The treatment of advanced melanoma: Current approaches and new challenges.

In recent years, advances in melanoma treatment have renewed patient hope. This comprehensive review emphasizes the evolving treatment landscape, particularly highlighting first-line strategies and the interplay between immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and targeted therapies. Ipilimumab plus nivolumab has achieved the best median overall survival, exceeding 70 months. However, the introduction of new ICIs, like relatlimab, has added complexity to first-line therapy decisions. Our aim is to guide clinicians in making personalized treatment decisions. Various features, including brain metastases, PD-L1 expression, BRAF mutation, performance status, and prior adjuvant therapy, significantly impact the direction of advanced melanoma treatment. We also provide the latest insights into the treatment of rare melanoma subtypes, such as uveal melanoma, where tebentafusp has shown promising improvements in overall survival for metastatic uveal melanoma patients. This review provides invaluable insights for clinicians, enabling informed treatment choices and deepening our understanding of the multifaceted challenges associated with advanced melanoma management.

Activity and safety of first-line treatments for advanced melanoma: A network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for advanced melanoma have increased with the US Food and Drug Administration approval of the anti-LAG3 plus anti-PD-1 relatlimab/nivolumab combination. To date, ipilimumab/nivolumab is the benchmark of overall survival, despite a high toxicity profile. Furthermore, in BRAF-mutant patients, BRAF/MEK inhibitors and the atezolizumab/vemurafenib/cobimetinib triplet are also available treatments, making the first-line therapy selection more complex. To address this issue, we conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of the available first-line treatment options in advanced melanoma. METHODS: Randomised clinical trials of previously untreated, advanced melanoma were included if at least one intervention arm contained a BRAF/MEK or an immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI). The aim was to indirectly compare the ICIs combinations ipilimumab/nivolumab and relatlimab/nivolumab, and these combinations with all the other first-line treatment options for advanced melanoma (irrespective of BRAF status) in terms of activity and safety. The coprimary end-points were progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (≥ G3 TRAEs) rate, defined according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. RESULTS: A total of 9070 metastatic melanoma patients treated in 18 randomised clinical trials were included in the network meta-analysis. No difference in PFS and ORR was observed between ipilimumab/nivolumab and relatlimab/nivolumab (HR = 0.99 [95% CI 0.75-1.31] and RR = 0.99 [95% CI 0.78-1.27], respectively). The PD-(L)1/BRAF/MEK inhibitors triplet combinations were superior to ipilimumab/nivolumab in terms of both PFS (HR = 0.56 [95% CI 0.37-0.84]) and ORR (RR = 3.07 [95% CI 1.61-5.85]). Ipilimumab/nivolumab showed the highest risk of developing ≥ G3 TRAEs. Relatlimab/nivolumab trended to a lower risk of ≥ G3 TRAEs (RR = 0.71 [95% CI 0.30-1.67]) versus ipilimumab/nivolumab. CONCLUSION: Relatlimab/nivolumab showed similar PFS and ORR compared to ipilimumab/nivolumab, with a trend for a better safety profile.

Health-related quality of life in cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in randomised controlled trials: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionised clinical practice in oncology in the last years, leading to a survival benefit in several tumour types. To investigate whether these benefits are associated with improved quality of life, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between ICIs and standard chemotherapy (CT) in patients with advanced solid tumours. METHODS: Clinical trials comparing the efficacy of ICIs (either programmed death receptor-1 and programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors or cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 inhibitors, as single agent or in combination) versus CT were included. Trials evaluating treatment with ICIs plus CT versus CT alone were also included, whereas studies in which the control arm included other anticancer agents (such as targeted therapy and other ICIs) or placebo alone were excluded. The aim of our meta-analysis was to compare PROs in subjects treated with ICIs or ICIs plus CT (intervention) with those reported by patients receiving CT (control). The co-primary endpoints were time from baseline to first deterioration in PROs, defined as the time from baseline to the first clinically significant deterioration in PROs, and the changes in PROs from baseline to follow-up between ICI and CT treatment groups (PROSPERO registration number CRD42021247440). RESULTS: A total of 8341 patients from 17 randomised trials of ICI versus CT were included in the analysis. Treatment with ICI delayed clinical deterioration over standard CT in Global Health Status/QoL EORTC QLQ-C30 (hazard ratio [HR] 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-0.89), and in both EQ-5D utility index (HR 0.65; 95% CI, 0.52-0.82) and EQ-5D visual analogue scale (VAS; HR 0.70; 95% CI, 0.61-0.80). The difference in mean change between the ICI-treated group and the CT-treated group was 5.82 (95% CI, 4.11-7.53) in favour of ICI. Similarly, in the EQ-5D, the mean change differences favoured treatment with ICIs in both Utility Index and VAS, with differences of 0.05 (95% CI, 0.03-0.07) and 5.41 (95% CI, 3.39-7.43), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: ICIs are associated with higher levels of quality of life and longer time to clinical deterioration on several PROs scales compared with CT in different types of solid tumours.

