Anti-PD-1 alone or in combination with anti-CTLA-4 for advanced melanoma patients with liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: The combination of anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 has been associated with improvement in response and survival over anti-PD-1 monotherapy in unselected patients with advanced melanoma. Whether patients with liver metastases also benefit from the combination of anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 over anti-PD-1, is unclear. In this study, we sought to assess whether the combination of anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 leads to better response, progression-free survival and overall survival, compared with anti-PD-1 monotherapy for patients with liver metastases. METHODS: We have conducted an international multicentre retrospective study. Patients with advanced melanoma with liver metastases treated with 1st line anti-PD1 monotherapy or with anti-CTLA-4 were included. The endpoints of this study were: objective response rate, progression-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: With a median follow-up from commencement of anti-PD-1 monotherapy or in combination with anti-CTLA-4 of 47 months (95% CI, 42-51), objective response rate was higher with combination therapy (47%) versus anti-PD-1 monotherapy (35%) (p = 0.0027), while progression-free survival and overall survival were not statistically different between both treatment groups. However, on multivariable analysis with multiple imputation for missing values and adjusting for predefined variables, combination of anti-PD1 and anti-CTLA-4 was associated with higher objective response (OR 2.21, 1.46 - 3.36; p < 0.001), progression-free survival (HR 0.73, 0.57 - 0.92; p = 0.009) and overall survival (HR 0.71, 0.54 - 0.94; p = 0.018) compared to anti-PD1 monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study will help guide treatment selection for patients who present with liver metastases, suggesting that combination therapy should be considered for this group of patients.

Thyroid dysfunction after immune checkpoint inhibitors in a single-centre UK pan-cancer cohort: A retrospective study.

PURPOSE: This study investigated thyroid dysfunction with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in terms of proportions affected, risk factors, thyroid sequelae, and overall survival (OS). METHODS: Among patients with normal baseline free T4 (fT4) and thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) receiving ICIs at a large cancer centre, proportions of hyperthyroidism/hypothyroidism were determined (any, subclinical [normal fT4, abnormal TSH], overt [abnormal fT4, abnormal TSH], isolated hyperthyroxinaemia/hypothyroxinaemia and secondary) with onset times and subsequent thyroid statuses. Associations of overt dysfunction with OS were estimated using Cox regression and methods robust to immortal time bias (time-dependent Cox regression and 3- and 6-month landmark analyses). Associations of baseline variables with overt hyperthyroidism and hypothyroidism were estimated using Fine and Gray regression. RESULTS: Of 1349 patients, 34.2% developed hyperthyroidism (10.3% overt), including 54.9% receiving combination ICIs, while 28.2% developed hypothyroidism (overt 9.3%, secondary 0.5%). A third of overt hypothyroidism cases occurred without preceding hyperthyroidism. Subclinical thyroid dysfunction returned directly to normal in up to half. Overt hyperthyroidism progressed to overt hypothyroidism in 55.4% (median 1.6 months). Melanoma treatment in the adjuvant vs. advanced setting caused more overt hyperthyroidism (12.1% vs. 7.5%) and overt hypothyroidism (14.5% vs. 9.7%). Baseline eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 (HR=1.68, 1.07-2.63) was associated with overt hyperthyroidism and sex (HR=0.60, 0.42-0.87) and TSH (4th vs. 1st quartile HR=1.87, 1.10-3.19) with overt hypothyroidism. Overt dysfunction was associated with OS in the Cox analysis (HR=0.65, 0.50-0.85, median follow-up 22.2 months) but not in the time-dependent Cox (HR=0.79, 0.60-1.03) or landmark analyses (3-month HR=0.74, 0.51-1.07; 6-month HR=0.91, 0.66-1.24). CONCLUSION: Thyroid dysfunction affects up to half of patients receiving ICIs. The association with OS is unclear after considering immortal time bias. The clinical courses include recovery, thyrotoxicosis and de novo overt hypothyroidism. Adjuvant treatment for melanoma, where longer-term harms are of concern, causes more frequent/aggressive dysfunction.

A three-arm randomised phase II study of the MEK inhibitor selumetinib alone or in combination with paclitaxel in metastatic uveal melanoma.

