Clinical outcomes of melanoma brain metastases treated with nivolumab and ipilimumab alone versus nivolumab and ipilimumab with stereotactic radiosurgery.

PURPOSE: Upfront dual checkpoint blockade with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) has demonstrated efficacy for treating melanoma brain metastases (MBM) in asymptomatic patients. Whether the combination of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) with dual checkpoint blockade improves outcomes over dual-checkpoint blockade alone is unknown. We evaluated clinical outcomes of patients with MBM receiving ICI with nivolumab and ipilimumab, with and without SRS. METHODS: 49 patients with 158 MBM receiving nivolumab and ipilimumab for untreated MBM between 2015 and 2022 were identified at our institution. Patient and tumor characteristics including age, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), presence of symptoms, cancer history, MBM burden, and therapy course were recorded. Outcomes measured from initiation of MBM-directed therapy included overall survival (OS), local control (LC), and distant intracranial control (DIC). Time-to-event analysis was conducted with the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: 25 patients with 74 MBM received ICI alone, and 24 patients with 84 MBM received concurrent SRS. Median follow-up was 24 months. No differences in age (p = 0.96), KPS (p = 0.85), presence of symptoms (p = 0.79), prior MBM (p = 0.68), prior MBM-directed surgery (p = 0.96) or SRS (p = 0.68), MBM size (p = 0.67), or MBM number (p = 0.94) were seen. There was a higher rate of nivolumab and ipilimumab course completion in the SRS group (54% vs. 24%; p = 0.029). The SRS group received prior immunotherapy more often than the ICI alone group (54% vs. 8.0%; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in 1-year OS (72% vs. 71%, p = 0.20) and DIC (63% v 51%, p = 0.26) between groups. The SRS group had higher 1-year LC (92% vs. 64%; p = 0.002). On multivariate analysis, LC was improved with combination therapy (AHR 0.38, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: In our analysis, patients who received SRS with nivolumab and ipilimumab had superior LC without increased risk of toxicity or compromised immunotherapy treatment completion despite the SRS cohort having higher rates of prior immunotherapy. Further prospective study of combination nivolumab and ipilimumab with SRS is warranted.

Stereotactic radiosurgery and anti-PD-1 + CTLA-4 therapy, anti-PD-1 therapy, anti-CTLA-4 therapy, BRAF/MEK inhibitors, BRAF inhibitors, or conventional chemotherapy for the management of melanoma brain metastases.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy and targeted BRAF/MEK inhibitors (i) have revolutionised the systemic management of advanced melanoma. Given the role of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) in the local management of brain metastases, we sought to evaluate clinical outcomes in patients with melanoma brain metastases (MBM) treated with SRS and various systemic therapies. METHODS: Patients were included if MBM were diagnosed and treated with SRS within 3 months of receiving anti-PD-1+CTLA-4 therapy, anti-PD-1 therapy, anti-CTLA-4 therapy, BRAF/MEK-i, BRAF-i, or conventional chemotherapy. Comparisons between groups were made for overall survival (OS), distant MBM control, local MBM, systemic progression-free survival (sPFS), and neurotoxicity. RESULTS: In total, 257 patients with 1048 MBM treated over 368 SRS sessions between 2011 and 2020 were identified. On MVA, treatment with anti-PD1+anti-CTLA-4, anti-PD-1, and BRAF/MEK-i improved distant intracranial control over conventional chemotherapy. No significant differences were noted in local control (LC) between groups (p = 0.78). Kaplan-Meier OS at 12 months for anti-PD-1 + CTLA-4 therapy, anti-PD-1 therapy, anti-CTLA-4 therapy, BRAF/MEK-i, BRAF-i, and conventional chemotherapy was 68%, 59%, 45%, 62%, 21%, and 15%, respectively (p = <0.0001). The sPFS rates at 12 months were 57%, 53%, 42%, 45%, 14%, and 6% (p = <0.0001). No significant differences were noted in rates of radiation necrosis (p = 0.93). CONCLUSIONS: This is among the largest series evaluating MBM treated with SRS and various systemic therapy regimens. Our analysis noted significant differences in OS, distant MBM control, and sPFS by systemic therapy. No differences in LC or radiation necrosis risk were noted.

