POLARIS: A phase 2 trial of encorafenib plus binimetinib evaluating high-dose and standard-dose regimens in patients with BRAF V600-mutant melanoma with brain metastasis.

Background: POLARIS (phase 2 [ph2]; NCT03911869) evaluated encorafenib (BRAF inhibitor) in combination with binimetinib (MEK1/2 inhibitor) in BRAF/MEK inhibitor-naïve patients with BRAF V600-mutant melanoma with asymptomatic brain metastases. Methods: The safety lead-in (SLI) assessed tolerability for high-dose encorafenib 300 mg twice daily (BID) plus binimetinib 45 mg BID. If the high dose was tolerable in ph2, patients would be randomized to receive high or standard dose (encorafenib 450 mg once daily [QD] plus binimetinib 45 mg BID). Otherwise, standard dose was evaluated as the recommended ph2 dose (RP2D). Patients who tolerated standard dosing during Cycle 1 could be dose escalated to encorafenib 600 mg QD plus binimetinib 45 mg BID in Cycle 2. Safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics were examined. Results: RP2D was standard encorafenib dosing, as >33% of evaluable SLI patients (3/9) had dose-limiting toxicities. Overall, of 13 safety-evaluable patients (10 SLI, 3 ph2), 9 had prior immunotherapy. There were 9 treatment-related adverse events in the SLI and 3 in ph2. Of the SLI efficacy-evaluable patients (n = 10), 1 achieved complete response and 5 achieved partial responses (PR); the brain metastasis response rate (BMRR) was 60% (95% CI: 26.2, 87.8). In ph2, 2 of 3 patients achieved PR (BMRR, 67% [95% CI: 9.4, 99.2]). Repeated encorafenib 300 mg BID dosing did not increase steady-state exposure compared with historical 450 mg QD data. Conclusions: Despite small patient numbers due to early trial termination, BMRR appeared similar between the SLI and ph2, and the ph2 safety profile appeared consistent with previous reports of standard-dose encorafenib in combination with binimetinib.

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/).

Successful application of chemosaturation with percutaneous hepatic perfusion in metastatic uveal melanoma patient progressing after systemic treatment options: a case report.

Uveal melanoma (UM) is a rare subtype of melanoma, accounting for less than 5% of all melanoma cases. Metastatic UM differs notably from cutaneous melanoma, exhibiting variations in etiology, prognosis, driver mutations, metastatic patterns, and poor responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Beyond local treatment options, such as resection, radiation therapy, and enucleation, and systemic treatments, such as ICIs, the approval of tebentafusp, a bispecific gp100 peptide-HLA-directed CD3 T-cell engager, marks a breakthrough in treating HLA-A*02:01 metastatic UM. Despite the advancements in treatment options, the long-term survival rates remain inadequate. We report a patient with metastatic UM who previously received ICI and progressed on tebentafusp treatment but subsequently exhibited a remarkable response to local treatment targeting liver metastasis. Such observations highlight the significance of exploring sequential therapeutic strategies for advanced UM, offering potential avenues to enhance treatment efficacy and patient prognosis.

Pembrolizumab versus placebo as adjuvant therapy in resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma: Outcomes in histopathologic subgroups from the randomized, double-blind, phase 3 KEYNOTE-716 trial.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) versus placebo in the phase 3 KEYNOTE-716 study of resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma. At the prespecified third interim analysis (data cut-off, January 4, 2022), the HR for RFS in the overall population was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.50 to 0.84) and the HR for DMFS was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.47 to 0.88). We present a post hoc analysis of efficacy by subtypes defined by histopathologic characteristics. METHODS: Patients aged ≥12 years with newly diagnosed, resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks (2 mg/kg up to 200 mg for pediatric patients) or placebo. The primary end point was RFS per investigator review; DMFS per investigator review was secondary. Subgroups of interest were melanoma subtype (nodular vs non-nodular), tumor thickness (≤4 mm vs >4 mm), presence of ulceration (yes vs no), mitotic rate (<5 per mm2 (median) vs ≥5 per mm2), and presence of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs; absent vs present). RESULTS: Between September 23, 2018, and November 4, 2020, 976 patients were assigned to pembrolizumab (n=487) or placebo (n=489). Median follow-up was 27.4 months (range, 14.0-39.4). The HR (95% CI) for RFS was 0.54 (0.37 to 0.79) for nodular and 0.77 (0.53 to 1.11) for non-nodular melanoma; 0.57 (0.37 to 0.89) for thickness ≤4 mm and 0.69 (0.50 to 0.96) for >4 mm; 0.66 (0.50 to 0.89) for ulceration and 0.57 (0.32 to 1.03) for no ulceration; 0.57 (0.35 to 0.92) for mitotic rate <5 per mm2 and 0.57 (0.40 to 0.80) for ≥5 per mm2; and 0.89 (0.52 to 1.54) for TILs absent and 0.51 (0.34 to 0.76) for TILs present. DMFS results were similar. In a Cox multivariate analysis, treatment arm, tumor thickness, and mitotic rate were significant independent factors for RFS, and treatment arm and mitotic rate were significant independent factors for DMFS. CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc analysis, the benefit of pembrolizumab was largely consistent with the overall study population regardless of histopathologic characteristics. These results support the use of adjuvant pembrolizumab in patients with resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03553836.

