoma, data on their efficacy in patients with BM are limited. METHODS: DESCRIBE Italy is an observational, retrospective, real-world study evaluating dabrafenib plus trametinib in 499 patients with BRAFV600-mutant stage III unresectable or stage IV melanoma from various sites across Italy. Here, we analyzed the clinical outcomes for the subgroup of patients receiving first-line treatment and presenting with BM at diagnosis and assessed the impact of predictive factors such as LDH levels and the presence of other metastases on median progression-free survival (mPFS). RESULTS: Overall, 325 evaluable patients were on first-line therapy and are the focus of this analysis; of these, 76 patients (23.4%) had BM at baseline. mPFS was lower for patients with BM at baseline compared with overall patients (8.7 months vs 9.3 months, respectively). Patients with BM at diagnosis and LDH >ULN had a considerably shorter mPFS compared with patients with LDH ⩽ULN (5.3 months vs 9.9 months, respectively). mPFS was noticeably longer for patients with cerebral metastases only compared with patients with cerebral and other metastases (15.0 months vs 8.7 months, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Dabrafenib plus trametinib showed effectiveness in a real-world population of patients with advanced BRAFV600-mutated melanoma and BM at baseline, supporting its use in this population with poor outcomes.

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Efficacy Outcomes from Immune Checkpoint Blockade in Patients with Cancer.

PURPOSE: No evidence exists as to whether type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) impairs clinical outcome from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in patients with solid tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In a large cohort of ICI recipients treated at 21 institutions from June 2014 to June 2020, we studied whether patients on glucose-lowering medications (GLM) for T2DM had shorter overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). We used targeted transcriptomics in a subset of patients to explore differences in the tumor microenvironment (TME) of patients with or without diabetes. RESULTS: A total of 1,395 patients were included. Primary tumors included non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC; 54.7%), melanoma (24.7%), renal cell (15.0%), and other carcinomas (5.6%). After multivariable analysis, patients on GLM (n = 226, 16.2%) displayed an increased risk of death [HR, 1.29; 95% confidence interval (CI),1.07-1.56] and disease progression/death (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.03-1.43) independent of number of GLM received. We matched 92 metformin-exposed patients with 363 controls and 78 patients on other oral GLM or insulin with 299 control patients. Exposure to metformin, but not other GLM, was associated with an increased risk of death (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.16-2.03) and disease progression/death (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.04-1.72). Patients with T2DM with higher pretreatment glycemia had higher neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (P = 0.04), while exploratory tumoral transcriptomic profiling in a subset of patients (n = 22) revealed differential regulation of innate and adaptive immune pathways in patients with T2DM. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, patients on GLM experienced worse outcomes from immunotherapy, independent of baseline features. Prospective studies are warranted to clarify the relative impact of metformin over a preexisting diagnosis of T2DM in influencing poorer outcomes in this population.

The Pattern of Progression to First-Line Treatment with Dabrafenib and Trametinib in Patients with Unresectable or Metastatic, BRAF-Mutated, Cutaneous Melanoma: Results of the Observational T-WIN Study.

In patients with B-RAF-mutated cutaneous melanoma, targeted therapies are the treatment of choice to achieve a rapid response. In this multicentric, prospective, observational study, patients with B-RAF-mutated cutaneous melanoma who were treated with dabrafenib and trametinib were categorized in two cohorts (cohort A: limited disease (n = 104) and cohort B: bulky disease (n = 97)) according to lactate dehydrogenase levels. The primary endpoint was the progression pattern; the secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety data. From baseline to time of progression, there was a progression from nodal to other sites of disease in cohort A and from skin and nodal to other sites in cohort B. In both the cohorts, the number of involved organs and metastases at each location decreased. The median OS was 32.4 months (95% CI: 20.1 months (not estimable)) for cohort A, and 10.5 months (95% CI: 8.3-14.4 months) for cohort B; median PFS was 12.4 months (95% CI: 10.9-17.0 months) for cohort A, and 8.1 months (95% CI: 6.3-9.4 months) for cohort B. No new safety signals were reported. This study describes the patterns of first-line treatment progression with dabrafenib and trametinib in Italian clinical practice. The effectiveness and safety data were consistent with previous trials and extended to a real-world heterogeneous population.

Adjuvant Nivolumab versus Ipilimumab in Resected Stage III/IV Melanoma: 5-Year Efficacy and Biomarker Results from CheckMate 238.