AIMS: The MAPK pathway is constitutively activated in uveal melanoma (UM). Selumetinib (AZD6244, ARRY-142886), a MEK inhibitor, has shown limited activity as monotherapy in metastatic UM. Pre-clinical studies support synergistic cytotoxic activity for MEK inhibitors combined with taxanes, and here we sought to assess the clinical efficacy of combining selumetinib and paclitaxel. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-seven patients with metastatic UM who had not received prior chemotherapy were randomised to selumetinib alone, or combined with paclitaxel with or without interruption in selumetinib two days before paclitaxel. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). After amendment, the combination arms were combined for analysis and the sample size adjusted to detect a hazard ratio (HR): 0.55, 80% power at 1-sided 5% significance level. RESULTS: The median PFS in the combination arms was 4.8 months (95% CI: 3.8 - 5.6) compared with 3.4 months (2.0 - 3.9) in the selumetinib arm (HR 0.62 [90% CI 0.41 - 0.92], 1-sided p-value = 0.022). ORR was 14% and 4% in the combination and monotherapy arms respectively. Median OS was 9 months for the combination and was not significantly different from selumetinib alone (10 months) with HR of 0.98 [90% CI 0.58 - 1.66], 1-sided p-value = 0.469. Toxicity was in keeping with the known profiles of the agents involved. CONCLUSIONS: SelPac met its primary endpoint, demonstrating an improvement in PFS for combination selumetinib and paclitaxel. No improvement in OS was observed, and the modest improvement in PFS is not practice changing.

Nilotinib in KIT-driven advanced melanoma: Results from the phase II single-arm NICAM trial.

Mucosal (MM) and acral melanomas (AM) are rare melanoma subtypes of unmet clinical need; 15%-20% harbor KIT mutations potentially targeted by small-molecule inhibitors, but none yet approved in melanoma. This multicenter, single-arm Phase II trial (NICAM) investigates nilotinib safety and activity in KIT mutated metastatic MM and AM. KIT mutations are identified in 39/219 screened patients (18%); of 29/39 treated, 26 are evaluable for primary analysis. Six patients were alive and progression free at 6 months (local radiology review, 25%); 5/26 (19%) had objective response at 12 weeks; median OS was 7.7 months; ddPCR assay correctly identifies KIT alterations in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in 16/17 patients. Nilotinib is active in KIT-mutant AM and MM, comparable to other KIT inhibitors, with demonstrable activity in nonhotspot KIT mutations, supporting broadening of KIT evaluation in AM and MM. Our results endorse further investigations of nilotinib for the treatment of KIT-mutated melanoma. This clinical trial was registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN39058880) and EudraCT (2009-012945-49).

Longitudinal gut microbiome changes in immune checkpoint blockade-treated advanced melanoma.

Multiple clinical trials targeting the gut microbiome are being conducted to optimize treatment outcomes for immune checkpoint blockade (ICB). To improve the success of these interventions, understanding gut microbiome changes during ICB is urgently needed. Here through longitudinal microbiome profiling of 175 patients treated with ICB for advanced melanoma, we show that several microbial species-level genome bins (SGBs) and pathways exhibit distinct patterns from baseline in patients achieving progression-free survival (PFS) of 12 months or longer (PFS ≥12) versus patients with PFS shorter than 12 months (PFS <12). Out of 99 SGBs that could discriminate between these two groups, 20 were differentially abundant only at baseline, while 42 were differentially abundant only after treatment initiation. We identify five and four SGBs that had consistently higher abundances in patients with PFS ≥12 and <12 months, respectively. Constructing a log ratio of these SGBs, we find an association with overall survival. Finally, we find different microbial dynamics in different clinical contexts including the type of ICB regimen, development of immune-related adverse events and concomitant medication use. Insights into the longitudinal dynamics of the gut microbiome in association with host factors and treatment regimens will be critical for guiding rational microbiome-targeted therapies aimed at enhancing ICB efficacy.