Pembrolizumab Versus Placebo as Adjuvant Therapy in Resected Stage IIB or IIC Melanoma: Final Analysis of Distant Metastasis-Free Survival in the Phase III KEYNOTE-716 Study.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.Pembrolizumab adjuvant therapy was shown to significantly improve recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) in patients with resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma in earlier analyses of the randomized, double-blind, phase III KEYNOTE-716 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03553836). We report results of the protocol-specified final analysis of DMFS for KEYNOTE-716. Overall, 976 patients were randomly allocated to pembrolizumab (n = 487) or placebo (n = 489). As of January 4, 2023, median follow-up was 39.4 months (range, 26.0-51.4 months). The median DMFS was not reached in either treatment group, and the estimated 36-month DMFS was 84.4% for pembrolizumab and 74.7% for placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.59 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.79]). The median RFS was not reached in either treatment group, and the estimated 36-month RFS was 76.2% for pembrolizumab and 63.4% for placebo (HR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.49 to 0.79]). DMFS and RFS results were consistent across most prespecified subgroups, including stage IIB and stage IIC melanoma. The safety profile of pembrolizumab was manageable and consistent with previous reports. These results continue to support the use of pembrolizumab adjuvant therapy in patients with resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma.

Plain language summary of the CheckMate 76K study results: nivolumab given after stage 2B/2C melanoma is removed by surgery.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: In this article, we summarize results from the ongoing phase 3 CheckMate 76K clinical study published online in Nature Medicine in October 2023. The study goal was to learn whether nivolumab works as an adjuvant therapy (that is, helps to keep cancer from coming back when it is given after surgery) for stage 2 melanoma (skin cancer) that has not spread to other parts of the body. Nivolumab is an immunotherapy that activates a person's immune system so it can destroy cancer cells. In melanoma, staging describes the severity of the cancer. Melanoma staging ranges from 0 (very thin and confined to the upper layer of the skin) to 4 (spread to distant parts of the body), with earlier stages removed by surgery. The people in this study had stage 2 melanoma that had not spread to the lymph nodes or other organs in the body. HOW WAS THE STUDY DESIGNED?: People 12 years and older with stage 2 melanoma that had not spread and had been removed by surgery were included in CheckMate 76K. People were randomly assigned to receive either nivolumab (526 patients) or placebo (264 patients). A placebo resembles the test medicine but does not contain any active medicines. The researchers assessed whether people who received nivolumab lived longer without their cancer returning and/or spreading to other parts of their bodies (compared with placebo) and if nivolumab was well tolerated. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: Researchers found that people who received nivolumab were 58% less likely to have their cancer return and 53% less likely of having their cancer spread to distant parts of their body, compared with placebo. These reductions in risk with nivolumab were seen in different subgroups of people with a range of characteristics, and regardless of how deep the melanoma had gone into the skin. People taking nivolumab had more side effects than those taking placebo, but most were mild to moderate and manageable. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: Results from CheckMate 76K support the benefit of using nivolumab as a treatment option for people with stage 2 melanoma post-surgery.

