Erratum: Why vitamin D for cancer patients?

[This corrects the article on p. 1 in vol. 3.].

Development of a core outcome set for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma trials: identification of core domains and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The lack of uniformity in the outcomes reported in clinical studies of the treatment of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) complicates efforts to compare treatment effectiveness across trials. OBJECTIVES: To develop a core outcome set (COS), a minimum set of agreed-upon outcomes to be measured in all clinical trials of a given disease or outcome, for the treatment of cSCC. METHODS: One hundred and nine outcomes were identified via a systematic literature review and interviews with 28 stakeholders. After consolidation of this long list, 55 candidate outcomes were rated by 19 physician and 10 patient stakeholders, in two rounds of Delphi exercises. Outcomes scored 'critically important' (score of 7, 8 or 9) by ≥ 70% of patients and ≥ 70% of physicians were provisionally included. At the consensus meeting, after discussion and voting of 44 international experts and patients, the provisional list was reduced to a final core set, for which consensus was achieved among all meeting participants. RESULTS: A core set of seven outcomes was finalized at the consensus meeting: (i) serious or persistent adverse events, (ii) patient-reported quality of life, (iii) complete response, (iv) partial response, (v) recurrence-free survival, (vi) progression-free survival and (vii) disease-specific survival. CONCLUSIONS: In order to increase the comparability of results across trials and to reduce selective reporting bias, cSCC researchers should consider reporting these core outcomes. Further work needs to be performed to identify the measures that should be reported for each of these outcomes.

ESMO consensus conference recommendations on the management of locoregional melanoma: under the auspices of the ESMO Guidelines Committee.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) held a consensus conference on melanoma on 5-7 September 2019 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The conference included a multidisciplinary panel of 32 leading experts in the management of melanoma. The aim of the conference was to develop recommendations on topics that are not covered in detail in the current ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline and where available evidence is either limited or conflicting. The main topics identified for discussion were: (i) the management of locoregional disease; (ii) targeted versus immunotherapies in the adjuvant setting; (iii) targeted versus immunotherapies for the first-line treatment of metastatic melanoma; (iv) when to stop immunotherapy or targeted therapy in the metastatic setting; and (v) systemic versus local treatment of brain metastases. The expert panel was divided into five working groups in order to each address questions relating to one of the five topics outlined above. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the working groups and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This manuscript presents the results relating to the management of locoregional melanoma, including findings from the expert panel discussions, consensus recommendations and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation. All participants approved the final manuscript.

ESMO consensus conference recommendations on the management of metastatic melanoma: under the auspices of the ESMO Guidelines Committee.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) held a consensus conference on melanoma on 5-7 September 2019 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The conference included a multidisciplinary panel of 32 leading experts in the management of melanoma. The aim of the conference was to develop recommendations on topics that are not covered in detail in the current ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline and where available evidence is either limited or conflicting. The main topics identified for discussion were (i) the management of locoregional disease; (ii) targeted versus immunotherapies in the adjuvant setting; (iii) targeted versus immunotherapies for the first-line treatment of metastatic melanoma; (iv) when to stop immunotherapy or targeted therapy in the metastatic setting; and (v) systemic versus local treatment for brain metastases. The expert panel was divided into five working groups to each address questions relating to one of the five topics outlined above. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the working groups and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This manuscript presents the results relating to the management of metastatic melanoma, including findings from the expert panel discussions, consensus recommendations and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation. All participants approved the final manuscript.

Vemurafenib in patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive metastatic melanoma: final overall survival results of the randomized BRIM-3 study.