Immunotherapy in Adolescents and Young Adults: What Remains in Cancer Survivors?

Immunotherapy has changed the landscape of treatments for advanced disease in multiple neoplasms. More and more patients are long survivors from a metastatic disease. Most recently, the extension of indications and evidence of efficacy in early disease settings, such as the adjuvant and neoadjuvant setting in breast cancer, lung cancer, glioma, and gastric cancer, places more attention on what happens to patients who survive cancer. In particular, we evaluated what happens in young patients, a population in whom some immune-related effects are still poorly described. Immunotherapy is already a reality in early disease settings and the scientific community is lagging in describing what to expect in adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients. For instance, the impact of these therapies on female and male fertility is not clear, similarly to the interaction that may occur between these drugs and pregnancy. This review aims to highlight these little-known topics that are difficult to evaluate in ad hoc studies.

Merkel Cell Carcinoma: An Immunotherapy Fairy-Tale?

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare, highly aggressive, neuroendocrine cutaneous tumor. The incidence of MCC is growing worldwide, and the disease-related mortality is about three-fold higher than melanoma. Since a few years ago, very little has been known about this disease, and chemotherapy has been the standard of care. Nowadays, new discoveries about the pathophysiology of this neoplasm and the introduction of immunotherapy allowed to completely rewrite the history of these patients. In this review, we provide a summary of the most important changes in the management of Merkel cell carcinoma, with a focus on immunotherapy and a landscape of future treatment strategies.

Immunotherapy for the Treatment of Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) accounts for approximately 20% of all keratinocytic tumors. In most cases, the diagnosis and treatments are made on small, low-risk lesions. However, in about 5% of cases, CSCC may present as either locally advanced or metastatic (i.e. with locoregional lymph nodes metastases or distant localizations). Prior to the introduction of immunotherapy in clinical practice, the standard treatment of advanced CSCC was not clearly defined, and up to 60% of patients received no systemic therapy. Thanks to a strong pre-clinical rationale, clinical trials led to the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and EMA (European Medicines Agency) registration of cemiplimab, a PD-1 inhibitor that achieved encouraging results in terms of objective response, overall survival, and quality of life. Subsequently, the anti-PD-1 pembrolizumab received the approval for the treatment of advanced CSCC by the FDA only. In this review, we will focus on the definition of advanced CSCC and on the current and future therapeutic options, with a particular regard for immunotherapy.