Health Economic Consequences Associated With COVID-19-Related Delay in Melanoma Diagnosis in Europe.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in delayed access to medical care. Restrictions to health care specialists, staff shortages, and fear of SARS-CoV-2 infection led to interruptions in routine care, such as early melanoma detection; however, premature mortality and economic burden associated with this postponement have not been studied yet. Objective: To determine the premature mortality and economic costs associated with suspended melanoma screenings during COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns by estimating the total burden of delayed melanoma diagnoses for Europe. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter economic evaluation used population-based data from patients aged at least 18 years with invasive primary cutaneous melanomas stages I to IV according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) seventh and eighth editions, including melanomas of unknown primary (T0). Data were collected from January 2017 to December 2021 in Switzerland and from January 2019 to December 2021 in Hungary. Data were used to develop an estimation of melanoma upstaging rates in AJCC stages, which was verified with peripandemic data. Years of life lost (YLL) were calculated and were, together with cost data, used for financial estimations. The total financial burden was assessed through direct and indirect treatment costs. Models were building using data from 50 072 patients aged 18 years and older with invasive primary cutaneous melanomas stages I to IV according to the AJCC seventh and eighth edition, including melanomas of unknown primary (T0) from 2 European tertiary centers. Data from European cancer registries included patient-based direct and indirect cost data, country-level economic indicators, melanoma incidence, and population rates per country. Data were analyzed from July 2021 to September 2022. Exposure: COVID-19 lockdown-related delay of melanoma detection and consecutive public health and economic burden. As lockdown restrictions varied by country, lockdown scenario was defined as elimination of routine medical examinations and severely restricted access to follow-up examinations for at least 4 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were the total burden of a delay in melanoma diagnosis during COVID-19 lockdown periods, measured using the direct (in US$) and indirect (calculated as YLL plus years lost due to disability [YLD] and disability-adjusted life-years [DALYs]) costs for Europe. Secondary outcomes included estimation of upstaging rate, estimated YLD, YLL, and DALY for each European country, absolute direct and indirect treatment costs per European country, proportion of the relative direct and indirect treatment costs for the countries, and European health expenditure. Results: There were an estimated 111 464 (range, 52 454-295 051) YLL due to pandemic-associated delay in melanoma diagnosis in Europe, and estimated total additional costs were $7.65 (range, $3.60 to $20.25) billion. Indirect treatment costs were the main cost driver, accounting for 94.5% of total costs. Estimates for YLD in Europe resulted in 15 360 years for the 17% upstaging model, ranging from 7228 years (8% upstaging model) to 40 660 years (45% upstaging model). Together, YLL and YLD constitute the overall disease burden, ranging from 59 682 DALYs (8% upstaging model) to 335 711 DALYs (45% upstaging model), with 126 824 DALYs for the real-world 17% scenario. Conclusions and Relevance: This economic analysis emphasizes the importance of continuing secondary skin cancer prevention measures during pandemics. Beyond the personal outcomes of a delayed melanoma diagnosis, the additional economic and public health consequences are underscored, emphasizing the need to include indirect economic costs in future decision-making processes. These estimates on DALYs and the associated financial losses complement previous studies highlighting the cost-effectiveness of screening for melanoma.

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.

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.

Dabrafenib plus trametinib versus anti-PD-1 monotherapy as adjuvant therapy in BRAF V600-mutant stage III melanoma after definitive surgery: a multicenter, retrospective cohort study.

Background: Both dabrafenib/trametinib (D/T) and anti-PD-1 monotherapy (PD-1) are approved adjuvant therapies for patients with stage III BRAF V600-mutant melanoma. However, there is still a lack of head-to-head comparative data. We aimed to describe efficacy and toxicity outcomes for these two standard therapies across melanoma centers. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective cohort study was conducted in 15 melanoma centers in Australia, China, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK, and US. We included adult patients with resected stage III BRAF V600-mutant melanoma who received either adjuvant D/T or PD-1 between Jul 2015 and Oct 2022. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival (RFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), recurrence pattern and toxicity. Findings: We included 598 patients with stage III BRAF V600-mutant melanoma who received either adjuvant D/T (n = 393 [66%]) or PD-1 (n = 205 [34%]) post definitive surgery between Jul 2015 and Oct 2022. At a median follow-up of 33 months (IQR 21-43), the median RFS was 51.0 months (95% CI 41.0-not reached [NR]) in the D/T group, significantly longer than PD-1 (44.8 months [95% CI 28.5-NR]) (univariate: HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.50-0.87, P = 0.003; multivariate: HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.39-0.86, P = 0.007), with comparable OS with PD-1 (multivariate, HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.48-1.70, P = 0.75). Similar findings were observed using a restricted-mean-survival-time model. Among those who experienced recurrence, the proportion of distant metastases was higher in the D/T cohort. D/T had a higher incidence of treatment modification due to adverse events (AEs) than PD-1, but fewer persistent AEs. Interpretation: In patients with stage III BRAF V600-mutant melanoma post definitive surgery, D/T yielded better RFS than PD-1, with higher transient but lower persistent toxicity, and comparable OS. D/T seems to provide a better outcome compared with PD-1, but a longer follow-up and ideally a large prospective trial are needed. Funding: Dr. Xue Bai was supported by the Beijing Hospitals Authority Youth Programme (QMS20211101) for her efforts devoted to this study. Dr. Keith T. Flaherty was funded by Adelson Medical Research Foundation for the efforts devoted to this study.

