Neoadjuvant-Adjuvant or Adjuvant-Only Pembrolizumab in Advanced Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Whether pembrolizumab given both before surgery (neoadjuvant therapy) and after surgery (adjuvant therapy), as compared with pembrolizumab given as adjuvant therapy alone, would increase event-free survival among patients with resectable stage III or IV melanoma is unknown. METHODS: In a phase 2 trial, we randomly assigned patients with clinically detectable, measurable stage IIIB to IVC melanoma that was amenable to surgical resection to three doses of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab, surgery, and 15 doses of adjuvant pembrolizumab (neoadjuvant-adjuvant group) or to surgery followed by pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for a total of 18 doses) for approximately 1 year or until disease recurred or unacceptable toxic effects developed (adjuvant-only group). The primary end point was event-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Events were defined as disease progression or toxic effects that precluded surgery; the inability to resect all gross disease; disease progression, surgical complications, or toxic effects of treatment that precluded the initiation of adjuvant therapy within 84 days after surgery; recurrence of melanoma after surgery; or death from any cause. Safety was also evaluated. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 14.7 months, the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group (154 patients) had significantly longer event-free survival than the adjuvant-only group (159 patients) (P = 0.004 by the log-rank test). In a landmark analysis, event-free survival at 2 years was 72% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64 to 80) in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 49% (95% CI, 41 to 59) in the adjuvant-only group. The percentage of patients with treatment-related adverse events of grades 3 or higher during therapy was 12% in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 14% in the adjuvant-only group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with resectable stage III or IV melanoma, event-free survival was significantly longer among those who received pembrolizumab both before and after surgery than among those who received adjuvant pembrolizumab alone. No new toxic effects were identified. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and Merck Sharp and Dohme; S1801 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03698019.).

The impact of cancer metastases on COVID-19 outcomes: A COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry-based retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 can have a particularly detrimental effect on patients with cancer, but no studies to date have examined if the presence, or site, of metastatic cancer is related to COVID-19 outcomes. METHODS: Using the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry, the authors identified 10,065 patients with COVID-19 and cancer (2325 with and 7740 without metastasis at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis). The primary ordinal outcome was COVID-19 severity: not hospitalized, hospitalized but did not receive supplemental O2, hospitalized and received supplemental O2, admitted to an intensive care unit, received mechanical ventilation, or died from any cause. The authors used ordinal logistic regression models to compare COVID-19 severity by presence and specific site of metastatic cancer. They used logistic regression models to assess 30-day all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Compared to patients without metastasis, patients with metastases have increased hospitalization rates (59% vs. 49%) and higher 30 day mortality (18% vs. 9%). Patients with metastasis to bone, lung, liver, lymph nodes, and brain have significantly higher COVID-19 severity (adjusted odds ratios [ORs], 1.38, 1.59, 1.38, 1.00, and 2.21) compared to patients without metastases at those sites. Patients with metastasis to the lung have significantly higher odds of 30-day mortality (adjusted OR, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.00) when adjusting for COVID-19 severity. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with metastatic cancer, especially with metastasis to the brain, are more likely to have severe outcomes after COVID-19 whereas patients with metastasis to the lung, compared to patients with cancer metastasis to other sites, have the highest 30-day mortality after COVID-19.

Increased myositis and possible myocarditis in melanoma patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in the COVID-19 era.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-mediated myocarditis results in significant morbidity and mortality. At our institution, we noted an increased incidence of ICI-mediated myocarditis cases, leading to further investigation in our database of advanced melanoma patients treated with ICI therapy. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective cohort analysis of patients with advanced melanoma identified cases of ICI-mediated myocarditis and myositis. RESULTS: 366 patients with advanced melanoma received a dose of ICI from September 2014 to October 2019. Of these patients, there were 0 cases of ICI-mediated myocarditis (0%, 95% CI 0%-1.0%) and 2 cases of ICI-mediated myositis (0.55%, 95% CI 0.07%-1.96%). From November 2019 to December 2021, an additional 246 patients with advanced melanoma were identified. Of these patients, 10 (4.1%, 95% CI 1.97%-7.35%) developed ICI-mediated myocarditis and 10 developed ICI-mediated myositis. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests an increase in prevalence of ICI-mediated muscle damage including myositis and myocarditis in the COVID-19 era. Differentiation of these patients and further risk stratification may allow for development of guidelines for nuanced management of this serious complication.