PURPOSE: In the phase III CheckMate 238 study, adjuvant nivolumab significantly improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival versus ipilimumab in patients with resected stage IIIB-C or stage IV melanoma, with benefit sustained at 4 years. We report updated 5-year efficacy and biomarker findings. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with resected stage IIIB-C/IV melanoma were stratified by stage and baseline programmed death cell ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and received nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or ipilimumab 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses and then every 12 weeks, both intravenously for 1 year until disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was RFS. RESULTS: At a minimum follow-up of 62 months, RFS with nivolumab remained superior to ipilimumab (HR = 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.86; 5-year rates of 50% vs. 39%). Five-year distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) rates were 58% with nivolumab versus 51% with ipilimumab. Five-year overall survival (OS) rates were 76% with nivolumab and 72% with ipilimumab (75% data maturity: 228 of 302 planned events). Higher levels of tumor mutational burden (TMB), tumor PD-L1, intratumoral CD8+ T cells and IFNγ-associated gene expression signature, and lower levels of peripheral serum C-reactive protein were associated with improved RFS and OS with both nivolumab and ipilimumab, albeit with limited clinically meaningful predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab is a proven adjuvant treatment for resected melanoma at high risk of recurrence, with sustained, long-term improvement in RFS and DMFS compared with ipilimumab and high OS rates. Identification of additional biomarkers is needed to better predict treatment outcome. See related commentary by Augustin and Luke, p. 3253.

Discontinuation of anti-PD1 in advanced melanoma: an observational retrospective study from the Italian Melanoma Intergroup.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy has improved the survival of patients with stage IV melanoma. In responders, clinical benefits may be long-lasting and persist even after treatment discontinuation. The optimal duration of anti-PD1 (anti-Programmed cell death-1) therapy in metastatic melanoma patients remains to be elucidated. Moreover, limited data are available on clinical outcomes of patients that discontinued anti-PD1 immunotherapy in a real-life setting. The aim of this study was to evaluate the progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with metastatic melanoma who interrupted anti-PD-1 treatment in the in the absence of disease progression. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients with advanced/metastatic melanoma treated with anti-PD1 immunotherapy at 23 Italian Melanoma Intergroup (IMI) centres. The study investigated the risk of relapse in patients who stopped anti-PD1 therapy due to CR (Complete response), treatment-related toxicity, or by their own choice after a long period of treatment. Clinical and biological factors associated with or without recurrence were evaluated. RESULTS: The study population included 237 patients. The median age of patients was 68.9 years (standard deviation: 13; range 33-95). The median time on treatment was 33 months (standard deviation: 18, 7; range 1-98). Among the 237 patients, 128 (54%) interrupted the anti-PD1 for CR, 74 patients (31.2%) for adverse events (37 patients in CR, 27 patients in partial response (PR), ten patients in stable disease (SD), and 35 patients (14.8%) by their own choice (12 patients in CR, 17 patients in PR, and 6 patients in SD). After a mean follow-up of 21 months (range 1-81), PFS after anti-PD1 discontinuation was 85.7%. Thirty-four patients (14.3%) developed disease progression after a median of 12 months (range 1-35): ten patients (29.4%) after discontinuation in CR, 17 patients (50%) after discontinuation for treatment-related toxicity (seven in CR, five in PR, five in SD), and seven (20.6%) after discontinuation due to the patient's decision (two in CR, four in PR, one in SD). Only 7.8% of patients who interrupted in CR (10/128), along with 23% of patients who interrupted for limiting toxicity (17/74) and 20% of patients who interrupted by their own choice (7/35), developed recurrence. Regarding patients who discontinued therapy because of CR, we observed a negative association between recurrence and site of primary melanoma, especially mucosal sites (p = <0.05, HR (Hazard ratio) 15.57 IC (confidence interval) 95% 2.64-91.73). Moreover, M1b patients who achieved a CR showed a lower number of relapses (p = <0.05, HR 3.84 IC 95% 1.40-8.48). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows in a real-life setting that, with anti-PD-1 therapy, long-lasting responses, can be maintained after anti-PD1 interruption. In 70.6% of cases, recurrences were observed among patients who did not obtain a CR at treatment discontinuation.

Whole-Exome Sequencing and cfDNA Analysis Uncover Genetic Determinants of Melanoma Therapy Response in a Real-World Setting.

