Improved survival over time with immunotherapy in locally advanced and metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas.

PURPOSE: Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) is the second most common cancer in white-skinned populations. There is little information on the epidemiology of cSCC, and even less on advanced cases (acSCC). Therefore, we analyzed acSCC patients to describe their characteristics, management, and outcomes over time. METHODS: A single-center retrospective study was conducted over a period of 5 years, including all patients who started systemic therapy for acSCC. The patient characteristics, cSCC management, response to therapy, and survival were recorded. Patients were stratified into equal chronological periods (periods 1 and 2). A subgroup analysis was performed to compare patients who received immunotherapy (group 1) with those who did not (group 2). RESULTS: The study included 127 patients, and patient numbers increased by an average of 19.7% per year. Most patients were male (88/127), elderly (mean 81.6 years), with comorbidities, and 27.6% were immunocompromised. The median overall survival (OS) was higher in period 2 (20 months) than in period 1 (10 months) (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] = 0.62 [0.39; 0.98], p = 0.04). The risk of progression increased with age and immunosuppression. Of the 64 patients who received second-line therapy, 38 had immunotherapy (group 1) and 26 received other therapies (group 2). Immunotherapy reduced mortality and progression by 71% (p = 0.004) and 67% (p = 0.002), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with acSCC are usually very frail and elderly. OS increased over time, with a twofold improvement between periods 1 and 2, whereas progression-free survival (PFS) did not increase. Access to immunotherapy reduced mortality in a majority of patients in period 2. Immunosuppression and advanced age were associated with lower PFS.

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

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

Clinical impact of proton pump inhibitors and other co-medications on advanced melanoma patients treated with BRAF/MEK inhibitors.

PURPOSE: While several studies reported the influence of co-medications on immune checkpoint therapy and chemotherapy, it remains poorly studied with targeted therapy. Targeted therapies inhibiting BRAF and MEK had significantly improved management of advanced melanoma with BRAFV600 mutation over the last decade, we aimed to investigate the possible influence of co-mediations on the efficacy and toxicity of these targeted therapies (TT). METHODS: We conducted an observational study identifying patients with advanced melanoma treated with BRAF/MEK inhibitors between 2013 and 2020 in the Bordeaux University Hospital. Co-medications given within 1 month before until 3 months after the initiation of targeted therapy were recorded and classified by their mechanism or by their metabolism. Survival data were analyzed with univariable and multivariable cox regression and the combined effect of multiple factors was evaluated using a factor analysis of mixed data (FAMD). The impact of co-medications on toxicity related to TT was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 192 patients were included. Although several co-medications were associated with significantly shorter overall survival (OS) and/or progression-free survival (PFS), PPIs was the only co-medication with a significant impact in multivariable analysis considering all co-medications and specific prognostic factors. Co-medications did not influence the risk, type, or timing of TT-related toxicity. Additional FAMD revealed the impact of each factor on the oncological outcomes. In a subgroup of patients, residual plasma TT concentration was available and did not differ between PPIs users and non-users. CONCLUSION: Co-medications, especially PPIs, must be carefully assessed at the time of TT initiation.

Differential gradients of immunotherapy vs targeted therapy efficacy according to the sun-exposure pattern of the site of occurrence of primary melanoma: a multicenter prospective cohort study (MelBase).

Background: The tumor mutational burden (TMB) is high in melanomas owing to UV-induced oncogenesis. While a high TMB is a predictive biomarker of response to PD-1 inhibitors, it may be associated with the rise of resistant clones to targeted therapy over time. We hypothesized that survivals may depend on both the sun-exposure profile of the site of primary melanoma and the type of systemic treatment. Patients and methods: Patients were screened from MelBase, a multicenter biobank dedicated to the prospective follow-up of stage III/IV melanoma. All patients with a known cutaneous primary melanoma who received a 1st-line systemic treatment by immunotherapy or targeted therapy were included (2013-2019). Outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: 973 patients received either anti PD-1(n=466), anti CTLA-4(n=143), a combination of both (n=118), or targeted therapies (n=246). Patients' characteristics at treatment initiation were: male (62%), median age of 62, AJCC stage IV (84%). Median follow-up was 15.5 months. The primary melanoma was located on chronically sun-exposed skin in 202 patients (G1: head neck), on intermittently sun-exposed skin in 699 patients (G2: trunk, arms, legs), and on sun-protected areas in 72 patients (G3: palms, soles). Median PFS was significantly higher in G1 under anti PD-1 treatment (8.7 months vs 3.3 and 3.4 months for G2 and G3, respectively) (p=0.011). PFS did not significantly differ in other groups. Similarly, median OS was significantly higher in G1 receiving 1st line anti PD-1 treatment (45.6 months vs 31.6 and 21.4 months for G2 and G3) (p=0.04), as opposed to 1st line targeted therapy (19.5 months vs 16.3 and 21.1 months for G1, G2 and G3 respectively). Conclusion: Our study confirms that immunotherapy with anti PD-1 is particularly recommended for melanomas originating from chronically sun-exposed areas, but this finding needs to be confirmed by further research.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor rechallenge in patients who previously experienced immune-related inflammatory arthritis: a multicentre observational study.