Impact of COVID-19 in patients on active melanoma therapy and with history of melanoma.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 particularly impacted patients with co-morbid conditions, including cancer. Patients with melanoma have not been specifically studied in large numbers. Here, we sought to identify factors that associated with COVID-19 severity among patients with melanoma, particularly assessing outcomes of patients on active targeted or immune therapy. METHODS: Using the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry, we identified 307 patients with melanoma diagnosed with COVID-19. We used multivariable models to assess demographic, cancer-related, and treatment-related factors associated with COVID-19 severity on a 6-level ordinal severity scale. We assessed whether treatment was associated with increased cardiac or pulmonary dysfunction among hospitalized patients and assessed mortality among patients with a history of melanoma compared with other cancer survivors. RESULTS: Of 307 patients, 52 received immunotherapy (17%), and 32 targeted therapy (10%) in the previous 3 months. Using multivariable analyses, these treatments were not associated with COVID-19 severity (immunotherapy OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.19 - 1.39; targeted therapy OR 1.89, 95% CI 0.64 - 5.55). Among hospitalized patients, no signals of increased cardiac or pulmonary organ dysfunction, as measured by troponin, brain natriuretic peptide, and oxygenation were noted. Patients with a history of melanoma had similar 90-day mortality compared with other cancer survivors (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.62 - 2.35). CONCLUSIONS: Melanoma therapies did not appear to be associated with increased severity of COVID-19 or worsening organ dysfunction. Patients with history of melanoma had similar 90-day survival following COVID-19 compared with other cancer survivors.

The Role of Tissue Biopsy in the Management of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Toxicity.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized the treatment of cancer and are now omnipresent. However, immune-related adverse events can present with varying phenotypes and timing, which can pose diagnostic and therapeutic challenges for the treating oncologist as well as subspecialty consultants. Biopsies of affected organs may provide insight into biologic mechanisms as well as potentially guide management in certain circumstances.

American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Disease State Clinical Review: Evaluation and Management of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Mediated Endocrinopathies: A Practical Case-Based Clinical Approach.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this case-based clinical review was to provide a practical approach for clinicians regarding the management of patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-mediated endocrinopathies. METHODS: A literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus was conducted using appropriate keywords. The discussions and strategies for the diagnosis and management of ICI-mediated endocrinopathies are based on evidence available from prospective, randomized clinical studies; cohort studies; cross-sectional studies; case-based studies; and an expert consensus. RESULTS: Immunotherapy with ICIs has transformed the treatment landscape of diverse types of cancers but frequently results in immune-mediated endocrinopathies that can cause acute and persistent morbidity and, rarely, death. The patterns of endocrinopathies differ between the inhibitors of the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 and programmed cell death protein 1 or programmed cell death protein 1 ligand pathways but most often involve the thyroid and pituitary glands. The less common but important presentations include insulin-deficient diabetes mellitus, primary adrenal insufficiency, primary hypoparathyroidism, central diabetes insipidus, primary hypogonadism, and pancreatitis, with or without subsequent progression to diabetes mellitus or exocrine insufficiency. CONCLUSION: In recent years, with increasing numbers of patients with cancer being treated with ICIs, more clinicians in a variety of specialties have been called upon to diagnose and treat ICI-mediated endocrinopathies. Herein, we reviewed case scenarios of various clinical manifestations and emphasized the need for a high index of clinical suspicion by all clinicians caring for these patients, including endocrinologists, oncologists, primary care providers, and emergency department physicians. We also provided diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for ICI-induced endocrinopathies and proposed that patients on ICI therapy be evaluated and treated by a multidisciplinary team in collaboration with endocrinologists.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Palliative Care, Version 2.2021.