BACKGROUND: The BRIM-3 trial showed improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for vemurafenib compared with dacarbazine in treatment-naive patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive metastatic melanoma. We present final OS data from BRIM-3. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned in a 1 : 1 ratio to receive vemurafenib (960 mg twice daily) or dacarbazine (1000 mg/m2 every 3 weeks). OS and PFS were co-primary end points. OS was assessed in the intention-to-treat population, with and without censoring of data for dacarbazine patients who crossed over to vemurafenib. RESULTS: Between 4 January 2010 and 16 December 2010, a total of 675 patients were randomized to vemurafenib (n = 337) or dacarbazine (n = 338, of whom 84 crossed over to vemurafenib). At the time of database lock (14 August 2015), median OS, censored at crossover, was significantly longer for vemurafenib than for dacarbazine {13.6 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 12.0-15.4] versus 9.7 months [95% CI 7.9-12.8; hazard ratio (HR) 0.81 [95% CI 0.67-0.98]; P = 0.03}, as was median OS without censoring at crossover [13.6 months (95% CI 12.0-15.4) versus 10.3 months (95% CI 9.1-12.8); HR 0.81 (95% CI 0.68-0.96); P = 0.01]. Kaplan-Meier estimates of OS rates for vemurafenib versus dacarbazine were 56% versus 46%, 30% versus 24%, 21% versus 19% and 17% versus 16% at 1, 2, 3 and 4 years, respectively. Overall, 173 of the 338 patients (51%) in the dacarbazine arm and 175 of the 337 (52%) of those in the vemurafenib arm received subsequent anticancer therapies, most commonly ipilimumab. Safety data were consistent with the primary analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Vemurafenib continues to be associated with improved median OS in the BRIM-3 trial after extended follow-up. OS curves converged after ≈3 years, likely as a result of crossover from dacarbazine to vemurafenib and receipt of subsequent anticancer therapies. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT01006980.

Efficacy and safety of nilotinib in patients with KIT-mutated metastatic or inoperable melanoma: final results from the global, single-arm, phase II TEAM trial.

BACKGROUND: The single-arm, phase II Tasigna Efficacy in Advanced Melanoma (TEAM) trial evaluated the KIT-selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor nilotinib in patients with KIT-mutated advanced melanoma without prior KIT inhibitor treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-two patients with KIT-mutated advanced melanoma were enrolled and treated with nilotinib 400 mg twice daily. TEAM originally included a comparator arm of dacarbazine (DTIC)-treated patients; the design was amended to a single-arm trial due to an observed low number of KIT-mutated melanomas. Thirteen patients were randomized to DTIC before the protocol amendment removing this study arm. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR), determined according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors. RESULTS: ORR was 26.2% (n = 11/42; 95% CI, 13.9%-42.0%), sufficient to reject the null hypothesis (ORR ≤10%). All observed responses were partial responses (PRs; median response duration, 7.1 months). Twenty patients (47.6%) had stable disease and 10 (23.8%) had progressive disease; 1 (2.4%) response was unknown. Ten of the 11 responding patients had exon 11 mutations, four with an L576P mutation. The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 4.2 and 18.0 months, respectively. Three of the 13 patients on DTIC achieved a PR, and another patient had a PR following switch to nilotinib. CONCLUSION: Nilotinib activity in patients with advanced KIT-mutated melanoma was similar to historical data from imatinib-treated patients. DTIC treatment showed potential activity, although the low patient number limits interpretation. Similar to previously reported results with imatinib, nilotinib showed greater activity among patients with an exon 11 mutation, including L576P, suggesting that nilotinib may be an effective treatment option for patients with specific KIT mutations. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01028222.

Timing of completion lymphadenectomy after positive sentinel node biopsy in patients with melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Nodal staging with sentinel node biopsy (SNB) and completion lymph node dissection (CLND) provides prognostic information to patients with melanoma and their physicians. It is not known whether the timing of CLND is associated with survival outcome and/or CLND tumour load. This study investigated whether CLND timing is associated with CLND tumour load, disease-free survival (DFS) and/or melanoma-specific survival (MSS). METHODS: A retrospective cohort of patients with SNB-positive melanoma from nine European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Melanoma Group centres undergoing surgery between 1993 and 2009 were examined. Patients were selected based on availability of CLND and follow-up data. The CLND interval was defined as the number of days between diagnosis and CLND. Patient and tumour characteristics were collected. Five-year DFS and MSS rates were calculated. Cox and logistic regression analysis were performed, adjusting for known prognostic/predictive indicators. RESULTS: A total of 784 patients were included in the study. Their median age was 51 (i.q.r. 40-62) years, and 418 patients (53·3 per cent) were men. Median Breslow thickness was 3·0 (i.q.r. 2·0-5·0) mm, and 148 patients (18·9 per cent) had a residual tumour load. Median CLND interval was 84 (i.q.r. 65-105) days. Five-year DFS and MSS rates were not significantly different for patients operated on with a median CLND interval of less than 84 days and those with an interval of at least 84 days (DFS: 54·2 versus 53·3 per cent respectively; MSS: 66·9 versus 65·1 per cent). In a multivariable Cox model, CLND interval was not a significant prognostic indicator. CLND interval was negatively correlated with identification of positive non-sentinel nodes, but following adjustment for known risk factors this effect was no longer found. CONCLUSION: The time interval between diagnosis of melanoma and CLND did not influence CLND tumour load, DFS or MSS.