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.

PARP14 inhibition restores PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor response following IFNγ-driven acquired resistance in preclinical cancer models.

Resistance mechanisms to immune checkpoint blockade therapy (ICBT) limit its response duration and magnitude. Paradoxically, Interferon γ (IFNγ), a key cytokine for cellular immunity, can promote ICBT resistance. Using syngeneic mouse tumour models, we confirm that chronic IFNγ exposure confers resistance to immunotherapy targeting PD-1 (α-PD-1) in immunocompetent female mice. We observe upregulation of poly-ADP ribosyl polymerase 14 (PARP14) in chronic IFNγ-treated cancer cell models, in patient melanoma with elevated IFNG expression, and in melanoma cell cultures from ICBT-progressing lesions characterised by elevated IFNγ signalling. Effector T cell infiltration is enhanced in tumours derived from cells pre-treated with IFNγ in immunocompetent female mice when PARP14 is pharmacologically inhibited or knocked down, while the presence of regulatory T cells is decreased, leading to restoration of α-PD-1 sensitivity. Finally, we determine that tumours which spontaneously relapse in immunocompetent female mice following α-PD-1 therapy upregulate IFNγ signalling and can also be re-sensitised upon receiving PARP14 inhibitor treatment, establishing PARP14 as an actionable target to reverse IFNγ-driven ICBT resistance.

European consensus-based interdisciplinary guideline for invasive cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Part 1: Diagnostics and prevention-Update 2023.

Invasive cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) is one of the most common cancers in white populations, accounting for 20% of all cutaneous malignancies. Overall, cSCC mostly has very good prognosis after treatment, with 5-year cure rates greater than 90%. Despite the overall favourable prognosis and the proportionally rare deaths, cSCC is associated with a high total number of deaths due to its high incidence. A collaboration of multidisciplinary experts from the European Association of Dermato-Oncology (EADO), the European Dermatology Forum (EDF), the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS), the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) and the European Organization of Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), was formed to update recommendations on cSCC, based on current literature and expert consensus. Part 1 of the guidelines addresses the updates on classification, epidemiology, diagnosis, risk stratification, staging and prevention in immunocompetent as well as immunosuppressed patients.

European consensus-based interdisciplinary guideline for invasive cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: Part 2. Treatment-Update 2023.

In order to update recommendations on treatment, supportive care, education, and follow-up of patients with invasive cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), a multidisciplinary panel of experts from the European Association of Dermato-Oncology (EADO), the European Dermatology Forum (EDF), the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS), the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV), and the European Organisation of Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) was formed. Recommendations were based on an evidence-based literature review, guidelines, and expert consensus. Treatment recommendations are presented for common primary cSCC (low risk, high risk), locally advanced cSCC, regional metastatic cSCC (operable or inoperable), and distant metastatic cSCC. For common primary cSCC, the first-line treatment is surgical excision with postoperative margin assessment or micrographically controlled surgery. Achieving clear surgical margins is the most important treatment consideration for patients with cSCCs amenable to surgery. Regarding adjuvant radiotherapy for patients with high-risk localised cSCC with clear surgical margins, current evidence has not shown significant benefit for those with at least one high-risk factor. Radiotherapy should be considered as the primary treatment for non-surgical candidates/tumours. For cSCC with cytologically or histologically confirmed regional nodal metastasis, lymph node dissection is recommended. For patients with metastatic or locally advanced cSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or radiotherapy, anti-PD-1 agents are the first-line systemic treatment, with cemiplimab being the first approved systemic agent for advanced cSCC by the Food and Drugs Administration/European Medicines Agency. Second-line systemic treatments for advanced cSCC, include epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (cetuximab) combined with chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Multidisciplinary board decisions are mandatory for all patients with advanced cSCC, considering the risks of toxicity, the age and frailty of patients, and co-morbidities, including immunosuppression. Patients should be engaged in informed, shared decision-making on management and be provided with the best supportive care to improve symptom management and quality of life. The frequency of follow-up visits and investigations for subsequent new cSCC depends on underlying risk characteristics.

