COOLHAIR: a prospective randomized trial to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of scalp cooling in patients undergoing (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced alopecia (CIA) is a distressing side effect for women with breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy. Scalp cooling is a method aiming to prevent CIA, but its efficacy is not well defined. Randomized trials until recently and at the time this trial was designed have been lacking. METHODS: Patients undergoing (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer (EBC) were randomized to scalp cooling (CAP) or observation (NoCAP). All patients received 18-24 weeks of anthracycline- and/or taxane-based chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was patient-reported rate of alopecia according to a modified version of the Dean Scale. Hair preservation was defined as hair loss ≤ grade 2 (≤ 50%). Secondary endpoints were rate of alopecia determined by medical staff, rate of wig/scarf use, tolerability as well as quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients were randomized. Hair preservation was observed in 39.3% of patients in the CAP arm versus 0% in the NoCAP arm (p < 0.001). Wig/scarf use was significantly less frequent in the CAP group (40.7% vs 95.5% outside home before cycle 3, p < 0.001). The drop-out rate was 31.7% and 34.2% in the CAP and NoCAP arm, respectively. Main reasons for drop-out were hair loss, adverse events (CAP), and randomization into control arm. We observed no differences in efficacy between anthracycline-based and non-anthracycline-based regimens. QoL did not differ between the study arms. CONCLUSIONS: This trial adds to the evidence that scalp cooling effectively prevents CIA in a meaningful number of patients. This option should be made available for patients undergoing (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy for EBC.

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.

Long-lasting responses under treatment with ipilimumab: an argument against maintenance therapy?

Ipilimumab, a monoclonal CTLA-4 antibody, was the first drug improving overall survival in patients with metastatic melanoma. However, there are still unanswered questions concerning therapeutic regimes, e.g. if maintenance therapy is needed to achieve long-term response. We present three patients with metastatic melanoma who received ipilimumab after progression under chemotherapy. In all of these patients ipilimumab led to a long-term tumor control of at least 32 months. Interestingly, all of them developed severe autoimmune toxicity and ipilimumab treatment was discontinued after 1 respectively 2 cycles. The present cases demonstrate that a long-term response to ipilimumab can be achieved without maintenance therapy.