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.).

Atezolizumab for the treatment of advanced recurrent basal cell carcinoma and urothelial carcinoma of bladder: a case report.

BACKGROUND: The use of checkpoint inhibitors has become increasingly important in the treatment of different cancers, including advanced muscle-invasive urothelial cancer and even in basal cell carcinoma. We present the case of a patient with advanced basal cell carcinoma and metastatic muscle-invasive urothelial cancer, who was treated with the programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitor, atezolizumab for both cancers. CASE PRESENTATION: A 72-year-old Caucasian female patient, with a history of smoking without any comorbidities developed periocular basal cell carcinoma, which was surgically removed but relapsed 4 years later. Surgical excision was carried out twice, but with positive margins, therefore definitive radiotherapy was given. Subsequently, the patient developed non-muscle-invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma, which was removed by transurethral resection. Follow-up was irregular owing to the patient's inadequate compliance, and within 2 years, the patient's cancer relapsed and histology confirmed muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. Definitive radiochemotherapy was not accepted by the patient. Meanwhile, the patient's basal cell carcinoma had also progressed, despite receiving vismodegib therapy. Therefore, the patient was administered epirubicin-cisplatin. Having reached the maximum cumulative dose of epirubicin, treatment with this chemotherapeutic agent could not be continued. The patient developed bladder cancer metastasis in her left suprainguinal lymph nodes. Owing to the presence of both types of tumors, programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitor atezolizumab treatment was chosen. In just over 1 year, the patient received 17 cycles of atezolizumab altogether, which was tolerated well without any adverse or side effects. Follow-up imaging scans indicated complete remission of the metastatic bladder cancer and stable disease of the basal cell carcinoma. The patient subsequently passed away in hospital due to a complication of COVID-19 infection. CONCLUSIONS: Our patient attained stable disease in advanced basal cell carcinoma and complete remission in metastatic muscle-invasive urothelial cancer after receiving programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitor, atezolizumab, therapy. To our knowledge, this is the first paper to report the use of programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitor, atezolizumab, as treatment for advanced basal cell carcinoma. This case may also be of interest for clinicians when treating patients with two synchronous cancers.

Neoadjuvant Cemiplimab for Stage II to IV Cutaneous Squamous-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In a pilot study involving patients with cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma, a high percentage of patients had a pathological complete response with the use of two doses of neoadjuvant cemiplimab before surgery. Data from a phase 2 study are needed to confirm these findings. METHODS: We conducted a phase 2, confirmatory, multicenter, nonrandomized study to evaluate cemiplimab as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with resectable stage II, III, or IV (M0) cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma. Patients received cemiplimab, administered at a dose of 350 mg every 3 weeks for up to four doses, before undergoing surgery with curative intent. The primary end point was a pathological complete response (the absence of viable tumor cells in the surgical specimen) on independent review at a central laboratory, with a null hypothesis that a pathological complete response would be observed in 25% of patients. Key secondary end points included a pathological major response (the presence of viable tumor cells that constitute ≤10% of the surgical specimen) on independent review, a pathological complete response and a pathological major response on investigator assessment at a local laboratory, an objective response on imaging, and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 79 patients were enrolled and received neoadjuvant cemiplimab. On independent review, a pathological complete response was observed in 40 patients (51%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 39 to 62) and a pathological major response in 10 patients (13%; 95% CI, 6 to 22). These results were consistent with the pathological responses determined on investigator assessment. An objective response on imaging was observed in 54 patients (68%; 95% CI, 57 to 78). Adverse events of any grade that occurred during the study period, regardless of whether they were attributed to the study treatment, were observed in 69 patients (87%). Grade 3 or higher adverse events that occurred during the study period were observed in 14 patients (18%). CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant therapy with cemiplimab was associated with a pathological complete response in a high percentage of patients with resectable cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04154943.).

Promising Immune Treatment of Advanced Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma with Cemiplimab-Real-World Experience in the Global SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic.

Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) is the second most frequent non-melanoma skin cancer. The standard curative treatment is surgical resection, but the treatment of locally advanced and metastatic disease apart from radiotherapy is currently based on cemiplimab. Cemiplimab has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of advanced and metastatic cSCC in clinical trials, although real-world data are still limited. We present four cases of cSCC, which showed a tremendous response to cemiplimab-one patient achieved complete response and three of them achieved partial response. Immunotherapy with cemiplimab, a recently approved PD1 inhibitor, is an important addition to the cutaneous oncology therapeutic options that may be considered in patients with advanced disease not amenable to surgery or radiotherapy. In all four cases, the patients postponed visits to the doctor because of the fear of SARS-CoV-2 infection or for administrative and organizational reasons declared difficult access to doctors caused by the pandemic.