OBJECTIVE: Another course of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is often considered in patients with cancer progression and previous immune-related adverse events, including inflammatory arthritis (ICI-IA), but there are limited data regarding safety of ICI rechallenge in this setting. We aimed to assess the rate and clinical features associated with ICI-IA flare/recurrence on ICI rechallenge. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre observational study including cancer patients with ICI-IA who started a second course of ICI more than 3 months after ICI discontinuation in four French university hospitals. Primary outcome was the frequency of ICI flare/recurrence after ICI rechallenge. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were included. At the time of ICI rechallenge, 18 patients reported no symptoms of ICI-IA (78%) and 5 had grade 1 (22%), 11 patients (48%) were not receiving any ICI-IA treatment, 11 (48%) were still on prednisone, 2 (9%) were on conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and 1 (4%) on anti-IL-6. ICI-IA flare/recurrence occurred in 12 patients (52%) with a median time of 1 month after ICI rechallenge. ICI-IA phenotype, disease activity and ICI-IA treatment at the time of ICI rechallenge did not differ according to ICI-IA flare/recurrence status. CONCLUSION: In this first observational study of ICI-IA patients rechallenged with ICI, about half of the patients experienced ICI-IA flare/recurrence with a similar phenotype but occurring earlier than the initial ICI-IA, warranting close monitoring during the first month of retreatment. Risk of flare did not differ according to baseline immunosuppressive treatment at the time of rechallenge.

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

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

Contribution of MEK Inhibition to BRAF/MEK Inhibitor Combination Treatment of BRAF-Mutant Melanoma: Part 2 of the Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III COLUMBUS Trial.

PURPOSE: In COLUMBUS part 1, patients with advanced BRAFV600-mutant melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice a day (COMBO450), vemurafenib 960 mg twice a day, or encorafenib 300 mg once daily (ENCO300). As previously reported, COMBO450 improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus vemurafenib (part 1 primary end point) and ENCO300 (part 1 key secondary end point; not statistically significant). Part 2, requested by the US Food and Drug Administration, evaluated the contribution of binimetinib by maintaining the same encorafenib dosage in the combination (encorafenib 300 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily [COMBO300]) and ENCO300 arms. METHODS: In part 2, patients were randomly assigned 3:1 to COMBO300 or ENCO300. ENCO300 (parts 1 and 2) data were combined, per protocol, for PFS analysis (key secondary end point) by a blinded independent review committee (BIRC). Other analyses included overall response rate (ORR), overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-eight patients received COMBO300, and 86 received ENCO300. Per protocol, ENCO300 arms (parts 1 and 2 combined) were also evaluated (n = 280). The median follow-up for ENCO300 was 40.8 months (part 1) and 57.1 months (part 2). The median PFS (95% CI) was 12.9 months (10.9 to 14.9) for COMBO300 versus 9.2 months (7.4 to 11.1) for ENCO300 (parts 1 and 2) and 7.4 months (5.6 to 9.2) for ENCO300 (part 2). The hazard ratio (95% CI) for COMBO300 was 0.74 (0.60 to 0.92; two-sided P = .003) versus ENCO300 (parts 1 and 2). The ORR by BIRC (95% CI) was 68% (62 to 74) and 51% (45 to 57) for COMBO300 and ENCO300 (parts 1 and 2), respectively. COMBO300 had greater relative dose intensity and fewer grade 3/4 adverse events than ENCO300. CONCLUSION: COMBO300 improved PFS, ORR, and tolerability compared with ENCO300, confirming the contribution of binimetinib to efficacy and safety.

Brief Communication: Lambert-Eaton Myasthenic Paraneoplastic Syndrome Associated With Merkel Cell Carcinoma Successfully Treated by Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: 2 Cases.