Palliative care has evolved to be an integral part of comprehensive cancer care with the goal of early intervention to improve quality of life and patient outcomes. The NCCN Guidelines for Palliative Care provide recommendations to help the primary oncology team promote the best quality of life possible throughout the illness trajectory for each patient with cancer. The NCCN Palliative Care Panel meets annually to evaluate and update recommendations based on panel members' clinical expertise and emerging scientific data. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's recent discussions and highlights updates on the importance of fostering adaptive coping strategies for patients and families, and on the role of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions to optimize symptom management.

Adjuvant nivolumab versus ipilimumab in resected stage IIIB-C and stage IV melanoma (CheckMate 238): 4-year results from a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Previously, findings from CheckMate 238, a double-blind, phase 3 adjuvant trial in patients with resected stage IIIB-C or stage IV melanoma, showed significant improvements in recurrence-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival with nivolumab versus ipilimumab. This report provides updated 4-year efficacy, initial overall survival, and late-emergent safety results. METHODS: This multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial was done in 130 academic centres, community hospitals, and cancer centres across 25 countries. Patients aged 15 years or older with resected stage IIIB-C or IV melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive nivolumab or ipilimumab via an interactive voice response system and stratified according to disease stage and baseline PD-L1 status of tumour cells. Patients received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or intravenous ipilimumab 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, and then every 12 weeks until 1 year of treatment, disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival by investigator assessment, and overall survival was a key secondary endpoint. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned patients). All patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included in the safety analysis. The results presented in this report reflect the 4-year update of the ongoing study with a database lock date of Jan 30, 2020. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02388906. FINDINGS: Between March 30 and Nov 30, 2015, 906 patients were assigned to nivolumab (n=453) or ipilimumab (n=453). Median follow-up was 51·1 months (IQR 41·6-52·7) with nivolumab and 50·9 months (36·2-52·3) with ipilimumab; 4-year recurrence-free survival was 51·7% (95% CI 46·8-56·3) in the nivolumab group and 41·2% (36·4-45·9) in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·71 [95% CI 0·60-0·86]; p=0·0003). With 211 (100 [22%] of 453 patients in the nivolumab group and 111 [25%] of 453 patients in the ipilimumab group) of 302 anticipated deaths observed (about 73% of the originally planned 88% power needed for significance), 4-year overall survival was 77·9% (95% CI 73·7-81·5) with nivolumab and 76·6% (72·2-80·3) with ipilimumab (HR 0·87 [95% CI 0·66-1·14]; p=0·31). Late-emergent grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in three (1%) of 452 and seven (2%) of 453 patients. The most common late-emergent treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events reported were diarrhoea, diabetic ketoacidosis, and pneumonitis (one patient each) in the nivolumab group, and colitis (two patients) in the ipilimumab group. Two previously reported treatment-related deaths in the ipilimumab group were attributed to study drug toxicity (marrow aplasia in one patient and colitis in one patient); no further treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: At a minimum of 4 years' follow-up, nivolumab demonstrated sustained recurrence-free survival benefit versus ipilimumab in resected stage IIIB-C or IV melanoma indicating a long-term treatment benefit with nivolumab. With fewer deaths than anticipated, overall survival was similar in both groups. Nivolumab remains an efficacious adjuvant treatment for patients with resected high-risk melanoma, with a safety profile that is more tolerable than that of ipilimumab. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical.

Neoadjuvant systemic therapy in melanoma: recommendations of the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium.