Pregnancy and melanoma: a European-wide survey to assess current management and a critical literature overview.

BACKGROUND: Management of melanoma during pregnancy can be extremely challenging. The reported incidence of melanoma in pregnancy ranges from 2.8 to 5.0 per 100 000 pregnancies. There are no guidelines for the management of melanoma during pregnancy. METHODS: The survey was designed to investigate the opinions of melanoma physicians on decision making in relation to pregnancy and melanoma. A clinical scenario-based survey on management of pregnancy in melanoma was distributed all over Europe via the membership of the EORTC and other European melanoma societies. RESULTS: A total of 290 questionnaires were returned with a larger participation from southern Europe. A large heterogeneity was found for the answers given in the different clinical scenarios with 50% of the answers showing discordance, especially regarding sentinel lymph node biopsy during pregnancy. Discordant answers were also found for the counselling of women about a potential delay in getting pregnant after a high-risk melanoma (35% for a 2 year wait minimum vs. 57% no waiting needed), while for thin melanomas, as expected, there was more concordance with 70% of the physicians recommending no delay. Fifteen per cent of physicians recommended an abortion in stage II melanoma during the third month of pregnancy. Twenty per cent of the responders advised against hormonal replacement therapy in melanoma patients. CONCLUSIONS: The management of melanoma during pregnancy varies widely in Europe. At present, there is a lack of consensus in Europe, which may lead to very important decisions in women with melanoma, and guidelines are needed.

Diagnosis and treatment of in-transit melanoma metastases.

In transit metastases (ITM) from extremity or trunk melanomas are subcutaneous or cutaneous lymphatic deposits of melanoma cells, distant from the primary site but not reaching the draining nodal basin. Superficial ITM metastases develop in 5-10% of melanoma patients and are thought to be caused by cells spreading along lymphatics; ITM appear biologically different from distant cutaneous metastases, these probably due to a haematogenous dissemination. The diagnosis is usually clinical and by patients, but patients need to be adequately educated in the recognition of this clinical situation. Ultrasound or more sophisticated instrumental devices may be required if the disease develops more deeply in the soft tissues. According to AJCC 2009 staging classification, ITM are included in stages IIIb and IIIc, which are considered local advanced disease with quite poor 5-year survival rates and outcomes of 24-54% at 5 years.2 Loco-regional recurrence is in fact an important risk factor for distant metastatic disease, either synchronous or metachronous. Therapy for this pattern of recurrence is less standardised then in most other clinical situations and options vary based on the volume and site of the disease. Definitive surgical resection remains the preferred therapeutic approach. However, when surgery cannot be performed with a reasonable cosmetic and functional outcome, other options must be utilized.3-6 Treatment options are classified as local, regional or systemic. The choice of therapy depends on the number of lesions, their anatomic location, whether or not these are dermal or subcutaneous, the size and the presence or absence of extra-regional disease.

Safety and immunogenicity of the PRAME cancer immunotherapeutic in metastatic melanoma: results of a phase I dose escalation study.

PURPOSE: The PRAME tumour antigen is expressed in several tumour types but in few normal adult tissues. A dose-escalation phase I/II study (NCT01149343) assessed the safety, immunogenicity and clinical activity of the PRAME immunotherapeutic (recombinant PRAME protein (recPRAME) with the AS15 immunostimulant) in patients with advanced melanoma. Here, we report the phase I dose-escalation study segment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IV PRAME-positive melanoma were enrolled to 3 consecutive cohorts to receive up to 24 intramuscular injections of the PRAME immunotherapeutic. The RecPRAME dose was 20, 100 or 500 µg in cohorts 1, 2 and 3, respectively, with a fixed dose of AS15. Adverse events (AEs), including predefined dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and the anti-PRAME humoral response (ELISA), were coprimary end points. Cellular immune responses were evaluated using in vitro assays. RESULTS: 66 patients were treated (20, 24 and 22 in the respective cohorts). AEs considered by the investigator to be causally related were mostly grade 1 or 2 injection site symptoms, fatigue, chills, fever and headache. Two DLTs (grade 3 brain oedema and proteinuria) were recorded in two patients in two cohorts (cohorts 2 and 3). All patients had detectable anti-PRAME antibodies after four immunisations. Percentages of patients with predefined PRAME-specific-CD4+T-cell responses after four immunisations were similar in each cohort. No CD8+ T-cell responses were detected. CONCLUSIONS: The PRAME immunotherapeutic had an acceptable safety profile and induced similar anti-PRAME-specific humoral and cellular immune responses in all cohorts. As per protocol, the phase II study segment was initiated to further evaluate the 500 µg PRAME immunotherapeutic dose. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01149343, Results.