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is an aggressive neuroendocrine cutaneous tumor with high metastatic potential. In rare cases, it can be associated with paraneoplastic syndromes (PNS), which result from an antitumor immunity against antigens produced by the tumor itself. Lambert-Eaton Myasthenic Syndrome (LEMS) is a neurological autoimmune PNS characterized by an impairment of the neuromuscular junction, leading to proximal muscle weakness and fatigability. Although the development of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) is a breakthrough in the management of many cancers, onset or worsen of immune diseases has been described. Thereby, in patients with previous neurological PNS like LEMS, the ICI therapy for cancer may aggravate neurological symptoms and lead to irreversible impairment. We report here 2 cases of patients with metastatic MCC associated with a LEMS at the diagnosis. Both successfully received ICI therapies (anti-PDL1 avelumab and anti-PD1 pembrolizumab) without worsening of LEMS and any major immune-related adverse effects. Their neurological condition improved and disappeared concomitantly with the efficacy of immunotherapy, and we did not observe relapse of both MCC and LEMS after treatment discontinuation. Finally, we performed a complete review of the literature, which confirmed that ICI treatment could be discussed for patients with paraneoplastic LEMS, and emphasized the need for multidisciplinary management.

First-Line, Fixed-Duration Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Followed by Nivolumab in Clinically Diverse Patient Populations With Unresectable Stage III or IV Melanoma: CheckMate 401.

PURPOSE: To address the paucity of data in patients with historically poor outcomes, we conducted the single-arm phase IIIb CheckMate 401 study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab monotherapy in clinically diverse patient populations with advanced melanoma. METHODS: Treatment-naive patients with unresectable stage III-IV melanoma received nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks (four doses) followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg (240 mg following a protocol amendment) once every 2 weeks for ≤24 months. The primary end point was the incidence of grade 3-5 select treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Overall survival (OS) was a secondary end point. Outcomes were evaluated in subgroups defined by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS), brain metastasis status, and melanoma subtype. RESULTS: In total, 533 patients received at least one dose of study drug. Grade 3-5 select TRAEs affecting the GI (16%), hepatic (15%), endocrine (11%), skin (7%), renal (2%), and pulmonary (1%) systems occurred in the all-treated population; similar incidence rates were observed across all subgroups. At 21.6 months' median follow-up, 24-month OS rates were 63% in the all-treated population, 44% in the ECOG PS 2 subgroup (including patients with cutaneous melanoma only), 71% in the brain metastasis subgroup, 36% in the ocular/uveal melanoma subgroup, and 38% in the mucosal melanoma subgroup. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab monotherapy was tolerable in patients with advanced melanoma and poor prognostic characteristics. Efficacy was similar between the all-treated population and patients with brain metastases. Reduced efficacy was observed in patients with ECOG PS 2, ocular/uveal melanoma, and/or mucosal melanoma, highlighting the continued need for novel treatment options for these difficult-to-treat patients.

Real-life use of trametinib after immunotherapy failure in BRAF wild-type advanced melanoma.

BRAF V600 wild-type advanced melanomas quickly reach a therapeutic dead-end, after immunotherapy failure. Even if preclinical studies have suggested sensitivity to MEK inhibitors such as trametinib in NRAS, NF1 or GNA mutated melanoma, therapeutic options are limited for these patients. We present a retrospective monocentric study of 22 patients with advanced melanoma treated by trametinib after immunotherapy resistance. Melanomas harboured NRAS (20), NF1 (1) or GNA 11 (1) mutations. For most of them (18), anti-PD1 was associated with trametinib. A disease-control was reported in 36% of patients (8/22), with six stable diseases and two partial responses according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria. Median progression-free survival was 2 months (1-14) and median overall survival was 6.5 months (2-24). In patients with progressive disease (14/22), dissociated radiologic responses and clinical benefits such as pain reduction were seen in five patients. High blood level of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) seemed associated with trametinib failure, without significance ( P = 0.06). Adverse events (grade 1-3) occurred in 91% of patients during the first weeks of treatment, mainly papulo-pustular rashes (77%), leg oedemas (36%), asthenia (18%) and diarrhoea (14%). This real-life study showed that trametinib may benefit some metastatic melanoma that progressed after chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors. Objective disease control (partial response or stable disease) using RECIST criteria was observed in 36% of patients. Because of frequent side-effects which can alter the quality of life and the short response duration, this off-label option has to be discussed with the patient. Studies with combination therapy with trametinib to improve relapse-free survival and lower side-effects are ongoing.

Impact of systemic therapies in metastatic melanoma of unknown primary: A study from MELBASE, a French multicentric prospective cohort.