COLUMBUS-AD: phase III study of adjuvant encorafenib + binimetinib in resected stage IIB/IIC BRAF V600-mutated melanoma.

Stage IIB/IIC melanoma has a high risk of recurrence after surgical resection. While, for decades, surgery was the only option for high-risk stage II disease in most countries, adjuvant therapies now exist. Anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) antibodies significantly improve recurrence-free survival versus placebo in patients with fully resected stage IIB/IIC melanoma. Combined BRAF MEK inhibitor therapy showed benefits in high-risk stage III and advanced disease; however, its role in patients with fully resected stage BRAF-mutated IIB/IIC melanoma is still unknown. Here we describe the rationale and design of the ongoing randomized, placebo-controlled COLUMBUS-AD trial, the first study of a BRAF-MEK inhibitor combination therapy (encorafenib + binimetinib) in patients with BRAF V600-mutated stage IIB/IIC melanoma.

Melanoma is a type of skin cancer. Although most stage II melanomas (cancer affecting the first two layers of skin) can be cured with surgery, the risk of the cancer returning and spreading to other areas of the body is high in some patients with stage IIB/IIC melanoma. Furthermore, once the melanoma has spread, it is much more difficult to treat successfully and remove all the cancer cells from the body. Some melanomas have a DNA alteration (or mutation) in what is known as the BRAF gene. This mutation can be identified by testing a sample of the tumor tissue removed during a biopsy or surgery. Testing for BRAF mutations at diagnosis can help ensure that patients receive the most appropriate treatment for their cancer. In some countries, surgery is the only option for patients with stage II melanoma, while in other countries, patients may be offered additional (adjuvant) anticancer treatment with immunotherapy (agents that work with the immune system to kill cancer cells). While immunotherapy can reduce the risk of melanoma recurrence, persistent, long-term toxicities are common and the use of this treatment in all stage IIB/IIC melanoma patients is not always possible. Here, we describe the rationale and design of an ongoing clinical trial (COLUMBUS-AD), which will be the first study (to our knowledge) to investigate the efficacy and safety of a treatment that specifically targets cancers with BRAF mutations (i.e., the BRAF-MEK inhibitor combination of the drugs encorafenib and binimetinib) in patients with BRAF-mutated stage IIB/IIC melanoma. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05270044 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Improved outcomes with early immunosuppression in patients with immune-checkpoint inhibitor induced myasthenia gravis, myocarditis and myositis: a case series.

PURPOSE: Myasthenia gravis (MG) is a rare but life-threatening complication of immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy and often co-presents with myositis and myocarditis. Previous case series of ICI-related MG have reported high mortality rates. We present a series of ten patients from a tertiary oncology centre outlining outcomes of an early multi-modal immunosuppression strategy. METHODS: We reviewed The Christie Hospital database of immunotherapy-related toxicity from 2017 to 2020. Symptom severity was assessed using the Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America (MGFA) classification. RESULTS: Ten patients with ICI-related MG were identified. All patients presented following 1 (n = 4) or 2 (n = 6) cycles of ICI. Symptom progression was rapid with a median of 3 days from onset of symptoms to admission. Concomitant myositis and myocarditis were observed in nine patients. AChR or MuSK autoantibodies were positive in six patients. All patients received urgent treatment with intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP) and eight received intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG). A single patient died from myasthenia-related symptoms; the remaining 9 patients were successfully discharged. CONCLUSION: In our cohort, we demonstrate good outcomes associated with early intensive immunosuppressive treatment with IVIG and IVMP. An agreed national treatment protocol or clinical discussion forum would be beneficial.

Adjuvant therapy for stage II melanoma: the need for further studies.

Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has revolutionised the outcomes for melanoma patients. In the metastatic setting, patients treated with nivolumab and ipilimumab have an expected 5-year survival of> 50%. For patients with resected high-risk stage III disease, adjuvant pembrolizumab, nivolumab or dabrafenib and trametinib are associated with a significant improvement in both relapse-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS). More recently neoadjuvant immunotherapy has shown very promising outcomes in patients with clinically detectable nodal disease and is likely to become a new standard of care. For stage IIB/C disease, two pivotal adjuvant trials of pembrolizumab and nivolumab have also reported a significant improvement in both RFS and DMFS. However, the absolute benefit is low and there are concerns about the risk of severe toxicities as well as long-term morbidity from endocrine toxicity. Ongoing registration phase III trials are currently evaluating newer immunotherapy combinations and the role of BRAF/MEK-directed targeted therapy for stage II melanoma. However, our ability to personalise therapy based on molecular risk stratification has lagged behind the development of novel immune therapies. There is a critical need to evaluate the use of tissue and blood-based biomarkers, to better select patients that will recur and avoid unnecessary treatment for the majority of patients cured by surgery alone.