Influenza vaccination in cancer patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There is a concern that influenza vaccination may increase the incidence of immune-related adverse events in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the available data on the safety and efficacy of influenza vaccination in cancer patients receiving ICIs. METHODS: Studies reporting safety and efficacy outcomes of influenza vaccination in cancer patients receiving ICIs were included. Only descriptive statistics were conducted to obtain a pooled rate of immune-related adverse events in vaccinated patients. RESULTS: Ten studies assessing the safety and eight assessing the efficacy of influenza vaccination in cancer patients receiving ICIs were identified, for a total of 1124 and 986 vaccinated patients, respectively. Most patients had melanoma or lung cancer and received a single agent anti-PD-1, but also other tumour types and immunotherapy combinations were represented. No severe vaccination-related toxicities were reported. The pooled incidence of any grade immune checkpoint inhibitor-related adverse events was 28.9%. In the 6 studies specifying the incidence of grade 3-4 toxicities, the pooled incidence was 7.5%. No grade 5 toxicities were reported. No pooled descriptive analysis was conducted in studies reporting efficacy outcomes due to the heterogeneity of endpoints and data reporting. Nevertheless, among the eight studies included, seven reported positive efficacy outcomes of influenza vaccination. CONCLUSION: The results of this systematic review support the safety and efficacy of influenza vaccination in cancer patients receiving ICIs. These results are particularly relevant in the context of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Treatment beyond progression with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 based regimens in advanced solid tumors: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Treatment beyond progression with immunotherapy may be appropriate in selected patients based on the potential for late responses. The aim of this systematic review was to explore the impact of treatment beyond progression in patients receiving an anti-PD-1/PD-L1 based regimen for an advanced solid tumor. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to identify prospective clinical trials reporting data on overall response rate by immune-related criteria and/or the number of patients treated beyond conventional criteria-defined PD and/or the number of patients achieving a clinical benefit after an initial PD with regimens including an anti-PD-1/PD-L1 agent which received the FDA approval for the treatment of an advanced solid tumor. RESULTS: 254 (4.6%) responses after an initial RECIST-defined progressive disease were observed among 5588 patients, based on 35 trials included in our analysis reporting this information. The overall rate of patients receiving treatment beyond progressive disease was 30.2%, based on data on 5334 patients enrolled in 36 trials, and the rate of patients who achieved an unconventional response among those treated beyond progressive disease was 19.7% (based on 25 trials for a total of 853 patients). CONCLUSION: The results of our systematic review support the clinical relevance of unconventional responses to anti-PD-1/PD-L1-based regimens; however, most publications provided only partial information regarding immune-related clinical activity, or did not provide any information at all, highlighting the need of a more comprehensive report of such data in trials investigating immunotherapy for the treatment of patients with advanced tumors.

How to Make Immunotherapy an Effective Therapeutic Choice for Uveal Melanoma.

Uveal melanoma (UM), though a rare form of melanoma, is the most common intraocular tumor in adults. Conventional therapies of primary tumors lead to an excellent local control, but 50% of patients develop metastases, in most cases with lethal outcome. Somatic driver mutations that act on the MAP-kinase pathway have been identified, yet targeted therapies show little efficacy in the clinics. No drugs are currently available for the G protein alpha subunitsGNAQ and GNA11, which are the most frequent driver mutations in UM. Drugs targeting the YAP-TAZ pathway that is also activated in UM, the tumor-suppressor gene BRCA1 Associated Protein 1 (BAP1) and the Splicing Factor 3b Subunit 1 gene (SF3B1) whose mutations are associated with metastatic risk, have not been developed yet. Immunotherapy is highly effective in cutaneous melanoma but yields only poor results in the treatment of UM: anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 blocking antibodies did not meet the expectations except for isolated cases. Here, we discuss how the improved knowledge of the tumor microenvironment and of the cross-talk between tumor and immune cells could help to reshape anti-tumor immune responses to overcome the intrinsic resistance to immune checkpoint blockers of UM. We critically review the dogma of low mutational load, the induction of immune-suppressive cells, and the expression of alternative immune checkpoint molecules. We argue that immunotherapy might still be an option for the treatment of UM.

Neoadjuvant treatments in patients with high-risk resectable stage III/IV melanoma.

Introduction: In recent years, the introduction of targeted therapy and immunotherapy into clinical practice has radically changed the management of advanced melanoma. More recently, these treatments also became the standard of care in the adjuvant setting. However, high-risk resectable stage III melanoma (i.e. with clinically detected regional lymph node involvement and/or satellites/in transit metastases) still has a high risk of relapse, even after adjuvant treatment, suggesting that the activity of immunotherapy and targeted therapy may play a relevant role in a neoadjuvant setting.Area covered: In this review, we discuss the results of the main clinical trials conducted in the neoadjuvant setting for patients with resectable stage III and stage IV melanoma, with a focus on the hot topics and a look at the future perspectives of the field.Expert opinion: The long-term effects of immunotherapy and the high response rate of targeted therapy provided the strong rationale to start neoadjuvant clinical trials for patients with resectable stage III and oligometastatic stage IV melanoma. Neoadjuvant therapy may play an important role not only for its possible impact on overall survival, but also as a predictive biological marker to allow for a more accurate personalization of adjuvant treatments.