BACKGROUND: Clinical outcomes of advanced melanoma of unknown primary (MUP) in the era of novel therapies have been scarcely studied. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of systemic treatments in patients with advanced MUP compared to patients with stage-matched melanoma of known cutaneous primary (cMKP). METHODS: Based on the nationwide MelBase prospective database, this study included advanced melanoma patients treated from March 2013 to June 2021 with first-line immunotherapies, targeted therapies, or chemotherapy. Co-primary outcomes were progression-free survival and overall survival. Secondary outcome was treatment-related toxicities. Multivariate and propensity score analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of 1882 patients, 265 (14.1%) had advanced MUP. Patients with advanced MUP displayed more often unfavorable initial prognostic factors than those with cMKP. Progression-free and overall survival did not differ significantly between the groups (P = .73 and P = .93, respectively), as well as treatment-related toxicity rate and severity, regardless of treatment type. LIMITATIONS: No record of standard diagnostic criteria of MUP used in the participating centers. CONCLUSIONS: Although patients with MUP had less favorable baseline prognostic factors, they benefited from the novel therapies as much as those with cMKP. They should be managed according to similar strategies.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Sequential Treatment Strategies for Advanced Melanoma in Real Life in France.

Nine drugs have been marketed for 10 years for the treatment of advanced melanoma (AM). With half of patients reaching a second line, the optimal sequence of treatments remains unclear. To inform policy-makers about their efficiency, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of sequential strategies in clinical practice in France, for BRAF-mutated and wild-type patients. A multistate model was developed to describe treatment sequences, associated costs, and health outcomes over 10 years. Sequences, clinical outcomes, utility scores, and economic data were extracted from the prospective Melbase cohort, collecting individual data in 1518 patients since 2013, from their AM diagnosis until their death. To adjust the differences in patients' characteristics among sequences, weighting by inverse probability was used. In the BRAF-mutated population, the MONO-targeted therapies (TT)-anti-PD1 sequence was the less expensive, whereas the anti-PD1-BI-TT sequence had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 180,441 EUR/QALY. Regarding the BRAF wild-type population, the three sequences constituted the cost-effective frontier, with ICERs ranging from 116 to 806,000 EUR/QALY. For BRAF-mutated patients, the sequence anti-PD1-BI-TT appeared to be the most efficient one in BRAF-mutated AM patients until 2018. Regarding the BRAF wild-type population until 2018, the sequence starting with IPI+NIVO appeared inefficient compared to anti-PD1, considering the extra cost for the QALY gained.

Non-V600E/K BRAF Mutations in Metastatic Melanoma: Molecular Description, Frequency, and Effectiveness of Targeted Therapy in a Large National Cohort.

PURPOSE: Mitogen-activating protein kinase inhibitors (MAPKis) are largely used in V600E/K BRAF-mutated metastatic melanomas, but data regarding effectiveness of targeted therapy in patients with rare BRAF mutations and molecular description of these infrequent mutations are scarce. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicenter study was conducted on patients with metastatic melanoma harboring a well-identified mutation of BRAF and enrolled from March 2013 to June 2021 in the French nationwide prospective cohort MelBase. The molecular BRAF mutation pattern, response to MAPKis when applicable, and survival data were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 856 selected patients, 51 (6%) harbored a non-V600E/K BRAF mutation involving codons V600 (24 of 51, 47%; V600G 27.4%, V600R 15.6%), K601 (6 of 51, 11.7%), and L597 (4 of 51, 7.8%). An objective response to MAPKis either BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi) alone or combined with MEK inhibitor was achieved in 56% (353 of 631) of V600E/K, 58% (11 of 19) of non-E/K V600, and 22% (2 of 9) of non-V600 BRAF-mutated patients, with a median progression-free survival of 7.7, 7.8, and 2.8 months, respectively. Overall, objective response rate was higher with BRAFi + MEK inhibitor combination than with BRAFi in monotherapy for each subset. CONCLUSION: Rare BRAF mutations are not anecdotal in the metastatic melanoma population. Although data interpretation must remain careful owing to the limited size of some subsets of patients, non-E/K V600 BRAF mutations seem to confer a high sensitivity to targeted therapy, whereas MAPKis seem less effective in patients with non-V600 BRAF mutations. However, this strategy may be used as an alternative option in the case of immunotherapy failure in the latter population.

An open label, non-randomised, phase IIIb study of trametinib in combination with dabrafenib in patients with unresectable (stage III) or distant metastatic (stage IV) BRAF V600-mutant melanoma: A subgroup analysis of patients with brain metastases.