Advances in the treatment of metastatic melanoma have improved responses and survival. However, many patients continue to experience resistance or toxicity to treatment, highlighting a crucial need to identify biomarkers and understand mechanisms of response and toxicity. Neoadjuvant therapy for regional metastases might improve operability and clinical outcomes over upfront surgery and adjuvant therapy, and has become an established role for drug development and biomarker discovery in other cancers (including locally advanced breast cancer, head and neck squamous cell carcinomas, gastroesophageal cancer, and anal cancer). Patients with clinically detectable stage III melanoma are ideal candidates for neoadjuvant therapy, because they represent a high-risk patient population with poor outcomes when treated with upfront surgery alone. Neoadjuvant therapy is now an active area of research for melanoma with numerous completed and ongoing trials (since 2014) with disparate designs, endpoints, and analyses under investigation. We have, therefore, established the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium with experts in medical oncology, surgical oncology, pathology, radiation oncology, radiology, and translational research to develop recommendations for investigating neoadjuvant therapy in melanoma to align future trial designs and correlative analyses. Alignment and consistency of neoadjuvant trials will facilitate optimal data organisation for future regulatory review and strengthen translational research across the melanoma disease continuum.

Liver Toxicity with Cancer Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy.

Immune checkpoint inhibition targeted against cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) has shown clinically significant survival benefit when used to treat multiple types of advanced cancer. These drugs have gained approval by the US Food and Drug Administration and their indications continue to increase. Checkpoint inhibitor therapy is associated with a unique side-effect profile characterized as immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which can result in significant morbidity and rarely mortality. Hepatotoxicity from checkpoint inhibitors is a less common irAE and often mild, while its incidence and severity vary based on the class and dose of checkpoint inhibitor, monotherapy versus combination therapy, and the type of cancer. Histological assessment of suspected irAEs is nonspecific and can show a variety of features. Hepatic irAEs can require discontinuation of checkpoint inhibitor therapy and treatment with immunosuppressive agents.

Sequential administration of nivolumab and ipilimumab with a planned switch in patients with advanced melanoma (CheckMate 064): an open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Concurrent administration of the immune checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and ipilimumab has shown greater efficacy than either agent alone in patients with advanced melanoma, albeit with more high-grade adverse events. We assessed whether sequential administration of nivolumab followed by ipilimumab, or the reverse sequence, could improve safety without compromising efficacy. METHODS: We did this randomised, open-label, phase 2 study at nine academic medical centres in the USA. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma (treatment-naive or who had progressed after no more than one previous systemic therapy, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1) were randomly assigned (1:1) to induction with intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks for six doses followed by a planned switch to intravenous ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, or the reverse sequence. Randomisation was done by an independent interactive voice response system with a permuted block schedule (block size four) without stratification factors. After induction, both groups received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was treatment-related grade 3-5 adverse events until the end of the induction period (week 25), analysed in the as-treated population. Secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients who achieved a response at week 25 and disease progression at weeks 13 and 25. Overall survival was a prespecified exploratory endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01783938, and is ongoing but no longer enrolling patients. FINDINGS: Between April 30, 2013, and July 21, 2014, 140 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to nivolumab followed by ipilimumab (n=70) or to the reverse sequence of ipilimumab followed by nivolumab (n=70), of whom 68 and 70 patients, respectively, received at least one dose of study drug and were included in the analyses. The frequencies of treatment-related grade 3-5 adverse events up to week 25 were similar in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group (34 [50%; 95% CI 37·6-62·4] of 68 patients) and in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group (30 [43%; 31·1-55·3] of 70 patients). The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events during the whole study period were colitis (ten [15%]) in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group vs 14 [20%] in the reverse sequence group), increased lipase (ten [15%] vs 12 [17%]), and diarrhoea (eight [12%] vs five [7%]). No treatment-related deaths occurred. The proportion of patients with a response at week 25 was higher with nivolumab followed by ipilimumab than with the reverse sequence (28 [41%; 95% CI 29·4-53·8] vs 14 [20%; 11·4-31·3]). Progression was reported in 26 (38%; 95% CI 26·7-50·8) patients in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group and 43 (61%; 49·0-72·8) patients in the reverse sequence group at week 13 and in 26 (38%; 26·7-50·8) and 42 (60%; 47·6-71·5) patients at week 25, respectively. After a median follow-up of 19·8 months (IQR 12·8-25·7), median overall survival was not reached in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group (95% CI 23·7-not reached), whereas over a median follow-up of 14·7 months (IQR 5·6-23·9) in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group, median overall survival was 16·9 months (95% CI 9·2-26·5; HR 0·48 [95% CI 0·29-0·80]). A higher proportion of patients in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group achieved 12-month overall survival than in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group (76%; 95% CI 64-85 vs 54%; 42-65). INTERPRETATION: Nivolumab followed by ipilimumab appears to be a more clinically beneficial option compared with the reverse sequence, albeit with a higher frequency of adverse events. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Discordancy in BRAF mutations among primary and metastatic melanoma lesions: clinical implications for targeted therapy.