Systematic Review of Endolymphatic Sac Tumor Treatment and Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Endolymphatic sac tumors are rare neoplasms originating in the endolymphatic sac. Current literature is limited to case reports and small case series. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature to better describe clinical presentation, treatment options, and outcomes in endolymphatic sac tumors. DATA SOURCE: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines describing human endolymphatic sac tumors. Risk of bias was assessed using a validated critical appraisal checklist for case series. Studies without inclusion of individual patient characteristics, corresponding treatments, and outcomes were excluded. Heterogeneity of data precluded meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 82 studies met inclusion criteria, and 253 discrete tumors were analyzed. A total of 23.4% of patients had von Hippel-Lindau disease. Von Hippel-Lindau-associated tumors affected females to males in a 2.4:1 ratio. Patients with von Hippel-Lindau disease displayed earlier average age at diagnosis compared to the sporadic cohort. Surgery was the primary treatment modality and was performed in 88.9% of cases. Adjuvant radiation therapy was employed in 18.7% of cases; 16.2% cases recurred, and 10.6% had progression of residual disease after treatment. Mean time to recurrence or progression was 53.1 ± 52.4 months with a range of 3 to 240 months. CONCLUSION: Endolymphatic sac tumors require a high degree of suspicion for early diagnosis. Complete resection is the standard of care. No strong evidence supports routine use of adjuvant radiation therapy. Given the high rate of recurrence and wide-ranging time to recurrence, long-term follow-up is necessary.

Clinical outcomes of non-small cell lung cancer brain metastases treated with stereotactic radiosurgery and immune checkpoint inhibitors, EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors, or chemotherapy alone.

OBJECTIVE: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) are commonly used in the systemic management of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) brain metastases (BMs). However, optimizing control of NSCLC BM with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and various systemic therapies remains an area of investigation. METHODS: Between 2016 and 2019, the authors identified 171 NSCLC BM patients with 646 BMs treated with single-fraction SRS within 3 months of receiving treatment with ICIs (n = 56; 33%), EGFR-TKI (n = 30; 18%), chemotherapy and ICIs (n = 23; 14%), or standard chemotherapy alone (n = 62; 36%). Time-to-event analysis was conducted, and outcomes included distant intracranial control (DIC), local control (LC), and overall survival from SRS. RESULTS: The median follow-up from BM diagnosis was 8.9 months (range 0.3-127 months). The 12-month Kaplan-Meier DIC rates were 37%, 53%, 41%, and 21% (p = 0.047) for the ICI, EGFR-TKI, ICI and chemotherapy, and chemotherapy-alone groups, respectively. On multivariate analysis, DIC was improved with EGFR-TKI (HR 0.4, 95% CI 0.3-0.8, p = 0.005) compared with conventional chemotherapy and treatment with SRS before systemic therapy (HR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.9, p = 0.03) compared with after; and LC was improved with SRS before (HR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.9, p = 0.03) or concurrently (HR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1-0.6, p = 0.003) compared with after. No differences in radionecrosis were noted by timing or type of systemic therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The authors' analysis showed significant differences in DIC based on receipt of systemic therapy and treatment with SRS before systemic therapy improved DIC. Prospective evaluation of the potential synergism between systemic therapy and SRS in NSCLC BM management is warranted.

The plant pathogen enzyme AldC is a long-chain aliphatic aldehyde dehydrogenase.

Aldehyde dehydrogenases are versatile enzymes that serve a range of biochemical functions. Although traditionally considered metabolic housekeeping enzymes because of their ability to detoxify reactive aldehydes, like those generated from lipid peroxidation damage, the contributions of these enzymes to other biological processes are widespread. For example, the plant pathogen Pseudomonas syringae strain PtoDC3000 uses an indole-3-acetaldehyde dehydrogenase to synthesize the phytohormone indole-3-acetic acid to elude host responses. Here we investigate the biochemical function of AldC from PtoDC3000. Analysis of the substrate profile of AldC suggests that this enzyme functions as a long-chain aliphatic aldehyde dehydrogenase. The 2.5 Å resolution X-ray crystal of the AldC C291A mutant in a dead-end complex with octanal and NAD+ reveals an apolar binding site primed for aliphatic aldehyde substrate recognition. Functional characterization of site-directed mutants targeting the substrate- and NAD(H)-binding sites identifies key residues in the active site for ligand interactions, including those in the "aromatic box" that define the aldehyde-binding site. Overall, this study provides molecular insight for understanding the evolution of the prokaryotic aldehyde dehydrogenase superfamily and their diversity of function.