BACKGROUND: Despite the poor prognosis associated with melanoma brain metastases (BM), data concerning these patients and their inclusion in clinical trials remains scarce. We report here the efficacy results of a subgroup analysis in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma and BM treated with BRAF and MEK inhibitors dabrafenib (D) and trametinib (T). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This phase IIIb single-arm, open-label, multicenter, French study included patients with unresectable stage IIIc or IV BRAFV600-mutant melanoma with or without BM. The present analysis focuses on patients with BM. Response rates were determined clinically and/or radiologically as per standard clinical practice. Progression-free survival (PFS) was estimated using the Kaplan Meier analysis and modelled with multivariate Cox regression model. Risk subgroups were identified using an exponential regression tree analysis. Significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: Between March 2015 and November 2016, 856 patients were included and 275 (32%) patients had BM. Median PFS was 5.68 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.29-6.87). Significant independent factors associated with shorter PFS were ECOG ≥1, elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), ≥3 metastatic sites, and non-naïve status. The binary-split classification and regression tree modelling identified baseline LDH and ECOG status as major prognostic factors. CONCLUSION: This is to date the largest, close to real-world, study in advanced BRAFV600-mutant melanoma patients with BM treated with D+T. ECOG >1, ≥3 metastatic sites and elevated LDH were associated with shorter PFS, a finding previously demonstrated only in patients without BM. Further studies are warranted to determine the optimal treatment sequence in this population.

MBD4 deficiency is predictive of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic uveal melanoma patients.

BACKGROUND: MBD4 mutations have been reported in uveal melanomas, acute myeloid leukemias, colorectal adenocarcinomas, gliomas, and spiradenocarcinomas and cause a hypermutated phenotype. Although metastatic uveal melanomas (mUM) are usually resistant to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), the first reported MBD4-mutated (MBD4m) patient responded to ICI, suggesting that MBD4 mutation may predict response to ICI. METHODS: Retrospective cohort of mUM patients treated with ICI. MBD4 was sequenced in a subset of these patients. RESULTS: Three hundred mUM patients were included. Median follow-up was 17.3 months. Ten patients with an objective response and 20 cases with stable disease for >12 months were observed, corresponding to an objective response rate of 3.3% and a clinical benefit (i.e., responder patients and stable disease) rate of 10%. Of the 131 tumors sequenced for MBD4, five (3.8%) were mutated. MBD4 mutation was associated with a better objective response rate as three out of five MBD4m versus 4% of MBD4 wild-type patients responded (p < 0.001). Of these five responders, three presented progressive disease at 2.8, 13.9, and 22.3 months. Median PFS was 4.0 months in MBD4 wild-type and 22.3 months in MBD4m patients (HR = 0.22; p = 0.01). Median OS in MBD4def patients was unreached as compared to 16.6 months in MBD4pro (HR = 0.11; 95% CI: 0.02-0.86; log-rank p-test = 0.04; Fig. 2e). CONCLUSIONS: In mUM patients, MBD4 mutation is highly predictive for the response, PFS, and overall survival benefit to ICI. MBD4 could be a tissue-agnostic biomarker and should be sequenced in mUM, and other tumor types where MBD4 mutations are reported.

Risk of irAEs in patients with autoimmune diseases treated by immune checkpoint inhibitors for stage III or IV melanoma: results from a matched case-control study.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the risk of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in patients with pre-existing autoimmune disease (pAID) treated by immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for stage III or IV melanoma. METHODS: Case-control study performed on a French multicentric prospective cohort of patients with melanoma, matched for irAE risk factors and oncological staging. Risk of irAE was assessed by logistic regression. RESULTS: 110 patients with pAID were included and matched with 330 controls, from March 2013 to October 2020. Over a median follow-up period of 7.2 months for cases and 6.9 months for controls, the ORs of developing all-grade and grade ≥3 irAEs among cases compared with controls were 1.91 (95% CI (1.56 to 2.27)) and 1.44 (95% CI (1.08 to 1.82)), respectively. Patients with pAID had an increased risk of multiple irAEs (OR 1.46, 95% CI (1.15 to 2.67)) and a shorter time to irAE onset. In contrast, there were no difference in irAE-related mortality nor in the rate of treatment discontinuation, and a landmark analysis revealed a better survival at 24 months among cases (p=0.02). Thirty per cent of cases experienced a pAID flare during follow-up, and baseline immunosuppression did not prevent irAE occurrence. Last, we report associations between the pAID clinical subsets and organ-specific irAEs. CONCLUSION: In our study, patients with pAID were at greater risk of all-grade, severe and multiple irAEs, yet had a better 24-month survival than controls. Thus, patients with pAID should be eligible for ICI therapy but benefit from a close monitoring for irAE occurrence, especially during the first months of therapy.