Although several studies have explored the molecular landscape of metastatic melanoma, the genetic determinants of therapy resistance are still largely unknown. Here, we aimed to determine the contribution of whole-exome sequencing and circulating free DNA (cfDNA) analysis in predicting response to therapy in a consecutive real-world cohort of 36 patients, undergoing fresh tissue biopsy and followed during treatment. Although the underpowered sample size limited statistical analysis, samples from non-responders had higher copy number variations and mutations in melanoma driver genes compared to responders in the BRAF V600+ subset. In the BRAF V600- subset, Tumor Mutational Burden (TMB) was twice that in responders vs. non-responders. Genomic layout revealed commonly known and novel potential intrinsic/acquired resistance driver gene variants. Among these, RAC1, FBXW7, GNAQ mutations, and BRAF/PTEN amplification/deletion were present in 42% and 67% of patients, respectively. Both Loss of Heterozygosity (LOH) load and tumor ploidy were inversely associated with TMB. In immunotherapy-treated patients, samples from responders showed higher TMB and lower LOH and were more frequently diploid compared to non-responders. Secondary germline testing and cfDNA analysis proved their efficacy in finding germline predisposing variants carriers (8.3%) and following dynamic changes during treatment as a surrogate of tissue biopsy, respectively.

Similar local recurrence and survival in patients with T1 radial growth phase melanoma on head and neck treated with 5 or 10 mm margins: A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Melanoma guidelines recommend surgical excision with 10 mm margins for T1 melanomas (invasive melanomas with Breslow thickness ≤1 mm), including those in radial growth phase, which are without metastatic potential; however, such margins may be problematic on head-and-neck. OBJECTIVE: We compared outcomes of wide (10 mm margins) versus narrow (5 mm margins) excisions in patients with radial growth phase T1 melanoma on head-and-neck including face. METHODS: We retrospectively examined 610 consecutive patients excised with wide versus narrow margins, from 2001 to 2018, at six European centres. In all cases, radial growth phase, and clear margins with 5 or 10 mm of clearance, were ascertained histologically. Multivariable models investigated associations of margins and other factors with overall survival and local recurrence. RESULTS: Three hundred and sixteen (51.8%) patients received wide excision, 219 (69.3%) with primary wound closure, 97 (30.7%) with reconstruction; 294 (48.2%) patients received narrow excision, 264 (89.8%) with primary wound closure, 30 (10.2%) with reconstruction (p < 0.001). Median follow-ups were 88 months (wide) and 187 months (narrow) (inter-quartile ranges 43-133 and 79-206, respectively). Ten-year overall survival (95% confidence interval) was 96.7% (94.2%-99.3%) in wide and 98.2% (96.4%-100%) in narrow patients. Ten-year local recurrence incidence was 6.4% (4.1%-10.1%) in wide and 7.8% (5.3%-11.6%) in narrow groups. Lentigo maligna melanoma subtype appeared associated with increased risk of local recurrence in narrow versus wide patients (15.0% vs. 7.5%; p = 0.190). CONCLUSIONS: Narrower excision margins for T1 radial growth phase melanoma are not associated with worse overall survival (hazard ratio 0.97, p = 0.996) or increased local recurrence (subdistribution hazard ratio: 0.87; p = 0.751) compared to wider margins, and may be safely applied to such lesions, although caution may be required in the presence of lentigo maligna melanoma.

Neoadjuvant plus adjuvant combined or sequenced vemurafenib, cobimetinib and atezolizumab in patients with high-risk, resectable BRAF-mutated and wild-type melanoma: NEO-TIM, a phase II randomized non-comparative study.

Background: Following the increased survival of patients with metastatic melanoma thanks to immunotherapy and targeted therapy, neoadjuvant approaches are being investigated to address the unmet needs of unresponsive and intolerant patients. We aim to investigate the efficacy of neoadjuvant plus adjuvant combined or sequenced vemurafenib, cobimetinib and atezolizumab in patients with high-risk, resectable BRAF-mutated and wild-type melanoma. Methods: The study is a phase II, open-label, randomized non-comparative trial in patients with stage IIIB/C/D surgically resectable, BRAF-mutated and wild-type melanoma, with three possible treatments: (1) vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily from day 1 to 42; (2) vemurafenib 720 mg twice daily from day 1 to 42; (3) cobimetinib 60 mg once daily from day 1 to 21 and from day 29 to 42; and (4) atezolizumab 840 mg for two cycles (day 22 and day 43).Patients will be randomized to three different arms: A) BRAF-mutated patients will receive over 6 weeks (1) + (3); B) BRAF-mutated patients will receive over 6 weeks (2) + (3) + (4); C) BRAF wild-type patients will receive over 6 weeks (3) + (4). All patients will also receive atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks for 17 cycles after surgery and after a second screening period (up to 6 weeks). Discussion: Neoadjuvant therapy for regional metastases may improve operability and outcomes and facilitate the identification of biomarkers that can guide further lines of treatment. Patients with clinical stage III melanoma may especially benefit from neoadjuvant treatment, as the outcomes of surgery alone are very poor. It is expected that the combination of neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment may reduce the incidence of relapse and improve survival. Clinical trial registration: eudract.ema.europa.eu/protocol.htm, identifier 2018-004841-17.

