Perioperative therapy of melanoma: Adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment.

Surgery is the mainstay treatment of melanoma. However, even after radical resection the risk of relapses in majority of stage IIB-IV disease remains high. Currently, the standard treatment after surgery in high risk patients is systemic adjuvant therapy administered up to one year based on the results of clinical trials indicating significant reduction of risk of relapses. All clinical trials in adjuvant setting were based as primary end-point on relapse-free survival, not overall survival, and they did not incorporate and validate biomarkers prospectively. A new therapeutic strategy in locoregional advanced melanomas becomes a preoperative treatment to further increase of the cure rates and decrease the duration of systemic therapy.

Pemigatinib for patients with previously treated, locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma harboring FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements: A joint analysis of the French PEMI-BIL and Italian PEMI-REAL cohort studies.

BACKGROUND: Pemigatinib is approved for patients with pretreated, locally advanced or metastatic CCA harboring FGFR2 rearrangements or fusions. We aim to assess the effectiveness and safety of pemigatinib in real-world setting. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A joint analysis of two multicentre observational retrospective cohort studies independently conducted in France and Italy was performed. All consecutive FGFR2-positive patients affected by CCA and treated with pemigatinib as second- or further line of systemic treatment in clinical practice, within or outside the European Expanded Access Program, were included. RESULTS: Between July 2020 and September 2022, 72 patients were treated with pemigatinib in 14 Italian and 25 French Centres. Patients had a median age of 57 years, 76% were female, 81% had ECOG-PS 0-1, 99% had intrahepatic CCA, 74% had ≥ 2 metastatic sites, 67% had metastatic disease at diagnosis, while 38.8% received ≥ 2 previous lines of systemic treatment. At data cut-off analysis (April 2023), ORR and DCR were 45.8% and 84.7%, respectively. Median DoR was 7 months (IQR: 5.8-9.3). Over a median follow-up time of 19.5 months, median PFS and 1-year PFS rate were 8.7 months and 32.8%. Median OS and 1-year OS rate were 17.1 months and 60.6%. Fatigue (69.4%), ocular toxicity (68%), nail toxicities (61.1%), dermatologic toxicity (41.6%) hyperphosphataemia (55.6%), stomatitis (48.6%), and diarrhea (36.1%) were the most frequent, mainly G1-G2 AEs. Overall incidence of G3 AEs was 22.2%, while no patient experienced G4 AE. Dose reduction and temporary discontinuation were needed in 33.3% and 40.3% of cases, with 1 permanent discontinuation due to AEs. CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm the effectiveness and safety of pemigatinib in a real-world setting.

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.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in melanoma patients with asymptomatic brain metastases: 7-year outcomes and quality of life from the multicenter phase III NIBIT-M2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The primary analysis of the phase III NIBIT-M2 study showed a 41% 4-year overall survival (OS) of melanoma patients with asymptomatic brain metastases treated with ipilimumab plus nivolumab. METHODS: Here, we report the 7-year efficacy outcomes and the Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) analyses of the NIBIT-M2 study. RESULTS: As of May 1, 2023, at a median follow-up of 67 months (mo), the median OS was 8.5 (95% CI: 6.6-10.3), 8.2 (95% CI: 2.1-14.3) and 29.2 (95% CI: 0-69.9) mo for the fotemustine (F) Arm A, ipilimumab plus fotemustine Arm B, and ipilimumab plus nivolumab Arm C, respectively. The 7-year OS rate was 10.0% (95% CI: 0-22.5) in Arm A, 10.3% (95% CI: 0-22.6) in Arm B, and 42.8% (95% CI: 23.4-62.2) in Arm C. HRQoL was preserved in all treatment arms. Most functional scales evaluated from baseline to W12 were preserved, with a lower mean score decrease for EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ)-C30 and an increase for EORTC QLQ-Brain neoplasm (BN20) in patients receiving ipilimumab plus nivolumab. CONCLUSIONS: With the longest follow-up available to date in melanoma patients with asymptomatic brain metastases, the NIBIT-M2 study continues to show persistent therapeutic efficacy of I ipilimumab plus nivolumab while preserving HRQoL.

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.

Sequential immunotherapy and targeted therapy for metastatic BRAF V600 mutated melanoma: 4-year survival and biomarkers evaluation from the phase II SECOMBIT trial.

