Neoadjuvant immunotherapy with combined ipilimumab and nivolumab in patients with melanoma with primary or in transit disease.

The introduction of new therapeutic agents has revolutionized the treatment of metastatic melanoma. The approval of adjuvant anti-programmed death-1 monotherapy with nivolumab or pembrolizumab, and dabrafenib plus trametinib has recently set a new landmark in the treatment of stage III melanoma. Now, clinical trials have shown that immune checkpoint blockade can be performed in a neoadjuvant setting, an approach established as a standard therapeutic approach for other tumour entities such as breast cancer. Recent studies suggest that a pathological response achieved by neoadjuvant immunotherapy is associated with long-term tumour control and that short neoadjuvant application of checkpoint inhibitors may be superior to adjuvant therapy. Most recently, neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab in stage III melanoma was reported. With two courses of dose-optimized ipilimumab (1 mg kg-1 ) combined with nivolumab (3 mg kg-1 ), pathological responses were observed in 77% of patients, while only 20% of patients experienced grade 3 or 4 adverse events. However, the neoadjuvant trials employing combined immune checkpoint blockade conducted so far have excluded patients with in transit metastases, a common finding in stage III melanoma. Here we report four patients with in transit metastases or an advanced primary tumour who have been treated with neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab according to the OpACIN-neo trial scheme (arm B). All patients achieved radiological disease control and a pathological response. None of the patients has relapsed so far. Linked Comment: Blankenstein and van Akkooi. Br J Dermatol 2020; 183:421-422.

Acral lentiginous melanoma: a skin cancer with unfavourable prognostic features. A study of the German central malignant melanoma registry (CMMR) in 2050 patients.

BACKGROUND: Acral lentiginous melanoma (ALM) is one of the four major subtypes in cutaneous melanoma (CM). Although ALM has a poorer prognosis than other CM subtypes, the prognostic factors associated with ALM have only been verified in small-sized cohorts because of the low incidence of ALM worldwide. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the clinical characteristics of ALM and to evaluate their prognostic values based on a large dataset from the Central Malignant Melanoma Registry (CMMR) of the German Dermatologic Society. METHODS: The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the potential influence of clinical and histological parameters on ALM disease-specific survival (DSS) curves, which were compared using the log-rank test. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify independent prognostic factors for DSS. RESULTS: In total, 2050 patients with ALM were identified from 58 949 patients with CM recorded by the CMMR with follow-up data. In multivariate analyses, age (P = 0·006), ulceration (P = 0·013), tumour thickness (P < 0·001) and tumour spread (P < 0·001) turned out to be significant prognostic factors for DSS in ALM whereas sex, nevus association and level of invasion were not independent factors. CONCLUSIONS: ALM has the same prognostic factors as other subtypes of melanoma. Unfavourable prognosis probably derives from the delay in diagnosis in comparison with other melanoma subtypes.

Early switch from run-in treatment with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib to atezolizumab after 3 months leads to rapid loss of tumour control in patients with advanced BRAFV600-positive melanoma: The ImmunoCobiVem phase 2 randomised trial.

AIM: ImmunoCobiVem investigated whether a planned switch to atezolizumab after achieving tumour control during run-in with vemurafenib + cobimetinib improves progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to continuous targeted therapy (TT) in patients with previously untreated advanced BRAFV600-mutated melanoma. METHODS: In this multicenter phase 2 study, patients received vemurafenib plus cobimetinib. After 3months, patients without progressive disease (PD) were randomly assigned (1:1) to continue vemurafenib + cobimetinib (Arm A) or switch to atezolizumab (Arm B) until first documented PD (PD1). Primary outcome was PFS1 (time from start of run-in until PD1 or death). OS and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: Of 185 patients enroled between November 2016 and December 2019, 135 were randomly assigned after the run-in period (Arm A, n = 69; Arm B, n = 66). Median PFS1 was significantly longer in Arm A versus Arm B (13.9 versus 5.9months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.84; PStratified=0.001). Median OS was not reached in either arm (HR 1.22; 95%CI, 0.69-2.16; PStratified=0.389); 2-year OS was higher in Arm B versus Arm A (67%; 95%CI, 53-78 versus 58%; 95%CI, 45-70). Grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 55% of patients in Arm A and 64% in Arm B; treatment-related AEs led to discontinuation of any drug in 7% and 9% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: In patients with BRAFV600-mutated advanced melanoma who achieve tumour control with TT, early switch at 3months to atezolizumab led to rapid loss of tumour control but provided a numerical OS benefit at 2years compared with continued TT.

Eosinophilic folliculitis in a Caucasian patient: association with toxocariasis?

Sterile eosinophilic folliculitis, a clinical entity first described by Ofuji in 1970, is a rather rare skin disorder, in particular in the non-Asian population. We report the first case of eosinophilic folliculitis associated with toxocariasis in a Caucasian patient. Topical and systemic anti-inflammatory and antiphlogistic therapy along with systemic antihelminthic treatment resulted in complete remission of the skin lesions. In addition, there was a marked decrease of antibodies to Toxocara antigens in the patient's serum following antihelminthic therapy. Given that (I) some cases of eosinophilic folliculitis have been reported which were associated with infestation with metazoan parasites; (2) infestations with the roundworm Toxocara canis are known to induce eosinophilic reactions in some tissues; and (3) therapy-induced remission of eosinophilic folliculitis was accompanied by a decrease of Toxocara-directed antibodies in the patient's serum, we propose that there is an aetiopathogenic link between toxocariasis and eosinophilic folliculitis in this patient.

Role of human GTP cyclohydrolase I and its regulatory protein in tetrahydrobiopterin metabolism.

OBJECTIVE: GTP cyclohydrolase I (GTPCH I) catalyzes the de novo biosynthesis of tetrahydrobiopterin (BH(4)), an essential cofactor of NO-synthase. The enzyme underlies negative feedback regulation by the end product BH(4). This feedback inhibition is mediated through complex formation with the GTP cyclohydrolase I feedback regulatory protein (GFRP). To further classify the mechanism involved in the regulation of BH(4) synthesis, we measured expression of GTPCH I and GFRP in different human tissues. Furthermore, we looked for the influence of phenylalanine that is known to reverse BH(4)-mediated feedback inhibition of GTPCH I, and of immunostimulation with interferon gamma on the expression of GTPCH I and GFRP. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using RT-PCR and northern blot technique, coexpression of GFRP and GTPCH I could be demonstrated in a number of different tissues such as endothelial cells and peripheral blood cells. Following stimulation of human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC) with phenylalanine (1 mM), there was no change of GFRP mRNA. In contrast, the mRNA level of GTPCH I was significantly upregulated with a maximum after 6 hours (p = 0.04). Incubation of HUVEC with interferon-gamma (100 U/ml) showed an increase of GTPCH I mRNA and a significant downregulation of GFRP mRNA after 24 hours (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: This study shows for the first time the expression of GFRP in different human tissues. The biosynthesis of BH(4) is not only regulated on the substrate level but also through transcription of the interacting proteins. Phenylalanine stimulates the biosynthesis of BH(4) not only by reversing the negative feedback inhibition of GTPCH I but also by increasing the mRNA level of GTPCH I. Immunostimulation alters protein expression of GTPCH I and GFRP in a way that favors BH(4) synthesis.