Prognostic and predictive value of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the EORTC 1325/KEYNOTE-054 phase III trial of pembrolizumab versus placebo in resected high-risk stage III melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Pain is common in patients with cancer. The World Health Organisation recommends paracetamol or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for mild pain and combined with other agents for moderate/severe pain. This study estimated associations of NSAIDs with recurrence-free survival (RFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in high-risk patients with resected melanoma in the EORTC 1325/KEYNOTE-054 phase III clinical trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with AJCC7 stage IIIA, IIIB or IIIC resected melanoma were randomized to receive 200 mg of adjuvant pembrolizumab (N = 514) or placebo (N = 505) 3-weekly for one year or until recurrence. As previously reported, pembrolizumab prolonged RFS and DMFS. NSAID use was defined as administration between 7 days pre-randomization and starting treatment. Multivariable Cox and Fine and Gray models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for associations of NSAIDs with RFS, DMFS and irAEs. RESULTS: Of 1019 patients randomized, 59 and 44 patients in the pembrolizumab and placebo arms, respectively, used NSAIDs. NSAIDs were not associated with RFS (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.58-1.43) or DMFS in the pembrolizumab (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.65-1.66) or placebo arms (for RFS, HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.48-1.20; for DMFS, HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49-1.31). NSAIDs were associated with the incidence of irAEs in the placebo arm (HR 3.06, 95% CI 1.45-6.45) but not in the pembrolizumab arm (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.58-1.53). CONCLUSION: NSAIDs were not associated with efficacy outcomes nor the risk of irAEs in patients with resected high-risk stage III melanoma receiving adjuvant pembrolizumab.

Outcomes of patients with resected stage III/IV acral or mucosal melanoma, treated with adjuvant anti-PD-1 based therapy.

IMPORTANCE: Acral (AM) and mucosal melanomas (MM) are rare subtypes with a poor prognosis. In those with advanced disease, anti-PD-1 (PD1) therapy has reduced activity compared to that seen in non-acral cutaneous melanoma. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of adjuvant PD1 in resected AM or MM. DESIGN: An international, retrospective cohort study SETTING: Data up to November 2021 collected from 20 centres across 10 countries. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and ninety four patients with resected stage III or IV1 AM or MM who received adjuvant PD1 were included and compared to matched patients from the Melanoma Institute Australia (MIA) database using a propensity score matching analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Recurrence-free survival (RFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS) were investigated. RESULTS: Forty five of 139 (32%) AM and 9 of 55 (16%) MM patients completed adjuvant therapy. The main reason for early treatment cessation in both groups was disease recurrence: 51 (37%) and 30 (55%) in the AM and MM groups, respectively. In the AM group adjuvant PD1 was associated with a longer RFS [HR-0.69 (0.52-0.92, p = 0.0127)], DMFS [HR0.58 (0.38-0.89, p = 0.0134)] and OS [HR of 0.59 (0.38-0.92, p-value 0.0196)] when compared to the historical cohort. In the MM group there was no statistical difference in RFS [HR1.36 (0.69-2.68,p-value 0.3799], DMFS or OS. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: After adjuvant PD1, both AM and MM have a high risk of recurrence. Our data suggests a benefit to using adjuvant PD1 therapy in resected AM but not in resected MM. Additional studies to investigate the efficacy of adjuvant PD1 for MM are needed.

Efficacy and safety of 'Second Adjuvant' therapy with BRAF/MEK inhibitors after local therapy for recurrent melanoma following adjuvant PD-1 based immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Anti-PD-1 antibodies and BRAK/MEK inhibitors (BRAF/MEKi) reduce the risk of recurrence for patients with resected stage III melanoma. BRAFV600-mutated (BRAFmut) melanoma patients who recur with isolated disease following adjuvant therapy may be suitable for 'second adjuvant' treatment after local therapy. We sought to examine the efficacy and safety of 'second adjuvant' BRAF/MEKi. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with BRAFmut melanoma treated with adjuvant PD-1 based immunotherapy who recurred, underwent definitive local therapy and were then treated with adjuvant BRAF/MEKi were identified retrospectively from 13 centres (second adjuvant group). Demographics, disease and treatment characteristics and outcome data were examined. Outcomes were compared to BRAFmut patients who did not receive 'second adjuvant' therapy (no second adjuvant group). RESULTS: 73 patients were included; 61 who received 'second adjuvant' therapy and 12 who did not. Most initially recurred on PD-1 therapy (66%). There were no differences in characteristics between groups. 92% of second adjuvant group received dabrafenib and trametinib and median duration of therapy was 11.8 months (0.4, 34.5). 72% required dose adjustments, 23% had grade 3 + toxicity and 38% permanently discontinued drug due to toxicity. After median 26.1 months (1.9, 56.3) follow-up, recurrence-free survival (RFS) was improved in second adjuvant group versus no second adjuvant group (median 30.8 vs 4 months, HR 0.35; p = 0.014), largely driven by a delay in early recurrence, with no difference in overall survival (p = 0.59). CONCLUSION: This is the first study examining outcomes of 'second adjuvant' targeted therapy for melanoma, after failure of adjuvant PD-1 based immunotherapy. Data suggest a short-term improvement in RFS, but at the cost of toxicity. Alternative strategies and more data on sequencing adjuvant therapies are required to improve outcomes.