Prospective assessment of a gene signature potentially predictive of clinical benefit in metastatic melanoma patients following MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic (PREDICT).

BACKGROUND: Genomic profiling of tumor tissue may aid in identifying predictive or prognostic gene signatures (GS) in some cancers. Retrospective gene expression profiling of melanoma and non-small-cell lung cancer led to the characterization of a GS associated with clinical benefit, including improved overall survival (OS), following immunization with the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic. The goal of the present study was to prospectively evaluate the predictive value of the previously characterized GS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An open-label prospective phase II trial ('PREDICT') in patients with MAGE-A3-positive unresectable stage IIIB-C/IV-M1a melanoma. RESULTS: Of 123 subjects who received the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic, 71 (58.7%) displayed the predictive GS (GS+). The 1-year OS rate was 83.1%/83.3% in the GS+/GS- populations. The rate of progression-free survival at 12 months was 5.8%/4.1% in GS+/GS- patients. The median time-to-treatment failure was 2.7/2.4 months (GS+/GS-). There was one complete response (GS-) and two partial responses (GS+). The MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic was similarly immunogenic in both populations and had a clinically acceptable safety profile. CONCLUSION: Treatment of patients with MAGE-A3-positive unresectable stage IIIB-C/IV-M1a melanoma with the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic demonstrated an overall 1-year OS rate of 83.5%. GS- and GS+ patients had similar 1-year OS rates, indicating that in this study, GS was not predictive of outcome. Unexpectedly, the objective response rate was lower in this study than in other studies carried out in the same setting with the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic. Investigation of a GS to predict clinical benefit to adjuvant MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic treatment is ongoing in another melanoma study.This study is registered at www.clinicatrials.gov NCT00942162.

Treatment efficacy with electrochemotherapy: A multi-institutional prospective observational study on 376 patients with superficial tumors.

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous metastases represent a therapeutic challenge. An increasing body of experience suggests that electrochemotherapy (ECT) provides effective tumor control, although its evidence basis should be strengthened. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, observational study enrolled patients with superficial metastases, who underwent ECT at 10 centers between 2008 and 2013. Outcomes included adherence to European Standard Operating Procedures of ECT (ESOPE), tumor response, local progression-free survival (LPFS), toxicity and patient-reported outcomes (PROs, EORTC QLQ-C30 plus an 8-item questionnaire). RESULTS: We enrolled 376 eligible patients. Tumor histotype distribution was as follows: melanoma, 56%; squamous cell carcinoma, 11%; Kaposi sarcoma, 11%; breast carcinoma, 8%; basal cell carcinoma, 6%; soft tissue sarcomas, 3%; others, 5%. We registered 1304 target tumors (median size 1 cm). Treatment adhered to ESOPE in 88% of patients as to the route of drug administration, and in 70% as to electrode application. The procedure was mainly performed under sedation (64.6%) and by using intravenous chemotherapy (93.4%). Tumor response rate at 60 days was 88% (complete, 50%). Small tumor size predicted complete response achievement (OR 2.24, p = 0.003), higher LPFS (HR 0.68, p = 0.004) and improved PROs (Global Health Status, p < 0.001; wound bleeding, p < 0.001; healing, p = 0.002; and aesthetics, p < 0.001). Skin toxicity (grade ≥3, 7.8%) was lower in patients with tumors <2 cm (p≤0.001). One-year LPFS was 73.7% (95%CI 68.4-78.3). CONCLUSIONS: ECT represents a valuable skin-directed therapy across a range of malignancies. The most frequently applied treatment modality is intravenous chemotherapy under sedation. Small tumor size predicts durable tumor control, fewer side-effects and better PROs.