Genetic Alterations of Melanoma Brain Metastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Data on molecular alterations harbored by melanoma brain metastases (MBMs) are limited, and this has hampered the development of more effective therapeutic strategies. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all the studies reporting DNA sequencing data of MBMs, in order to identify recurrently mutated genes and molecular pathways significantly enriched for genetic alterations. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase and Scopus for articles published from the inception of each database to June 30, 2021. We included in the analysis all the studies that reported individual patient data on DNA sequencing of MBMs, assessing single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and/or gene copy number variations (CNVs) in at least five tumor samples. Meta-analysis was performed for genes evaluated for SNVs and/or CNVs in at least two studies. Pooled proportions of samples with SNVs and/or CNVs was calculated by applying random-effect models based on the DerSimonian-Laird method. Gene-set enrichment analysis (GSEA) was performed to identify molecular pathways significantly enriched for mutated genes. RESULTS: Ten studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis, for a total of 531 samples of MBMs evaluated. Twenty-seven genes were found recurrently mutated with a meta-analytic rate of SNVs higher than 5%. GSEA conducted on the list of these 27 recurrently mutated genes revealed vascular endothelial growth factor-activated receptor activity and transmembrane receptor protein tyrosine kinase activity to be among the top 10 gene ontology (GO) molecular functions significantly enriched for mutated genes, while regulation of apoptosis and cell proliferation were among the top 10 significantly enriched GO biological processes. Notably, a high meta-analytic rate of SNVs was found in several actionable cancer-associated genes, such as all the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor isoforms (i.e., Flt1 and Flt2 genes, for both SNV rate: 0.22, 95% CI 0.04-0.49; KDR gene, SNV rate: 0.1, 95% CI 0.05-0.16). Finally, two tumor suppressor genes were characterized by a high meta-analytic rate of CNVs: CDKN2A/B (CNV rate: 0.59, 95% CI 0.23-0.90) and PTEN (CNV rate: 0.31, 95% CI 0.02-0.95). CONCLUSION: MBMs harbored actionable molecular alterations that could be exploited as therapeutic targets to improve the poor prognosis of patients.

Sequencing of Ipilimumab Plus Nivolumab and Encorafenib Plus Binimetinib for Untreated BRAF-Mutated Metastatic Melanoma (SECOMBIT): A Randomized, Three-Arm, Open-Label Phase II Trial.

PURPOSE: Limited prospective data are available on sequential immunotherapy and BRAF/MEK inhibition for BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma. METHODS: SECOMBIT is a randomized, three-arm, noncomparative phase II trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02631447). Patients with untreated, metastatic BRAFV600-mutant melanoma from 37 sites in nine countries were randomly assigned to arm A (encorafenib [450 mg orally once daily] plus binimetinib [45 mg orally twice daily] until progressive disease [PD] -> ipilimumab plus nivolumab [ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks and nivolumab 1 mg/kg once every 3 weeks × four cycles -> nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks]), arm B [ipilimumab plus nivolumab until PD -> encorafenib plus binimetinib], or arm C (encorafenib plus binimetinib for 8 weeks -> ipilimumab plus nivolumab until PD -> encorafenib plus binimetinib). The primary end point was overall survival (OS) at 2 years. Secondary end points included total progression-free survival, 3-year OS, best overall response rate, duration of response, and biomarkers in the intent-to-treat population. Safety was analyzed throughout sequential treatment in all participants who received at least one dose of study medication. RESULTS: A total of 209 patients were randomly assigned (69 in arm A, 71 in arm B, and 69 in arm C). At a median follow-up of 32.2 (interquartile range, 27.9-41.6) months, median OS was not reached in any arm and more than 30 patients were alive in all arms. Assuming a null hypothesis of median OS of ≤ 15 months, the OS end point was met for all arms. The 2-year and 3-year OS rates were 65% (95% CI, 54 to 76) and 54% (95% CI, 41 to 67) in arm A, 73% (95% CI, 62 to 84) and 62% (95% CI, 48 to 76) in arm B, and 69% (95% CI, 59 to 80) and 60% (95% CI, 58 to 72) in arm C. No new safety signals emerged. CONCLUSION: Sequential immunotherapy and targeted therapy provide clinically meaningful survival benefits for patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma.