The features and management of acquired resistance to PD1-based therapy in metastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Anti-PD-1 therapy (PD1) either alone or with anti-CTLA-4 (CTLA4), has high initial response rates, however 20% of patients (pts) with complete response (CR) and 30% with partial response (PR) within 12 months of treatment experience subsequent disease progression by 6 years. The nature and optimal management of this acquired resistance (AR) remains unknown. METHODS: Pts from 16 centres who responded to PD1-based therapy and who later progressed were examined. Demographics, disease characteristics and subsequent treatments were evaluated. RESULTS: 299 melanoma pts were identified, median age 64y, 44% BRAFV600m. 172 (58%) received PD1 alone, 114 (38%) PD1/CTLA4 and 13 (4%) PD1 and an investigational drug. 90 (30%) pts had CR, 209 (70%) PR. Median time to AR was 12.6 mo (95% CI, 11.3, 14.2). Most (N = 193, 65%) progressed in a single organ site, and in a solitary lesion (N = 151, 51%). The most frequent sites were lymph nodes (38%) and brain (25%). Management at AR included systemic therapy (ST, 45%), local therapy (LT) +ST (31%), LT alone (21%), or observation (3%). There was no statistical difference in PFS2 or OS based on management, however, PFS2 was numerically superior for pts treated with ST alone who progressed off PD1 therapy than those who progressed on PD1 (2-year PFS2 42% versus 25%, p = 0.249). mOS from AR was 38.0 months (95% CI, 29.5-NR); longer in single-site versus multi-site progression (2-year OS 70% vs 54%, p < 0·001). CONCLUSIONS: Acquired resistance to PD1 therapy in melanoma is largely oligometastatic, and pts may have a favorable survival outcome following salvage treatment.

Discontinuation of anti-PD1 in advanced melanoma: an observational retrospective study from the Italian Melanoma Intergroup.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy has improved the survival of patients with stage IV melanoma. In responders, clinical benefits may be long-lasting and persist even after treatment discontinuation. The optimal duration of anti-PD1 (anti-Programmed cell death-1) therapy in metastatic melanoma patients remains to be elucidated. Moreover, limited data are available on clinical outcomes of patients that discontinued anti-PD1 immunotherapy in a real-life setting. The aim of this study was to evaluate the progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with metastatic melanoma who interrupted anti-PD-1 treatment in the in the absence of disease progression. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients with advanced/metastatic melanoma treated with anti-PD1 immunotherapy at 23 Italian Melanoma Intergroup (IMI) centres. The study investigated the risk of relapse in patients who stopped anti-PD1 therapy due to CR (Complete response), treatment-related toxicity, or by their own choice after a long period of treatment. Clinical and biological factors associated with or without recurrence were evaluated. RESULTS: The study population included 237 patients. The median age of patients was 68.9 years (standard deviation: 13; range 33-95). The median time on treatment was 33 months (standard deviation: 18, 7; range 1-98). Among the 237 patients, 128 (54%) interrupted the anti-PD1 for CR, 74 patients (31.2%) for adverse events (37 patients in CR, 27 patients in partial response (PR), ten patients in stable disease (SD), and 35 patients (14.8%) by their own choice (12 patients in CR, 17 patients in PR, and 6 patients in SD). After a mean follow-up of 21 months (range 1-81), PFS after anti-PD1 discontinuation was 85.7%. Thirty-four patients (14.3%) developed disease progression after a median of 12 months (range 1-35): ten patients (29.4%) after discontinuation in CR, 17 patients (50%) after discontinuation for treatment-related toxicity (seven in CR, five in PR, five in SD), and seven (20.6%) after discontinuation due to the patient's decision (two in CR, four in PR, one in SD). Only 7.8% of patients who interrupted in CR (10/128), along with 23% of patients who interrupted for limiting toxicity (17/74) and 20% of patients who interrupted by their own choice (7/35), developed recurrence. Regarding patients who discontinued therapy because of CR, we observed a negative association between recurrence and site of primary melanoma, especially mucosal sites (p = <0.05, HR (Hazard ratio) 15.57 IC (confidence interval) 95% 2.64-91.73). Moreover, M1b patients who achieved a CR showed a lower number of relapses (p = <0.05, HR 3.84 IC 95% 1.40-8.48). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows in a real-life setting that, with anti-PD-1 therapy, long-lasting responses, can be maintained after anti-PD1 interruption. In 70.6% of cases, recurrences were observed among patients who did not obtain a CR at treatment discontinuation.

Sequencing Targeted and Immune Therapy in BRAF-Mutant Melanoma: Lessons Learned.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The treatment strategy for BRAF-mutated melanoma remains unsatisfactory, although the advent of immune checkpoint inhibition has improved the prognosis of advanced melanoma. This article reports current evidence on the efficacy and safety of sequential immunotherapy with targeted therapy in patients with BRAF-mutated melanoma. It discusses criteria for the use of available options in clinical practice. RECENT FINDINGS: Targeted therapy provides rapid disease control in a relatively high proportion of patients, although the development of secondary resistance limits the duration of responses; in contrast, immunotherapy may induce slow but more durable responses in a subset of patients. Therefore, the identification of a combination strategy for the use of these therapies seems a promising perspective. Currently, inconsistent data have been obtained, but most studies indicate that the administration of BRAFi/MEKi prior to immune checkpoint inhibitors appears to reduce the efficacy of immunotherapy. On the contrary, several clinical and real-life studies suggest that frontline immunotherapy with subsequent targeted therapy may be associated with better tumor control than immunotherapy alone. Larger clinical studies are ongoing to confirm the efficacy and safety of this sequencing strategy for treating BRAF-mutated melanoma with immunotherapy followed by targeted therapy.

Neoadjuvant plus adjuvant combined or sequenced vemurafenib, cobimetinib and atezolizumab in patients with high-risk, resectable BRAF-mutated and wild-type melanoma: NEO-TIM, a phase II randomized non-comparative study.

Background: Following the increased survival of patients with metastatic melanoma thanks to immunotherapy and targeted therapy, neoadjuvant approaches are being investigated to address the unmet needs of unresponsive and intolerant patients. We aim to investigate the efficacy of neoadjuvant plus adjuvant combined or sequenced vemurafenib, cobimetinib and atezolizumab in patients with high-risk, resectable BRAF-mutated and wild-type melanoma. Methods: The study is a phase II, open-label, randomized non-comparative trial in patients with stage IIIB/C/D surgically resectable, BRAF-mutated and wild-type melanoma, with three possible treatments: (1) vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily from day 1 to 42; (2) vemurafenib 720 mg twice daily from day 1 to 42; (3) cobimetinib 60 mg once daily from day 1 to 21 and from day 29 to 42; and (4) atezolizumab 840 mg for two cycles (day 22 and day 43).Patients will be randomized to three different arms: A) BRAF-mutated patients will receive over 6 weeks (1) + (3); B) BRAF-mutated patients will receive over 6 weeks (2) + (3) + (4); C) BRAF wild-type patients will receive over 6 weeks (3) + (4). All patients will also receive atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks for 17 cycles after surgery and after a second screening period (up to 6 weeks). Discussion: Neoadjuvant therapy for regional metastases may improve operability and outcomes and facilitate the identification of biomarkers that can guide further lines of treatment. Patients with clinical stage III melanoma may especially benefit from neoadjuvant treatment, as the outcomes of surgery alone are very poor. It is expected that the combination of neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment may reduce the incidence of relapse and improve survival. Clinical trial registration: eudract.ema.europa.eu/protocol.htm, identifier 2018-004841-17.

IL-6 as new prognostic factor in patients with advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma treated with cemiplimab.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic factors for initial response of advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma to cemiplimab treatment are lacking. Il-6 has been found to affect immune cell populations which impact tumor development. The aim was to investigate the prognostic significance of IL-6 serum levels before and during treatment. METHODS: Serum levels of IL-6 were correlated with clinical outcomes in a retrospective study. RESULTS: Overall, 39 patients were enrolled. High serum levels of IL-6 (> 5.6 pg/ml) were associated with poorer survival (45.1% vs 0 deaths; OS: 16.1 ± 1.5 vs 20.8 ± 0 months, 95% CI 13,046 to 19,184) and shorter PFS (10.3 ± 1.9 vs 18.9 ± 1.5 months; 95% CI 3433 to 10,133) in patients with advanced CSCC treated with cemiplimab. In addition, patients whose IL-6 level increased after treatment with cemiplimab, independently of the basal level, had a poorer response to treatment than patients whose level was reduced or stable after immunotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Serum levels of IL-6 at baseline and changes after cemiplimab immunotherapy may have a prognostic significance in patients with advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma.

Durability of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma after treatment cessation.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (mMCC) is highly responsive to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs); however, durability of response after treatment cessation and response to retreatment in the setting of progression is unknown. METHODS: Patients (pts) having mMCC from 10 centres who discontinued ICI treatment for a reason other than progression were studied. RESULTS: Forty patients were included. Median time on treatment was 13.5 months (range 1-35). Thirty-one patients (77.5%) stopped treatment electively while 9 patients (22.5%) stopped due to treatment-related toxicity. After median of 12.3 months from discontinuation, 14 pts (35%) have progressed (PD). Disease progression rate following ICI discontinuation was 26% (8 of 31) in patients who discontinued in complete response (CR), 57% (4 of 7) in patients in partial response and 100% (2 of 2) in those with stable disease. Median progression-free survival (PFS) after treatment cessation was 21 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 18- not reached [NR]), with a third of patients progressing during their first year off treatment. PFS was longer for patients who discontinued ICI electively (median PFS 29 months; 95% CI, 21-NR) compared to those who stopped due to toxicity (median PFS 11 months; 95% CI, 10-NR). ICI was restarted in 8 of 14 pts (57%) with PD, with response rate of 75% (4 CR, 2 partial response, 1 stable disease, 1 PD). CONCLUSION: ICI responses in mMCC do not appear durable off treatment, including in patients who achieve a CR, though response to retreatment is promising. Extended duration of treatment needs to be investigated to optimise long-term outcomes.

Nivolumab serum concentration in metastatic melanoma patients could be related to outcome and enhanced immune activity: a gene profiling retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab is an anti-PD-1 antibody approved for treating metastatic melanoma (MM), for which still limited evidence is available on the correlation between drug exposure and patient outcomes. METHODS: In this observational retrospective study, we assessed whether nivolumab concentration is associated with treatment response in 88 patients with MM and if the patient's genetic profile plays a role in this association. RESULTS: We observed a statistically significant correlation between nivolumab serum concentration and clinical outcomes, measured as overall and progression-free survival. Moreover, patients who achieved a clinical or partial response tended to have higher levels of nivolumab than those who reached stable disease or had disease progression. However, the difference was not statistically significant. In particular, patients who reached a clinical response had a significantly higher concentration of nivolumab and presented a distinct genetic signature, with more marked activation of ICOS and other genes involved in effector T-cells mediated proinflammatory pathways. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, these preliminary results show that in patients with MM, nivolumab concentration correlates with clinical outcomes and is associated with an increased expression of ICOS and other genes involved in the activation of T effectors cells.

Anorectal and Genital Mucosal Melanoma: Diagnostic Challenges, Current Knowledge and Therapeutic Opportunities of Rare Melanomas.

Mucosal melanomas (MM) are rare tumors, being less than 2% of all diagnosed melanomas, comprising a variegated group of malignancies arising from melanocytes in virtually all mucosal epithelia, even if more frequently found in oral and sino-nasal cavities, ano-rectum and female genitalia (vulva and vagina). To date, there is no consensus about the optimal management strategy of MM. Furthermore, the clinical rationale of molecular tumor characterization regarding BRAF, KIT or NRAS, as well as the therapeutic value of immunotherapy, chemotherapy and targeted therapy, has not yet been deeply explored and clearly established in MM. In this overview, focused on anorectal and genital MM as models of rare melanomas deserving of a multidisciplinary approach, we highlight the need of referring these patients to centers with experts in melanoma, anorectal and uro-genital cancers treatments. Taking into account the rarity, the poor outcomes and the lack of effective treatment options for MM, tailored research needs to be promptly promoted.

Real world data of cemiplimab in locally advanced and metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) has an overall favourable outcome, except for patients with an advanced stage disease. The programmed death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitor cemiplimab has been approved for use in advanced cSCC. We report clinical outcomes from the named patient programme-compassionate use of cemiplimab for patients with advanced cSCC in Italy. METHODS: This is a retrospective, observational, multicentre study. We analysed medical records of patients with advanced cSCC treated with cemiplimab between May 2019 and February 2020 in 17 referral Italian centres. We assessed the safety profile according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0 (CTCAE v 5.0), the clinical activity in terms of response rate, clinical benefit and duration of response and baseline clinical-pathologic characteristics associated with response. RESULTS: 131 patients were included, with a median age of 79 years. Of them, 9.2% had a concurrent chronic lymphoproliferative disease and 8.5% a concomitant autoimmune disease. Some 42.7% of the total patients had at least one treatment-related adverse events (AEs); out of above, 9.2% had grade 3-4 adverse events, and there were two fatal adverse events. The overall response rate (ORR) was 58%, and the disease control rate (DCR) was 71.7%. Cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (cSCCs) arising on the head and neck area (p = 0.007) and haemoglobin values in normal range (p = 0.034) were significantly associated with a better response, while cSCCs on the genitalia (p = 0.041), treatment with any systemic antibiotic within 1 month of cemiplimab initiation (p = 0.012), performance status ≥1 (p = 0.012), chronic corticosteroids therapy (p = 0.038), previous radiation therapy to lymph nodes (p = 0.052) and previous chemotherapy (p = 0.0020) were significantly associated with a worse response. CONCLUSIONS: Our real-world study showed safety and effectiveness results comparable to those obtained in clinical trials. We identified some clinical and biochemical factors potentially associated with response to cemiplimab.

Therapeutic Advancements Across Clinical Stages in Melanoma, With a Focus on Targeted Immunotherapy.

Melanoma is the most fatal skin cancer. In the early stages, it can be safely treated with surgery alone. However, since 2011, there has been an important revolution in the treatment of melanoma with new effective treatments. Targeted therapy and immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors have changed the history of this disease. To date, more than half of advanced melanoma patients are alive at 5 years; despite this breakthrough, approximately half of the patients still do not respond to treatment. For these reasons, new therapeutic strategies are required to expand the number of patients who can benefit from immunotherapy or combination with targeted therapy. Current research aims at preventing primary and acquired resistance, which are both responsible for treatment failure in about 50% of patients. This could increase the effectiveness of available drugs and allow for the evaluation of new combinations and new targets. The main pathways and molecules under study are the IDO inhibitor, TLR9 agonist, STING, LAG-3, TIM-3, HDAC inhibitors, pegylated IL-2 (NKTR-214), GITR, and adenosine pathway inhibitors, among others (there are currently about 3000 trials that are evaluating immunotherapeutic combinations in different tumors). Other promising strategies are cancer vaccines and oncolytic viruses. Another approach is to isolate and remove immune cells (DCs, T cells, and NK cells) from the patient's blood or tumor infiltrates, add specific gene fragments, expand them in culture with growth factors, and re-inoculate into the same patient. TILs, TCR gene transfer, and CAR-T therapy follow this approach. In this article, we give an overview over the current status of melanoma therapies, the clinical rationale for choosing treatments, and the new immunotherapy approaches.

The role of local therapy in the treatment of solitary melanoma progression on immune checkpoint inhibition: A multicentre retrospective analysis.

INTRODUCTION: In patients with metastatic melanoma, progression of a single tumour lesion (solitary progression) after response to immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) is increasingly treated with local therapy. We evaluated the role of local therapy for solitary progression in melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic melanoma treated with ICI between 2010 and 2019 with solitary progression as first progressive event were included from 17 centres in 9 countries. Follow-up and survival are reported from ICI initiation. RESULTS: We identified 294 patients with solitary progression after stable disease in 15%, partial response in 55% and complete response in 30%. The median follow-up was 43 months; the median time to solitary progression was 13 months, and the median time to subsequent progression after treatment of solitary progression (TTSP) was 33 months. The estimated 3-year overall survival (OS) was 79%; median OS was not reached. Treatment consisted of systemic therapy (18%), local therapy (36%), both combined (42%) or active surveillance (4%). In 44% of patients treated for solitary progression, no subsequent progression occurred. For solitary progression during ICI (n = 143), the median TTSP was 29 months. Both TTSP and OS were similar for local therapy, ICI continuation and both combined. For solitary progression post ICI (n = 151), the median TTSP was 35 months. TTSP was higher for ICI recommencement plus local therapy than local therapy or ICI recommencement alone (p = 0.006), without OS differences. CONCLUSION: Almost half of patients with melanoma treated for solitary progression after initial response to ICI had no subsequent progression. This study suggests that local therapy can benefit patients and is associated with favourable long-term outcomes.

Ipilimumab alone or ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 therapy in patients with metastatic melanoma resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy: a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Anti-PD-1 therapy (hereafter referred to as anti-PD-1) induces long-term disease control in approximately 30% of patients with metastatic melanoma; however, two-thirds of patients are resistant and will require further treatment. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (pembrolizumab or nivolumab) compared with ipilimumab monotherapy in patients who are resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 therapy (hereafter referred to as anti-PD-[L]1). METHODS: This multicentre, retrospective, cohort study, was done at 15 melanoma centres in Australia, Europe, and the USA. We included adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with metastatic melanoma (unresectable stage III and IV), who were resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 (innate or acquired resistance) and who then received either ipilimumab monotherapy or ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (pembrolizumab or nivolumab), based on availability of therapies or clinical factors determined by the physician, or both. Tumour response was assessed as per standard of care (CT or PET-CT scans every 3 months). The study endpoints were objective response rate, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety of ipilimumab compared with ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1. FINDINGS: We included 355 patients with metastatic melanoma, resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 (nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or atezolizumab), who had been treated with ipilimumab monotherapy (n=162 [46%]) or ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (n=193 [54%]) between Feb 1, 2011, and Feb 6, 2020. At a median follow-up of 22·1 months (IQR 9·5-30·9), the objective response rate was higher with ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (60 [31%] of 193 patients) than with ipilimumab monotherapy (21 [13%] of 162 patients; p<0·0001). Overall survival was longer in the ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 group (median overall survival 20·4 months [95% CI 12·7-34·8]) than with ipilimumab monotherapy (8·8 months [6·1-11·3]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·50, 95% CI 0·38-0·66; p<0·0001). Progression-free survival was also longer with ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (median 3·0 months [95% CI 2·6-3·6]) than with ipilimumab (2·6 months [2·4-2·9]; HR 0·69, 95% CI 0·55-0·87; p=0·0019). Similar proportions of patients reported grade 3-5 adverse events in both groups (59 [31%] of 193 patients in the ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 group vs 54 [33%] of 162 patients in the ipilimumab group). The most common grade 3-5 adverse events were diarrhoea or colitis (23 [12%] of 193 patients in the ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 group vs 33 [20%] of 162 patients in the ipilimumab group) and increased alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase (24 [12%] vs 15 [9%]). One death occurred with ipilimumab 26 days after the last treatment: a colon perforation due to immune-related pancolitis. INTERPRETATION: In patients who are resistant to anti-PD-(L)1, ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 seemed to yield higher efficacy than ipilimumab with a higher objective response rate, longer progression-free, and longer overall survival, with a similar rate of grade 3-5 toxicity. Ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 should be favoured over ipilimumab alone as a second-line immunotherapy for these patients with advanced melanoma. FUNDING: None.

Ipilimumab and Stereotactic Radiosurgery with CyberKnife® System in Melanoma Brain Metastases: A Retrospective Monoinstitutional Experience.

The median overall survival (OS) and local control (LC) of patients with melanoma brain metastases (MBMs) are poor even with immune checkpoint inhibitors and/or radiotherapy (RT). The aims of the study were to evaluate the association and timing of stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT)/radiosurgery (SRS) performed with the CyberKnife® System and ipilimumab (IPI). A total of 63 MBMs patients were analyzed: 53 received RT+IPI and 10 RT alone. Therefore, the patients were divided into four groups: RT PRE-PI (>4 weeks before IPI) (18), RT CONC-IPI (4 weeks before/between first and last cycle/within 3 months of last cycle of IPI) (20), RT POST-IPI (>3 months after IPI) (15), and NO-IPI (10). A total of 127 lesions were treated: 75 with SRS (one fraction) and 24 with SRT (three to five fractions). The median follow-up was 10.6 months. The median OS was 10.6 months for all patients, 10.7 months for RT+IPI, and 3.3 months for NO-IPI (p = 0.96). One-year LC was 50% for all patients, 56% for RT+IPI, and 18% for NO-IPI (p = 0.08). The 1-year intracranial control was 45% for all patients, 44% for RT+IPI, and 51% for NO-IPI (p = 0.73). IPI with SRS/SRT in MBMs treatment could improve LC. However, the impact and timing of the two modalities on patients' outcomes are still unclear.