The interval between primary melanoma excision and sentinel node biopsy is not associated with survival in sentinel node positive patients - An EORTC Melanoma Group study.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, sentinel node biopsy (SNB) is the recommended staging procedure for stage I/II melanoma. Most melanoma guidelines recommend re-excision plus SNB as soon as possible after primary excision. To date, there is no evidence to support this timeframe. AIM: To determine melanoma specific survival (MSS) for time intervals between excisional biopsy and SNB in SNB positive patients. METHODS: Between 1993 and 2008, 1080 patients were diagnosed with a positive SNB in nine Melanoma Group centers. We selected 1015 patients (94%) with known excisional biopsy date. Time interval was calculated from primary excision until SNB. Kaplan-Meier estimated MSS was calculated for different cutoff values. Multivariable analysis was performed to correct for known prognostic factors. RESULTS: Median age was 51 years (Inter Quartile Range (IQR) 40-62 years), 535 (53%) were men, 603 (59%) primary tumors were located on extremities. Median Breslow thickness was 3.00 mm (IQR 1.90-4.80 mm), 442 (44%) were ulcerated. Median follow-up was 36 months (IQR 20-62 months). Median time interval was 47 days (IQR 32-63 days). Median Breslow thickness was equal for both <47 days and ≥47 days interval: 3.00 mm (1.90-5.00 mm) vs 3.00 mm (1.90-4.43 mm) (p = 0.402). Sentinel node tumor burden was significantly higher in patients operated ≥47 days (p = 0.005). Univariate survival was not significantly different for median time interval. Multivariable analysis confirmed that time interval was no independent prognostic factor for MSS. CONCLUSIONS: Time interval from primary melanoma excision until SNB was no prognostic factor for MSS in this SNB positive cohort. This information can be used to counsel patients.

Risk of second primary malignancies among 1537 melanoma patients and risk of second primary melanoma among 52 354 cancer patients in Northern Italy.

BACKGROUND: The number of melanoma survivors has been increasing for decades due to early diagnosis and improved survival. These patients have an increased risk of developing a second primary cancer (SPC); also, melanoma is frequently diagnosed among patients firstly diagnosed with an extracutaneous malignancy. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the risk of developing a SPC among 1537 melanoma patients, and the risk of second primary melanoma (SPM) in 52 354 extracutaneous cancer patients, who were treated at the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, Italy, during 2000-2010. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We calculated standardized incidence ratios (SIR) by applying gender-, age-, year- and region-specific reference rates to the follow-up time accrued between the diagnosis of the first and the second primary malignancies. RESULTS: Seventy-six SPC were diagnosed during a median follow-up of 4 years, of which 49 (64%) during the first 2 years upon melanoma diagnosis. The SIR was increased for cancer of breast (4.10, 95% CI 2.79-6.03), thyroid (4.67, 95% CI 1.94-11.22), brain (6.13, 95% CI 2.30-16.33) and for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (3.12, 95% CI 1.30-7.50). During a median follow-up of 4 years, 127 SPM were diagnosed: thick lesions were less frequent than for melanoma diagnosed as first cancer. The SIR was increased for cancer of breast (5.13, 95%CI 3.91-6.73), thyroid (16.2, 95%CI: 5.22-50.2), head and neck (5.62, 95%CI 1.41-22.50), soft tissue (8.68, 95%CI 2.17-34.70), cervix (12.5, 95% CI 3.14-50.20), kidney (3.19, 95%CI 1.52-6.68), prostate (4.36, 95%CI 2.63-7.24) and acute myeloid leukaemia (6.44, 95%CI 2.42-17.20). CONCLUSIONS: The most likely causes of these associations are the clustering of lifestyle risk factors in the same subgroups of population, mainly on a sociocultural basis and surveillance bias. This raises important questions about how to best follow cancer survivors by avoiding an inefficient use of resources and an excessive medicalization of these patients' lives.

Clinical Outcome of Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy for Lung Metastatic Lesions in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Oligometastatic Patients.

AIMS: The aim of this observational study was the evaluation of toxicity, local control and overall survival in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) oligometastatic patients who had undergone stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) for lung metastatic lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: SABR was carried out in oligometastatic patients with controlled primary tumour (adequate pulmonary function). We adopted the following dose prescriptions according to the site and the maximum diameter of the lung lesions: 60 Gy in three fractions for peripheral lesions with diameter ≤ 2 cm, 48 Gy in four fractions for peripheral lesions between 2 and 5 cm and 60 Gy in eight fractions for central lesions. A radiological response was defined according to RECIST criteria. Toxicity was recorded according to the Common Toxicity Criteria version 4.0. RESULTS: Between October 2010 and December 2014, 60 NSCLC patients with 90 lung lesions in total were treated at our institution. A radiological response was obtained in most patients. No pulmonary toxicity grade 4, chest pain or rib fracture occurred. The median follow-up from diagnosis was 28 months (range 5.4-104.5 months). The local control at 2 years was 88.9%. Overall survival at 1 and 2 years was 94.5 and 74.6%, respectively. CONCLUSION: SABR is well tolerated with a good radiological response and toxicity profile. Discussion within a multidisciplinary team is crucial to identify the oligometastatic patients who would probably benefit from ablative local therapy.