Systemic targeted molecular therapy, in the form of a selective BRAF inhibitor with or without a MEK inhibitor, is a standard treatment for patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma with unresectable stage III and IV disease. Patients with BRAF mutation-negative primary tumors may manifest BRAF mutation-positive metastatic disease. It is unclear whether all metastatic lesions carry the same BRAF mutation status found in the primary tumor and if discordancy exists, in what frequency it occurs. Primary and matched metastatic lesions in 25 melanoma patients were tested for the BRAF V600E/Ec, V600K, V600D, and V600R mutations using a BRAF RGQ PCR kit (Qiagen). Four patients (16%) had discrepancies between their primary and metastatic melanoma BRAF status. Of these patients, 2 (8%) had BRAF mutation-positive primary melanomas with BRAF mutation-negative metastatic lesions and 2 (8%) patient had BRAF mutation-negative melanoma with a BRAF mutation-positive metastatic lesion. In summary, discordancy of BRAF mutation status is not an infrequent finding between primary and metastatic melanoma. It may be prudent in previously negative patients to determine BRAF mutation status of new metastatic tumors for proper allocation of BRAF inhibitor therapy. Discordant BRAF status may have a role in the varying patterns of response and inevitable resistance seen with BRAF inhibitor therapies.

Exploring Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Survivors' Experience with Cancer Treatment-Related Symptoms: A Qualitative Analysis of Semi-Structured Interviews.

Purpose: Few studies have specifically targeted symptom management interventions for adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors. A greater understanding of AYA cancer survivors' experiences with cancer treatment-related symptoms would help develop age-appropriate oncology symptom management interventions. The purpose of this qualitative analysis was to explore AYA cancer survivors' experience with cancer treatment-related symptoms. Methods: Nineteen post-treatment AYA cancer survivors (18-39 years old) who self-reported moderate-severe cancer treatment-related symptom severity participated in video conferencing or telephone interviews. The questions in the interview guide queried participants to share their experience with cancer treatment-related symptoms. Inductive content analysis was used to identify themes from the interviews. Results: The themes that emerged from the interviews included (1) cancer treatment-related symptoms negatively affected AYA cancer survivors' quality of life (e.g., symptoms served as a reminder of cancer recurrence possibility); (2) AYA cancer survivors' attitudes and feelings about communicating cancer treatment-related symptom concerns to clinicians (e.g., patient-clinician communication was bolstered when AYAs perceived that symptoms were being taken seriously); (3) AYA cancer survivors are interested in oncology symptom management clinical trials, but logistical challenges are barriers to participation; and (4) AYA cancer survivors are interested in nonpharmacological treatments for symptom management. Conclusion: Results highlight the burden of cancer treatment-related symptoms on day-to-day life among post-treatment AYA cancer survivors. Future work is needed to identify nonpharmacological symptom management interventions, strategies to improve patient-clinician communication about symptoms, and strategies to increase the visibility and accessibility of symptom management clinical trials for AYA cancer survivors.

Outcomes With Postrecurrence Systemic Therapy Following Adjuvant Checkpoint Inhibitor Treatment for Resected Melanoma in CheckMate 238.