No prospective data were available prior to 2021 to inform selection between combination BRAF and MEK inhibition versus dual blockade of programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) and cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) as first-line treatment options for BRAFV600-mutant melanoma. SECOMBIT (NCT02631447) was a randomized, three-arm, noncomparative phase II trial in which patients were randomized to one of two sequences with immunotherapy or targeted therapy first, with a third arm in which an 8-week induction course of targeted therapy followed by a planned switch to immunotherapy was the first treatment. BRAF/MEK inhibitors were encorafenib plus binimetinib and checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab plus nivolumab. Primary outcome of overall survival was previously reported, demonstrating improved survival with immunotherapy administered until progression and followed by BRAF/MEK inhibition. Here we report 4-year survival outcomes, confirming long-term benefit with first-line immunotherapy. We also describe preliminary results of predefined biomarkers analyses that identify a trend toward improved 4-year overall survival and total progression-free survival in patients with loss-of-function mutations affecting JAK or low baseline levels of serum interferon gamma (IFNy). These long-term survival outcomes confirm immunotherapy as the preferred first-line treatment approach for most patients with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma, and the biomarker analyses are hypothesis-generating for future investigations of predictors of durable benefit with dual checkpoint blockade and targeted therapy.

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.

Characteristics of Real-World Patients with High-Risk BRAFV600E/K-Mutated Melanoma Receiving Adjuvant Treatment with Dabrafenib Plus Trametinib After Surgical Resection, Through the Italian Managed Access Program.

Purpose: Real-world data from patients with BRAFV600-mutated, resected, stage III melanoma treated with dabrafenib plus trametinib as adjuvant targeted therapy are limited, and it is important to gain an understanding of the characteristics of this patient population, as well as of the patient journey. Here we aimed to describe the characteristics, dosage reductions and discontinuations in patients with BRAFV600E/K-mutated melanoma receiving adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib after surgical resection through an Italian managed access program (MAP). Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had completely resected cutaneous melanoma with confirmed BRAF V600E or V600K mutation, or initially resectable lymph node recurrence after a diagnosis of stage I or II melanoma. The starting dose of dabrafenib and trametinib was 150 mg twice daily and 2 mg once daily, respectively. Results: A total of 557 patients received dabrafenib plus trametinib through the MAP (stage III resected disease at inclusion, 554). Median age was 54.0 years, and 40.2% of patients were female. The proportion of all treated patients who required a dose reduction was low (10.8%) as was the proportion of patients who discontinued treatment (13.5%). The main reason for treatment discontinuation was adverse events (36.0%). Conclusion: New treatments, including BRAF-targeted therapies and immunotherapy, have transformed the natural history of melanoma. This is the largest study to date describing patients treated with dabrafenib plus trametinib in routine clinical practice in Italy between 2018 and 2019. Results highlight the characteristics of the patients treated and their journey, as well as the tolerable safety profile of dabrafenib plus trametinib in a real-world patient population.

Spatial Proximity and Relative Distribution of Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes and Macrophages Predict Survival in Melanoma.

Tumor microenvironment plays a crucial role in primary cutaneous melanoma (CM) progression. Although the role of tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) density has been known for a long time, its spatial distribution and impact with or without tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) remain controversial. Herein, we investigated spatial proximity between tumor cells and immune cells in 113 primary CM and its correlation with disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS). The study cohort included clinical stage II (n = 79) and stage III (n = 34) primary CM with a Breslow thickness of >2 mm (with a median age of 64 years, including 72 men and 41 women). In univariate models, patients with SOX10+ melanoma cells with high proximity to CD8+ TILs in a 20 µm radius showed longer DFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.36-0.93; P = .025) and OS (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32-0.92; P = .023). Furthermore, at multivariate combined analysis, patients with SOX10+ melanoma cells with high proximity to CD8+ TILs or low proximity to CD163+ TAMs in a 20 µm radius showed an increased OS (aHR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.14-0.96; P = .04) compared with melanoma patients with low proximity to CD8+ TILs or high proximity to CD163+ TAMs. In a subgroup analysis including 92 patients, a significant negative impact on DFS (aHR, 4.49; 95% CI, 1.73-11.64; P = .002) and OS (aHR, 3.97; 95% CI, 1.37-11.49; P = .01) was observed in sentinel lymph node (SLN)-negative patients with a high proximity of CD163+ TAMs to CD8+ TILs. These findings could help identify high-risk patients in the context of thick melanoma and a negative SLN. Our study suggests the importance of quantifying not only the density of immune cells but also the individual and combined relative spatial distributions of tumor cells and immune cells for clinical outcomes in SLN-negative primary CM patients.