Triplet combination of BRAF, MEK and PD-1/PD-L1 blockade in melanoma: the more the better?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Patients with advanced or metastatic v-raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1 (BRAF)-mutated melanoma can be treated with a BRAF inhibitor in combination with a MAPK/ERK kinase (MEK) inhibitor, achieving high but short-lived response rates. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), in contrast, give lower response rates but more durable responses. Preclinical and translational data indicate that combining BRAF and MEK inhibitors with ICI could exceed the limitations of each class and potentially lead to longer lasting responses. RECENT FINDINGS: Vemurafenib, dabrafenib and encorafenib are designed to block mutated forms of BRAF, which cause abnormal signalling inside cancer cells leading to tumour growth. Trametinib, binimetinib and cobimetinib are designed to target and inhibit MEK1/2, proteins in a cell signalling pathway that help cell growth and survival. Pembrolizumab, nivolumab, durvalumab and atezolizumab are ICIs which can inhibit the pathway of programmed death-1/ programmed death-ligand-1 proteins, allowing tumours to avoid detection by the immune system. SUMMARY: Treating patients with targeted therapy would allow the release of antigens from tumour cells, which could be more easily acknowledged by the immune system. Efficacy can also be increased by combining ICIs with the aim of maintaining a longer response. The possibility to administer three drugs in combination, would allow to induce tumour regression and produce an immune response with a synergistic effect.

Melanoma recurrence patterns and management after adjuvant targeted therapy: a multicentre analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant targeted therapy (TT) improves relapse free survival in patients with resected BRAF mutant stage III melanoma. The outcomes and optimal management of patients who relapse after adjuvant TT is unknown. METHODS: Patients from twenty-one centres with recurrent melanoma after adjuvant TT were included. Disease characteristics, adjuvant therapy, recurrence, treatment at relapse and outcomes were examined. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients developed recurrent melanoma; nineteen (22%) during adjuvant TT. Median time to first recurrence was 18 months and median follow-up from first recurrence was 31 months. Fifty-eight (68%) patients received immunotherapy (IT) or TT as 1st line systemic therapy at either first or subsequent recurrence and had disease that was assessable for response. Response to anti-PD-1 (±trial agent), combination ipilimumab-nivolumab, TT rechallenge and ipilimumab monotherapy was 63%, 62% 25% and 10% respectively. Twenty-eight (33%) patients had died at census, all from melanoma. Two-year OS was 84% for anti-PD-1 therapy (±trial agent), 92% for combination ipilimumab and nivolumab, 49% for TT and 45% for ipilimumab monotherapy (p = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who relapse after adjuvant TT respond well to subsequent anti-PD-1 based therapy and have outcomes similar to those seen when first line anti-PD-1 therapy is used in stage IV melanoma.

May the analysis of 1918 influenza pandemic give hints to imagine the possible magnitude of Corona Virus Disease-2019 (COVID-19)?

BACKGROUND: In 1918 an unknown infectious agent spread around the world infecting over one-third of the general population and killing almost 50 million people. Many countries were at war, the First World War. Since Spain was a neutral country and Spanish press could report about the infection without censorship, this condition is commonly remembered as "Spanish influenza". This review examines several aspects during the 1918 influenza pandemic to bring out evidences which might be useful to imagine the possible magnitude of the present coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: In the first part of this review we will examine the origin of the SARS-Coronavirus-2 and 1918 Spanish Influenza Virus and the role played by host and environment in its diffusion. We will also include in our analysis an evaluation of different approaches utilized to restrain the spread of pandemic and to treat infected patients. In the second part, we will try to imagine the magnitude of the present COVID-19 pandemic and the possible measures able to restrain in the present environment its spread. RESULTS: Several factors characterize the outcome in a viral pandemic infection. They include the complete knowledge of the virus, the complete knowledge of the host and of the environment where the host lives and the pandemic develops. CONCLUSION: By comparing the situation seen in 1918 with the current one, we are now in a more favourable position. The experience of the past teaches us that their success is linked to a rapid, constant and lasting application. Then, rather than coercion, awareness of the need to observe such prevention measures works better.