PURPOSE: In phase III CheckMate 238, adjuvant nivolumab significantly improved recurrence-free survival compared with ipilimumab in patients with resected stage IIIB-C/IV melanoma without a significant difference in overall survival (OS). Here, we investigate progression-free survival (PFS) and OS after postrecurrence systemic therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients 15 years or older with resected stage IIIB-C/IV melanoma were stratified by stage and tumor PD-L1 status and randomly assigned to receive nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or ipilimumab 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses and then every 12 weeks for 1 year or until disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Patients with recurrence in each group were assessed for PFS and OS from subsequent systemic therapy (SST) initiation per recurrence timing (≤12 months [early] v >12 months [late] from initial therapy). RESULTS: Recurrences occurred in 198 (44%) of 453 nivolumab-treated patients (122 early, 76 late) and 232 (51%) of 453 ipilimumab-treated patients (160 early, 72 late). Median PFS on next-line systemic therapy for nivolumab-treated patients recurring early versus late was 4.7 versus 12.4 months (24-month rates, 16% v 31%); median OS was 19.8 versus 42.8 months (24-month rates: 37% v 73%). In response to subsequent therapy, patients on nivolumab with late versus early recurrence were more likely to benefit from anti-PD-1 monotherapy. Nivolumab-treated patients with either an early or late recurrence benefitted from an ipilimumab-based therapy or targeted therapy, each with similar OS. CONCLUSION: Postrecurrence survival was longer for patients who recurred >12 months. Patients on nivolumab who recurred early benefitted from SST but had better survival with ipilimumab-based regimens or targeted therapy compared with anti-PD-1 monotherapy.

Ipilimumab and its toxicities: a multidisciplinary approach.

The treatment for metastatic melanoma has evolved significantly in the past few years. Ipilimumab, an immunotherapy, is now in mainstream oncology practice given that it has shown improved overall survival in randomized clinical trials. Other immune modulating agents, such as programmed death receptor-1 and programmed death receptor ligand-1 antibodies, are showing promise in early clinical trials. This manuscript will review ipilimumab and its most common side effects. Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are important to recognize early, and their presentation, timing of onset, and general recommendations for workup and management will be reviewed. Assembling a multidisciplinary team, as well as thorough education of the patient, is recommended to optimize patient care.

Systemic therapy for inoperable and metastatic basal cell cancer.

Cutaneous basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common human malignancy. The majority of cases are cured with local therapies and advanced disease is quite rare. However, locally advanced (inoperable) and metastatic basal cell carcinoma may occur more often than previously thought. Surgery, and other local therapies, is the primary treatment for BCC. However, some resections can be extensive and carry significant morbidity or disfigurement. The prognosis for locally advanced and metastatic BCC is quite poor, and cytotoxic chemotherapies offer limited benefit. Aberrations in the sonic hedgehog (HH) signaling pathway are common in BCC. Novel molecular therapies targeted against this pathway, such as vismodegib (GDC-0449), have shown dramatic activity in advanced basal cell carcinoma. The role of these in nevoid basal cell carcinoma syndrome (Gorlin) syndrome is still under investigation. However, systemic therapies are not curative and require long-term treatment and should not be used in place of curative procedures. Evaluation by experienced physicians and/or by a multidisciplinary tumor board for possible curative/definitive surgery with or without radiation is recommended before initiation of systemic therapy. Clinical trial enrollment also is recommended. Comorbid conditions as well as social circumstances may be factors when deciding on an optimal therapy, in particular with oral agents. Patients treated with HH pathway inhibitors require regular physician monitoring to assess for side effects, benefit, and compliance. Patients of child-bearing potential must be strongly counseled regarding the risk of birth defects and need for birth control. Primary and secondary resistance to HH pathway inhibitors is only beginning to be described.

Safety, pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and efficacy data for the oral MEK inhibitor trametinib: a phase 1 dose-escalation trial.