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.

The side effect registry immuno-oncology (SERIO) - A tool for systematic analysis of immunotherapy-induced side effects.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapies such as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are effective in multiple tumor entities but induce a plethora of side effects. Comprehensive real-world analyses are essential to identify new signals, characterize diagnostic features, enable risk assessment, determine pathomechanisms, assess effectiveness of side effect management and compare tumor outcomes. METHODS: The international online `Side-Effect Registry Immuno-Oncology´ (SERIO; www.serio-registry.org) collects rare, complex, and severe immunotherapy-induced side effects across all tumor entities with a strong focus on ICI-induced immune-related adverse events (irAE). The relational database management system (RDMS) contains structured data on patient and tumor characteristics, type of immunotherapy, treatment of side effects, and outcome of tumor and irAE. Data are captured within 25 organ modules including new modules for immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) for CAR-T-cell therapies and cytokine release syndrome (CRS) for bispecific antibodies. Information on biological samples is gathered. RESULTS: A total of 1398 irAE cases have been documented by 58 centers from 13 countries in patients with 17 tumor types. IrAEs were induced by nine different immunotherapies including tebentafusp and CAR-T cell therapies, and resulted, among others, in neurological (7.6%), pulmonary (4.0%), and cardiac toxicities (2.9%). 50.0% of all irAEs were graded severe or life-threatening and 23.0% of patients received second-line therapy for steroid-refractory or steroid-dependent irAE. SERIO has contributed to 44 original publications on topics ranging from irMyocarditis to irEncephalitis to long-term persistent sequelae of immunotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: A reliable evidence base is crucial for decision-making in rare, complex or therapy-refractory irAE. SERIO can help optimize side effect management and thereby reduce morbidity and mortality induced by immunotherapy.

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.

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.

A tailored approach to horizon scanning for cancer medicines.

BACKGROUND: Horizon scanning (HS) is the systematic identification of emerging therapies to inform policy and decision-makers. We developed an agile and tailored HS methodology that combined multi-criteria decision analysis weighting and Delphi rounds. As secondary objectives, we aimed to identify new medicines in melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer and colorectal cancer most likely to impact the Australian government's pharmaceutical budget by 2025 and to compare clinician and consumer priorities in cancer medicine reimbursement. METHOD: Three cancer-specific clinician panels (total n = 27) and a consumer panel (n = 7) were formed. Six prioritisation criteria were developed with consumer input. Criteria weightings were elicited using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Candidate medicines were identified and filtered from a primary database and validated against secondary and tertiary sources. Clinician panels participated in a three-round Delphi survey to identify and score the top five medicines in each cancer type. RESULTS: The AHP and Delphi process was completed in eight weeks. Prioritisation criteria focused on toxicity, quality of life (QoL), cost savings, strength of evidence, survival, and unmet need. In both curative and non-curative settings, consumers prioritised toxicity and QoL over survival gains, whereas clinicians prioritised survival. HS results project the ongoing prevalence of high-cost medicines. Since completion in October 2021, the HS has identified 70 % of relevant medicines submitted for Pharmaceutical Benefit Advisory Committee assessment and 60% of the medicines that received a positive recommendation. CONCLUSION: Tested in the Australian context, our method appears to be an efficient and flexible approach to HS that can be tailored to address specific disease types by using elicited weights to prioritise according to incremental value from both a consumer and clinical perspective. POLICY SUMMARY: Since HS is of global interest, our example provides a reproducible blueprint for adaptation to other healthcare settings that integrates consumer input and priorities.

Adjuvant nivolumab in resected stage IIB/C melanoma: primary results from the randomized, phase 3 CheckMate 76K trial.