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).

Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocyte Recognition in Primary Melanoma by Deep Learning Convolutional Neural Network.

The presence of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) is associated with a favorable prognosis of primary melanoma (PM). Recently, artificial intelligence (AI)-based approach in digital pathology was proposed for the standardized assessment of TILs on hematoxylin and eosin-stained whole slide images (WSIs). Herein, the study applied a new convolution neural network (CNN) analysis of PM WSIs to automatically assess the infiltration of TILs and extract a TIL score. A CNN was trained and validated in a retrospective cohort of 307 PMs including a training set (237 WSIs, 57,758 patches) and an independent testing set (70 WSIs, 29,533 patches). An AI-based TIL density index (AI-TIL) was identified after the classification of tumor patches by the presence or absence of TILs. The proposed CNN showed high performance in recognizing TILs in PM WSIs, showing 100% specificity and sensitivity on the testing set. The AI-based TIL index correlated with conventional TIL evaluation and clinical outcome. The AI-TIL index was an independent prognostic marker associated directly with a favorable prognosis. A fully automated and standardized AI-TIL appeared to be superior to conventional methods at differentiating the PM clinical outcome. Further studies are required to develop an easy-to-use tool to assist pathologists to assess TILs in the clinical evaluation of solid tumors.

Italian nivolumab Expanded Access Programme in melanoma adjuvant setting: patient outcomes and safety profile.

INTRODUCTION: The CheckMate 238 randomised study demonstrated the relevant benefit in terms of recurrence-free survival (RFS) of nivolumab versus ipilimumab in resected stage IIIB-C or IV melanoma patients with a tolerable safety profile. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From November 2018 to June 2019, 611 patients with stage III and IV resected melanoma were enroled to receive nivolumab as part of an Italian Expanded Access Programme (EAP). According to stages, 77% were stage III while 141 (23%) were stage IV with no evidence of disease (NED). Among stage III, 121 patients had IIIA (19.8%). RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 23 months, the RFS in the Intention-to-Treat (ITT) population was 76.6% at 1 year and 59.6% at 2 years; 1- and 2-year distant metastasis-free survival were 83.7% and 71.2%, respectively. The overall survival rate in the ITT population was 93.8% at 1 year and 85.5% at 2 years. No significant differences in RFS were observed according to BRAF status. Treatment-related adverse events of grades 3-4 occurred in 11.5% of patients. CONCLUSION: This paper reports the results of the Italian Nivolumab EAP in the adjuvant setting of stage III and IV NED melanoma patients. Our results confirm in a real-life setting the clinical activity and safety of nivolumab reported in the CheckMate238 registrative/pivotal. The enroled cohort of 611 patients highlights the relevant clinical need in this setting, also confirmed by the very short accrual time, representing one of the largest series reported as adjuvant EAP with the longest follow-up.

Association between gene expression signatures and clinical outcomes of pembrolizumab versus paclitaxel in advanced gastric cancer: exploratory analysis from the randomized, controlled, phase III KEYNOTE-061 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the randomized, controlled, phase III KEYNOTE-061 trial, second-line pembrolizumab did not significantly prolong overall survival (OS) versus paclitaxel in patients with PD-L1-positive (combined positive score ≥1) advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) cancer but did elicit a longer duration of response and offered a favorable safety profile. This prespecified exploratory analysis was conducted to evaluate associations between tumor gene expression signatures and clinical outcomes in the phase III KEYNOTE-061 trial. METHODS: Using RNA sequencing data obtained from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded baseline tumor tissue samples, we evaluated the 18-gene T-cell-inflamed gene expression profile (TcellinfGEP) and 10 non-TcellinfGEP signatures (angiogenesis, glycolysis, granulocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cell (gMDSC), hypoxia, monocytic MDSC (mMDSC), MYC, proliferation, RAS, stroma/epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition/transforming growth factor-ß, WNT). The association between each signature on a continuous scale and outcomes was analyzed using logistic (objective response rate (ORR)) and Cox proportional hazards regression (progression-free survival (PFS) and OS). One-sided (pembrolizumab) and two-sided (paclitaxel) p values were calculated for TcellinfGEP (prespecified α=0.05) and the 10 non-TcellinfGEP signatures (multiplicity-adjusted; prespecified α=0.10). RESULTS: RNA sequencing data were available for 137 patients in each treatment group. TcellinfGEP was positively associated with ORR (p=0.041) and PFS (p=0.026) for pembrolizumab but not paclitaxel (p>0.05). The TcellinfGEP-adjusted mMDSC signature was negatively associated with ORR (p=0.077), PFS (p=0.057), and OS (p=0.033) for pembrolizumab, while the TcellinfGEP-adjusted glycolysis (p=0.018), MYC (p=0.057), and proliferation (p=0.002) signatures were negatively associated with OS for paclitaxel. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory analysis of tumor TcellinfGEP showed associations with ORR and PFS for pembrolizumab but not for paclitaxel. TcellinfGEP-adjusted mMDSC signature was negatively associated with ORR, PFS, and OS for pembrolizumab but not paclitaxel. These data suggest myeloid-driven suppression may play a role in resistance to PD-1 inhibition in G/GEJ cancer and support a strategy of considering immunotherapy combinations which target this myeloid axis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02370498.