A randomized, controlled phase III trial of nab-Paclitaxel versus dacarbazine in chemotherapy-naïve patients with metastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of nab-paclitaxel versus dacarbazine in patients with metastatic melanoma was evaluated in a phase III randomized, controlled trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve patients with stage IV melanoma received nab-paclitaxel 150 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks or dacarbazine 1000 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent radiologic review; the secondary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 529 patients were randomized to nab-paclitaxel (n = 264) or dacarbazine (n = 265). Baseline characteristics were well balanced. The majority of patients were men (66%), had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status of 0 (71%), and had M1c stage disease (65%). The median PFS (primary end point) was 4.8 months with nab-paclitaxel and 2.5 months with dacarbazine [hazard ratio (HR), 0.792; 95.1% confidence interval (CI) 0.631-0.992; P = 0.044]. The median OS was 12.6 months with nab-paclitaxel and 10.5 months with dacarbazine (HR, 0.897; 95.1% CI 0.738-1.089; P = 0.271). Independently assessed overall response rate was 15% versus 11% (P = 0.239), and disease control rate (DCR) was 39% versus 27% (P = 0.004) for nab-paclitaxel versus dacarbazine, respectively. The most common grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events were neuropathy (nab-paclitaxel, 25% versus dacarbazine, 0%; P < 0.001), and neutropenia (nab-paclitaxel, 20% versus dacarbazine, 10%; P = 0.004). There was no correlation between secreted protein acidic and rich in cysteine (SPARC) status and PFS in either treatment arm. CONCLUSIONS: nab-Paclitaxel significantly improved PFS and DCR compared with dacarbazine, with a manageable safety profile.

Personalised medicine: Development and external validation of a prognostic model for metastatic melanoma patients treated with ipilimumab.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to set up a prognostic model for the identification of survival predictors specific for melanoma patients treated with ipilimumab. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The following prospectively collected data were utilised: patient and primary tumour characteristics, relapse-free-interval, site and number of metastases, previous therapies and level of serum biomarkers (lactic dehydrogenase (LDH), C-reactive protein, ß2-microglobulin, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), IL2, IL6, S-100, alkaline phosphatase (ALP), transaminases, leucocyte count, lymphocytes subpopulations). A multivariate prognostic model was developed using the Cox regression model fitted to the data of 113 consecutive metastatic patients treated with ipilimumab (3 mg/kg, q3w) at Veneto Institute of Oncology (IOV). External validation was obtained using the data of 69 and 34 patients treated at European Oncology Institute (IEO) and University of Torino (UT), respectively. RESULTS: Median survival was 8.3, 4.9 and 7.1 months from first ipilimumab administration at IOV, IEO and UT, respectively. Both higher baseline levels of LDH (Hazard Ratio [HR] v=1.36, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.16-1.58, P<.001) and neutrophils (HR=1.76, 95% CI 1.41-2.10, P<.001) were associated with worse prognosis. Model performance was satisfactory both upon internal validation (Dxy=0.42) and external validation (Dxy=0.40). Serum LDH and neutrophil count discriminated patients who lived more (low neutrophils and low LDH) or less (high LDH or neutrophils) than 24 months. CONCLUSION: Serum LDH and neutrophil count were significant independent prognostic factors. This externally validated prognostic nomogram, could help clinicians to identify the patients who would benefit most from ipilimumab and consequently to improve resource allocation. These easily available biomarkers deserve further validation.

Ising-model description of long-range correlations in DNA sequences.

We model long-range correlations of nucleotides in the human DNA sequence using the long-range one-dimensional (1D) Ising model. We show that, for distances between 10(3) and 10(6) bp, the correlations show a universal behavior and may be described by the non-mean-field limit of the long-range 1D Ising model. This allows us to make some testable hypothesis on the nature of the interaction between distant portions of the DNA chain which led to the DNA structure that we observe today in higher eukaryotes.