BACKGROUND: Inhibition of MEK stops cell proliferation and induces apoptosis; therefore, this enzyme is a key anticancer target. Trametinib is a selective, orally administered MEK1/MEK2 inhibitor. We aimed to define the maximum tolerated dose and recommended phase 2 dose of trametinib and to assess its safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and response rate in individuals with advanced solid tumours. METHODS: We undertook a multicentre phase 1 study in patients with advanced solid tumours and adequate organ function. The study was in three parts: dose escalation to define the maximum tolerated dose; identification of the recommended phase 2 dose; and assessment of pharmacodynamic changes. Intermittent and continuous dosing regimens were analysed. Blood samples and tumour biopsy specimens were taken to assess pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes. Adverse events were defined with common toxicity criteria, and tumour response was measured by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00687622. FINDINGS: We enrolled 206 patients (median age 58·5 years, range 19-92). Dose-limiting toxic effects included rash (n=2), diarrhoea (n=1), and central serous retinopathy (n=2). The most common treatment-related adverse events were rash or dermatitis acneiform (n=165; 80%) and diarrhoea (87; 42%), most of which were grade 1 and 2. The maximum tolerated dose was 3 mg once daily and the recommended phase 2 dose was 2 mg a day. The effective half-life of trametinib was about 4 days. At the recommended phase 2 dose, the exposure profile of the drug showed low interpatient variability and a small peak:trough ratio of 1·81. Furthermore, mean concentrations in plasma were greater than the preclinical target concentration throughout the dosing interval. Pathway inhibition and clinical activity were seen, with 21 (10%) objective responses recorded. INTERPRETATION: The recommended phase 2 dose of 2 mg trametinib once a day is tolerable, with manageable side-effects. Trametinib's inhibition of the expected target and clinical activity warrants its further development as a monotherapy and in combination. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

Activity of the oral MEK inhibitor trametinib in patients with advanced melanoma: a phase 1 dose-escalation trial.

BACKGROUND: MEK is a member of the MAPK signalling cascade that is commonly activated in melanoma. Direct inhibition of MEK blocks cell proliferation and induces apoptosis. We aimed to analyse safety, efficacy, and genotyping data for the oral, small-molecule MEK inhibitor trametinib in patients with melanoma. METHODS: We undertook a multicentre, phase 1 three-part study (dose escalation, cohort expansion, and pharmacodynamic assessment). The main results of this study are reported elsewhere; here we present data relating to patients with melanoma. We obtained tumour samples to assess BRAF mutational status, and available tissues underwent exploratory genotyping analysis. Disease response was measured by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, and adverse events were defined by common toxicity criteria. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00687622. FINDINGS: 97 patients with melanoma were enrolled, including 81 with cutaneous or unknown primary melanoma (36 BRAF mutant, 39 BRAF wild-type, six BRAF status unknown), and 16 with uveal melanoma. The most common treatment-related adverse events were rash or dermatitis acneiform (n=80; 82%) and diarrhoea (44; 45%), most of which were grade 2 or lower. No cutaneous squamous-cell carcinomas were recorded. Of 36 patients with BRAF mutations, 30 had not received a BRAF inhibitor before; two complete responses (both confirmed) and ten partial responses (eight confirmed) were noted in this subgroup (confirmed response rate, 33%). Median progression-free survival of this subgroup was 5·7 months (95% CI 4·0-7·4). Of the six patients who had received previous BRAF inhibition, one unconfirmed partial response was recorded. Of 39 patients with BRAF wild-type melanoma, four partial responses were confirmed (confirmed response rate, 10%). INTERPRETATION: Our data show substantial clinical activity of trametinib in melanoma and suggest that MEK is a valid therapeutic target. Differences in response rates according to mutations indicate the importance of mutational analyses in the future. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

A Brain, A Heart, and the Courage: Balancing Benefit and Toxicity of Immunotherapy in Melanoma.

The overall survival of advanced melanoma has improved dramatically. Immunotherapies, specifically checkpoint inhibitors, have played a large role in this improvement. These agents have also shown benefit in the adjuvant setting, are approved for treatment of resected stage II, III, and IV melanoma, and play an evolving role in the neoadjuvant setting. Although generally well tolerated, immune-related adverse events occur and can be severe. Here we focus on some severe and potentially long term toxicities, including cardiovascular and neurologic toxicities. Our understanding of the acute and long-term toxicities of immune checkpoint inhibitors continues to evolve. Oncologists must continue to balance cancer risk and treatment-related toxicities.