Prognostic and predictive value of metformin in the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 1325/KEYNOTE-054 phase III trial of pembrolizumab versus placebo in resected high-risk stage III melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Metformin is a commonly prescribed and well-tolerated medication. In laboratory studies, metformin suppresses BRAF wild-type melanoma cells but accelerates the growth of BRAF-mutated cells. This study investigated the prognostic and predictive value of metformin, including with respect to BRAF mutation status, in the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 1325/KEYNOTE-054 randomised controlled trial. METHODS: Patients with resected high-risk stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC melanoma received 200 mg of pembrolizumab (n = 514) or placebo (n = 505) every 3 weeks for twelve months. Pembrolizumab prolonged recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) at approximately 42 months median follow-up (Eggermont et al., TLO, 2021). Multivariable Cox regression was used to estimate associations of metformin with RFS and DMFS. Interaction terms were used to model effect modification by treatment and BRAF mutation. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients (0.5%) used metformin at baseline. Metformin was not significantly associated with RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52-1.45) and DMFS (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.47-1.44). The interaction between metformin and the treatment arm was not significant for either RFS (p = 0.92) or DMFS (p = 0.93). Among patients with mutated BRAF, the association of metformin with RFS (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.37-1.33) was greater in magnitude though not significantly different to those without mutated BRAF (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.56-1.69). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant impact of metformin use on pembrolizumab efficacy in resected high-risk stage III melanoma. However, larger studies or pooled analyses are needed, particularly to explore a possible effect of metformin in BRAF-mutated melanoma.

Tebentafusp in combination with durvalumab and/or tremelimumab in patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma: a phase 1 study.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors have significantly improved outcomes in first line cutaneous melanoma. However, there is a high unmet need for patients who progress on these therapies and combination therapies are being explored to improve outcomes. Tebentafusp is a first-in-class gp100×CD3 ImmTAC bispecific that demonstrated overall survival (OS) benefit (HR 0.51) in metastatic uveal melanoma despite a modest overall response rate of 9%. This phase 1b trial evaluated the safety and initial efficacy of tebentafusp in combination with durvalumab (anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PDL1)) and/or tremelimumab (anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4) in patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma (mCM), the majority of whom progressed on prior checkpoint inhibitors. METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter, phase 1b, dose-escalation trial, HLA-A*02:01-positive patients with mCM received weekly intravenous tebentafusp with increasing monthly doses of durvalumab and/or tremelimumab starting day 15 of each cycle. The primary objective was to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or recommended phase 2 dose for each combination. Efficacy analyses were performed in all tebentafusp with durvalumab±tremelimumab treated patients with a sensitivity analysis in those who progressed on prior anti-PD(L)1 therapy. RESULTS: 85 patients were assigned to receive tebentafusp in combination with durvalumab (n=43), tremelimumab (n=13), or durvalumab and tremelimumab (n=29). Patients were heavily pretreated with a median of 3 prior lines of therapy, including 76 (89%) who received prior anti-PD(L)1. Maximum target doses of tebentafusp (68 mcg) alone or in combination with durvalumab (20 mg/kg) and tremelimumab (1 mg/kg) were tolerated; MTD was not formally identified for any arm. Adverse event profile was consistent with each individual therapy and there were no new safety signals nor treatment-related deaths. In the efficacy subset (n=72), the response rate was 14%, tumor shrinkage rate was 41% and 1-year OS rate was 76% (95% CI: 70% to 81%). The 1-year OS for triplet combination (79%; 95% CI: 71% to 86%) was similar to tebentafusp plus durvalumab (74%; 95% CI: 67% to 80%). CONCLUSION: At maximum target doses, the safety of tebentafusp with checkpoint inhibitors was consistent with safety of each individual therapy. Tebentafusp with durvalumab demonstrated promising efficacy in heavily pretreated patients with mCM, including those who progressed on prior anti-PD(L)1. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02535078.