Patients with resected stage IIB/C melanoma have high recurrence risk, similar to those with resected stage IIIA/B disease. The phase 3, double-blind CheckMate 76K trial assessed 790 patients with resected stage IIB/C melanoma randomized 2:1 (stratified by tumor category) to nivolumab 480 mg or placebo every 4 weeks for 12 months. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed recurrence-free survival (RFS). Secondary endpoints included distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and safety. At 7.8 months of minimum follow-up, nivolumab significantly improved RFS versus placebo (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.42; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.30-0.59; P < 0.0001), with 12-month RFS of 89.0% versus 79.4% and benefit observed across subgroups; DMFS was also improved (HR = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.30-0.72). Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 10.3% (nivolumab) and 2.3% (placebo) of patients. One treatment-related death (0.2%) occurred with nivolumab. Nivolumab is an effective and generally well-tolerated adjuvant treatment in patients with resected stage IIB/C melanoma. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04099251 .

The role of diabetes in metastatic melanoma patients treated with nivolumab plus relatlimab.

BACKGROUND: The combination of nivolumab + relatlimab is superior to nivolumab alone in the treatment of naive patients and has activity in PD-1 refractory melanoma. We had previously observed a reduced expression of LAG3 in melanoma tissue from patients with type 2 diabetes. METHOD: To evaluate the impact of diabetes on oncological outcomes of patients with advanced melanoma treated with nivolumab plus the LAG3 inhibitor relatlimab we performed a retrospective multicenter study. RESULTS: Overall, 129 patients were included: 88 without diabetes before the treatment, 37 who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes before the start of treatment, and 4 without diabetes before treatment who developed immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced diabetes (ICI-DM). PFS was 21.71 months (95% CI: 15.61-27.81) in patients without diabetes, 10.23 months (95% CI: 5.81-14.66) in patients with type 2 diabetes, and 50.85 months (95% CI: 23.04-78.65) in patients who developed ICI-DM. OS was 37.94 months (95% CI: 31.02-44.85) in patients without diabetes, 22.12 months (95% CI: 14.41-29.85) in those with type 2 diabetes and 57.64 months (95% CI: 42.29-72.99) in those who developed ICI-DM. Multivariate analysis showed that the presence of diabetes and LDH was correlated with OS and PFS. The mean OS was 64.63 months in subjects with low levels of glucose (< 137 mg/dl) and 36.27 months in those with high levels (hazard ratio 0.16, 95% CI: 0.04-0.58; p = 0.005). The patients whose glucose blood level increased after 3 months of treatment with nivolumab + relatinib compared to baseline (ratio of blood level at baseline/after 3 months > 1.5) had a worse prognosis than those whose glucose level had not increased. This result was observed also in subgroups treated either in first line or further lines. Patients who developed ICI-DM during the study period had better outcomes than the overall population and patients without diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: LAG3 inhibition for treating metastatic or unresectable melanoma has a reduced efficacy in patients with type 2 diabetes, possibly due to a low expression of LAG3 in tumor tissue. Higher level evidence should be obtained.

Long-term outcomes and persistent toxicities following BRAF/MEK inhibitor therapy for advanced melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have shown that approximately 20% of patients have 4-5 year progression free survival (PFS) on BRAF/MEK inhibitors. The long-term safety and efficacy in these patients with more durable responses have not been studied. METHODS: This retrospective multicenter cohort study assessed response, progression, and adverse events in patients from eight institutions in four countries with >4-year PFS following BRAF/MEK inhibitors. RESULTS: Among 146 patients, 112 (76.7%) remained progression-free at median follow-up of 7.8 years from treatment start; 131 (89.7%) were alive. Among progressors (n = 34), 21 (62%) were on treatment at progression. Among those who discontinued treatment for reasons other than progression (toxicity, preference, etc.) (n = 68, with median 49 months treatment duration), 13 (19%) progressed (median 15.3 months from treatment cessation to progression). Surgery or radiation for single-organ progression resulted in durable benefit in 11 of 22 patients (50%). Subsequent systemic therapy included immune therapy (24% responded) and BRAF/MEK rechallenge (56% responded). Thirteen (8.9%) patients had ongoing toxicities at last follow-up, 10 (77%) of which remained on active treatment; all cardiac adverse events had resolved (n = 9). Twenty-four (16.4%) patients developed any new primary cancer, and 28 (19%) patients experienced other major health events. CONCLUSIONS: Over 75% of patients with 4-year PFS from BRAF/MEK inhibitors had continued durable antitumor responses after nearly 8-year median follow-up, with similar results in patients who discontinued therapy for reasons other than progression. Long-term toxicities were uncommon and low-grade. These findings highlight the often-favourable outcomes in patients with extended benefit from BRAF/MEK inhibitors.