Systemic Therapy for Melanoma: ASCO Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: To provide guidance to clinicians regarding the use of systemic therapy for melanoma. METHODS: American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel and conducted an updated systematic review of the literature. RESULTS: The updated review identified 21 additional randomized trials. UPDATED RECOMMENDATIONS: Neoadjuvant pembrolizumab was newly recommended for patients with resectable stage IIIB to IV cutaneous melanoma. For patients with resected cutaneous melanoma, adjuvant nivolumab or pembrolizumab was newly recommended for stage IIB-C disease and adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab was added as a potential option for stage IV disease. For patients with unresectable or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, nivolumab plus relatlimab was added as a potential option regardless of BRAF mutation status and nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab was preferred over BRAF/MEK inhibitor therapy. Talimogene laherparepvec is no longer recommended as an option for patients with BRAF wild-type disease who have progressed on anti-PD-1 therapy. Ipilimumab- and ipilimumab-containing regimens are no longer recommended for patients with BRAF-mutated disease after progression on other therapies.This full update incorporates the new recommendations for uveal melanoma published in the 2022 Rapid Recommendation Update.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/melanoma-guidelines.

Systemic therapy for melanoma: ASCO guideline update

To provide guidance to clinicians regarding the use of systemic therapy for melanoma. American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel and conducted an updated systematic review of the literature. The updated review identified 21 additional randomized trials. Neoadjuvant pembrolizumab was newly recommended for patients with resectable stage IIIB to IV cutaneous melanoma. For patients with resected cutaneous melanoma, adjuvant nivolumab or pembrolizumab was newly recommended for stage IIB-C disease and adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab was added as a potential option for stage IV disease. For patients with unresectable or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, nivolumab plus relatlimab was added as a potential option regardless of BRAF mutation status and nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab was preferred over BRAF/MEK inhibitor therapy. Talimogene laherparepvec is no longer recommended as an option for patients with BRAF wild-type disease who have progressed on anti­PD-1 therapy. Ipilimumab- and ipilimumab-containing regimens are no longer recommended for patients with BRAF-mutated disease after progression on other therapies. This full update incorporates the new recommendations for uveal melanoma published in the 2022 Rapid Recommendation Update. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/melanoma-guidelines

Effectiveness of Adjuvant Pembrolizumab vs High-Dose Interferon or Ipilimumab for Quality-of-Life Outcomes in Patients With Resected Melanoma: A Secondary Analysis of the SWOG S1404 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: A key issue for the adjuvant treatment of patients with melanoma is the assessment of the effect of treatment on relapse, survival, and quality of life (QOL). Objective: To compare QOL in patients with resected melanoma at high risk for relapse who were treated with adjuvant pembrolizumab vs standard of care with either ipilimumab or high-dose interferon α 2b (HDI). Design, Setting, and Participants: The S1404 phase 3 randomized clinical trial was conducted by the SWOG Cancer Research Network at 211 community/academic sites in the US, Canada, and Ireland. Patients were enrolled from December 2015 to October 2017. Data analysis for this QOL substudy was completed in March 2022. Overall, 832 patients were evaluable for the primary QOL end point. Interventions: Patients were randomized (1:1) to treatment with adjuvant pembrolizumab vs standard of care with ipilimumab/HDI. Main Outcomes and Measures: Quality of life was assessed for patients at baseline and cycles 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 after randomization using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) Biological Response Modifiers (FACT-BRM), FACT-General, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Diarrhea, and European QOL 5-Dimension 3-Level scales. The primary end point was the comparison by arm of cycle 3 FACT-BRM trial outcome index (TOI) scores using linear regression. Linear-mixed models were used to evaluate QOL scores over time. Regression analyses included adjustments for the baseline score, disease stage, and programmed cell death ligand 1 status. A clinically meaningful difference of 5 points was targeted. Results: Among 1303 eligible patients (median [range] age, 56.7 [18.3-86.0] years; 524 women [40.2%]; 779 men [59.8%]; 10 Asian [0.8%], 7 Black [0.5%], 44 Hispanic [3.4%], and 1243 White [95.4%] individuals), 1188 (91.1%) had baseline FACT-BRM TOI scores, and 832 were evaluable at cycle 3 (ipilimumab/HDI = 267 [32.1%]; pembrolizumab = 565 [67.9%]). Evaluable patients were predominantly younger than 65 years (623 [74.9%]) and male (779 [58.9%]). Estimates of FACT-BRM TOI cycle 3 compliance did not differ by arm (ipilimumab/HDI, 96.0% vs pembrolizumab, 98.3%; P = .25). The adjusted cycle 3 FACT-BRM TOI score was 9.6 points (95% CI, 7.9-11.3; P < .001) higher (better QOL) for pembrolizumab compared with ipilimumab/HDI, exceeding the prespecified clinically meaningful difference. In linear-mixed models, differences by arm exceeded 5 points in favor of pembrolizumab through cycle 7. In post hoc analyses, FACT-BRM TOI scores favored the pembrolizumab arm compared with the subset of patients receiving ipilimumab (difference, 6.0 points; 95% CI, 4.1-7.8; P < .001) or HDI (difference, 17.0 points; 95% CI, 14.6-19.4; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This secondary analysis of a phase 3 randomized clinical trial found that adjuvant pembrolizumab improved QOL vs treatment with adjuvant ipilimumab or HDI in patients with high-risk resected melanoma. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02506153.