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.

COLUMBUS 5-year update: a randomized, open-label, phase III trial of encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib in patients with BRAF.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: Here, we summarize the 5-year results from part 1 of the COLUMBUS clinical study, which looked at the combination treatment of encorafenib plus binimetinib in people with a specific type of skin cancer called melanoma. Encorafenib (BRAFTOVI®) and binimetinib (MEKTOVI®) are medicines used to treat a type of melanoma that has a change in the BRAF gene, called advanced or metastatic BRAF V600-mutant melanoma. Participants with advanced or metastatic BRAF V600-mutant melanoma took either encorafenib plus binimetinib together (COMBO group), compared with encorafenib alone (ENCO group) or vemurafenib (ZELBORAF®) alone (VEMU group). WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: In this 5-year update, more participants in the COMBO group were alive for longer without their disease getting worse after 5 years than those in the VEMU and ENCO groups. Patients in the COMBO group were alive for longer without their disease getting worse when they: Had less advanced cancer Were able to do more daily activities Had normal lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels Had fewer organs with tumors before treatment After treatment, fewer participants in the COMBO group received additional anticancer treatment than participants in the VEMU and ENCO groups. The number of participants who reported severe side effects was similar for each treatment. The side effects caused by the drugs in the COMBO group decreased over time. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: Overall, this 5-year update confirmed that people with BRAF V600-mutant melanoma that has spread to other parts of the body and who took encorafenib plus binimetinib were alive for longer without their disease getting worse than those who took vemurafenib or encorafenib alone. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01909453 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Impact of second opinion pathology review in the diagnosis and management of atypical melanocytic lesions: A prospective study of the Italian Melanoma Intergroup (IMI) and EORTC Melanoma Group.

BACKGROUND: The clinical value of an expert pathological review in patients with an atypical melanocytic lesion diagnosis remains unclear. Herein, we evaluate its impact in a prospective clinical study. METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed or suspected atypical melanocytic proliferations and challenging skin tumours were reviewed prospectively by a specialised dermatopathologist through the nationwide 'Second Opinion Platform' of the Italian Melanoma Intergroup (IMI) network. The primary aim was the rate of major discrepancies that impacted patient management. Major discrepancies in diagnosis between referral and specialised review were blindly re-analysed by a panel of European Organisation for Research and Treatment (EORTC) Melanoma pathologists. RESULTS: The samples submitted to central review included 254 lesions from 230 patients. The most frequent referral diagnoses were atypical melanocytic nevi of different subtypes (74/254, 29.2%), invasive melanomas (61/254, 24.0%), atypical melanocytic proliferations (37/254, 14.6%), AST (21/254, 8.3%) and in situ melanomas (17/254, 6.7%). There was disagreement between referral diagnosis and expert review in 90/254 cases (35.4%). Most importantly, 60/90 (66.7%) were major discordances with a change to the patient's clinical management. Among the 90 discordant cases, the most frequent new diagnosis occurred in World Health Organisation (WHO) Pathway I, followed by WHO Pathway IV (64/90 and 12/90, respectively). In total, 51/60 cases with major discrepancies were blindly re-evaluated by EORTC Melanoma pathologists with a final interobserver agreement in 90% of cases. CONCLUSION: The study highlights that a second opinion for atypical melanocytic lesions affects clinical management in a minor, but still significant, proportion of cases. A central expert review supports pathologists and clinicians to limit the risk of both over- and under-treatment.