Combination Dabrafenib and Trametinib Versus Combination Nivolumab and Ipilimumab for Patients With Advanced BRAF-Mutant Melanoma: The DREAMseq Trial-ECOG-ACRIN EA6134.

PURPOSE: Combination programmed cell death protein 1/cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4-blockade and dual BRAF/MEK inhibition have each shown significant clinical benefit in patients with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma, leading to broad regulatory approval. Little prospective data exist to guide the choice of either initial therapy or treatment sequence in this population. This study was conducted to determine which initial treatment or treatment sequence produced the best efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a phase III trial, patients with treatment-naive BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma were randomly assigned to receive either combination nivolumab/ipilimumab (arm A) or dabrafenib/trametinib (arm B) in step 1, and at disease progression were enrolled in step 2 to receive the alternate therapy, dabrafenib/trametinib (arm C) or nivolumab/ipilimumab (arm D). The primary end point was 2-year overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were 3-year OS, objective response rate, response duration, progression-free survival, crossover feasibility, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 265 patients were enrolled, with 73 going onto step 2 (27 in arm C and 46 in arm D). The study was stopped early by the independent Data Safety Monitoring Committee because of a clinically significant end point being achieved. The 2-year OS for those starting on arm A was 71.8% (95% CI, 62.5 to 79.1) and arm B 51.5% (95% CI, 41.7 to 60.4; log-rank P = .010). Step 1 progression-free survival favored arm A (P = .054). Objective response rates were arm A: 46.0%; arm B: 43.0%; arm C: 47.8%; and arm D: 29.6%. Median duration of response was not reached for arm A and 12.7 months for arm B (P < .001). Crossover occurred in 52% of patients with documented disease progression. Grade ≥ 3 toxicities occurred with similar frequency between arms, and regimen toxicity profiles were as anticipated. CONCLUSION: Combination nivolumab/ipilimumab followed by BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy, if necessary, should be the preferred treatment sequence for a large majority of patients.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Melanoma: Cutaneous, Version 2.2021.

Over the past few years, the NCCN Guidelines for Melanoma: Cutaneous have been expanded to include pathways for treatment of microscopic satellitosis (added in v2.2020), and the following Principles sections: Molecular Testing (added in v2.2019), Systemic Therapy Considerations (added in v2.2020), and Brain Metastases Management (added in v3.2020). The v1.2021 update included additional modifications of these sections and notable revisions to Principles of: Pathology, Surgical Margins for Wide Excision of Primary Melanoma, Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy, Completion/Therapeutic Lymph Node Dissection, and Radiation Therapy. These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss the important changes to pathology and surgery recommendations, as well as additions to systemic therapy options for patients with advanced disease.

Systemic Therapy for Melanoma: ASCO Guideline.

PURPOSE: To provide guidance to clinicians regarding the use of systemic therapy for melanoma. METHODS: ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the literature. RESULTS: A systematic review, one meta-analysis, and 34 additional randomized trials were identified. The published studies included a wide range of systemic therapies in cutaneous and noncutaneous melanoma. RECOMMENDATIONS: In the adjuvant setting, nivolumab or pembrolizumab should be offered to patients with resected stage IIIA/B/C/D BRAF wild-type cutaneous melanoma, while either of those two agents or the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib should be offered in BRAF-mutant disease. No recommendation could be made for or against the use of neoadjuvant therapy in cutaneous melanoma. In the unresectable/metastatic setting, ipilimumab plus nivolumab, nivolumab alone, or pembrolizumab alone should be offered to patients with BRAF wild-type cutaneous melanoma, while those three regimens or combination BRAF/MEK inhibitor therapy with dabrafenib/trametinib, encorafenib/binimetinib, or vemurafenib/cobimetinib should be offered in BRAF-mutant disease. Patients with mucosal melanoma may be offered the same therapies recommended for cutaneous melanoma. No recommendation could be made for or against specific therapy for uveal melanoma. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/melanoma-guidelines.

Enforcement Provisions of Indoor Tanning Bans for Minors: An Analysis of the First 6 US States.

Several states have passed legislation banning minors from indoor tanning; however, concern has been raised regarding enforcement. We explored the statutes pertaining to enforcement in the first 6 US states to pass legislation banning minors younger than 18 years from indoor tanning. The findings reflect significant variability in enforcement provisions across the 6 states. Further investigations are needed to determine whether the statutes are successful in curbing indoor tanning among youths and ultimately whether indoor tanning bans among minors help to reduce skin cancer incidence.

The impact of indoor tanning legislation: newspaper coverage of the risks of indoor tanning before and after the California indoor tanning ban for minors.

On June 1, 2011, the California Senate passed a bill banning minors from indoor tanning. We aimed to determine whether the bill's passage was associated with longer-term media coverage regarding skin protection and the risks associated with indoor tanning. Articles from 31 English-language California newspapers between June 2010-May 2011 (PRE) and June 2011-May 2012 (POST) were searched using terms related to skin protection. Ninety articles were found for in-depth coding and analysis. There were more skin protection articles in the POST period than in the PRE period (57 vs 33; p < .05). In addition, there were more POST articles mentioning the risks of indoor tanning (33 vs 10; p < .001), and a POST article was more likely to mention the risks (58 vs 30%; p < .05). The higher number of POST articles mentioning the risks persisted throughout all quarters. Therefore, the California indoor tanning ban was associated with increased longer-term news coverage of skin protection and the risks associated with indoor tanning. This finding has potential influence on the many states that are considering comparable legislation.