Nationwide multidisciplinary consensus on the clinical management of Merkel cell carcinoma: a Delphi panel.

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare and highly aggressive cutaneous neuroendocrine carcinoma. The MCC incidence rate has rapidly grown over the last years, with Italy showing the highest increase among European countries. This malignancy has been the focus of active scientific research over the last years, focusing mainly on pathogenesis, new therapeutic trials and diagnosis. A national expert board developed 28 consensus statements that delineated the evolution of disease management and highlighted the paradigm shift towards the use of immunological strategies, which were then presented to a national MCC specialists panel for review. Sixty-five panelists answered both rounds of the questionnaire. The statements were divided into five areas: a high level of agreement was reached in the area of guidelines and multidisciplinary management, even if in real life the multidisciplinary team was not always represented by all the specialists. In the diagnostic pathway area, imaging played a crucial role in diagnosis and initial staging, planning for surgery or radiation therapy, assessment of treatment response and surveillance of recurrence and metastases. Concerning diagnosis, the usefulness of Merkel cell polyomavirus is recognized, but the agreement and consensus regarding the need for cytokeratin evaluation appears greater. Regarding the areas of clinical management and follow-up, patients with MCC require customized treatment. There was a wide dispersion of results and the suggestion to increase awareness about the adjuvant radiation therapy. The panelists unanimously agreed that the information concerning avelumab provided by the JAVELIN Merkel 200 study is adequate and reliable and that the expanded access program data could have concrete clinical implications. An immunocompromised patient with advanced MCC can be treated with immunotherapy after multidisciplinary risk/benefit assessment, as evidenced by real-world analysis and highlighted in the guidelines. A very high consensus regarding the addition of radiotherapy to treat the ongoing focal progression of immunotherapy was observed. This paper emphasizes the importance of collaboration and communication among the interprofessional team members and encourages managing patients with MCC within dedicated multidisciplinary teams. New insights in the treatment of this challenging cancer needs the contribution of many and different experts.

Immune-related adverse events of COVID-19 vaccination in skin cancer patients receiving immune-checkpoint inhibitor treatment.

To date, few data are available regarding Adverse events (AEs) in cancer patients who are vaccinated for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) while being actively treated with Immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We aimed to assess the safety of COVID-19 vaccines approved in Germany. Specifically, we investigated the frequency of general side effects and immune-related AEs of COVID-19 vaccination. A triage survey was used to collect the following information for patients with metastatic skin cancer: vaccine type, date of receipt of each dose of vaccine, and self-reported side effects. Clinical data were retrieved from the patients' medical records. Of 130 patients with metastatic skin cancer, 89 patients were on immunotherapy and received COVID-19 vaccination. Of these 89 patients (median age: 64 years; 57 [64%] men), 89% had melanoma, and 71% received ICI therapy with a PD-1 antibody. Eighty-eight percent received an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination. The median follow-up time was 125 days after the first vaccination, and 84 days after the second. The most common observed side effects were mild to moderate pain at the injection site (40%), followed by fatigue (24%). Grade 3 irAEs were reported in eight patients, seven of whom were on nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination treatment. Of the 19 patients vaccinated within 72 h before/after ICI, five developed irAEs within 17 days (1-17 days). This small cohort study suggests that approved COVID-19 vaccinations are safe for use in cancer patients receiving ICIs. However, some precautions should be taken, especially regarding the timing of vaccination and ICI treatment.

Delayed Metastatic Polypoid Nodular Melanoma Diagnosis During COVID-19 Pandemic, Successful Treatment With Surgery and Nivolumab.

Patients with polypoid (pedunculated) melanoma have the poorest 5-year survival rate compared with all other variants of nodular melanoma, presenting with increased thickness, incidence of metastasis, and rates of ulceration. There are few published reports regarding the pathogenesis and treatment of polypoid melanomas. We report the successful treatment of a rapidly developing red nodular polypoid melanoma with metastasis using surgery followed by anti-PD-1 antibody nivolumab in a SARS-CoV-2-positive patient who delayed seeking care due to the COVID-19 pandemic. J Drugs Dermatol. 2021;20(12):1343-1345. doi:10.36849/JDD.6071.

Infantile hemangioma. Part 2: Management.

The majority of infantile hemangiomas (IH) can be managed conservatively, but for those requiring active treatment, management has been revolutionized in the last decade by the discovery of propranolol. Patients that may require active intervention should receive specialist review, ideally before 5 weeks of age to mitigate the risk of sequelae. Propranolol can commence for most infants in the outpatient setting and the most frequently employed dosing regimen is 1 mg/kg twice daily. In the future, ß-blockers with a more-selective mechanism of action, such as atenolol, show some promise. In recalcitrant lesions, systemic corticosteroids or sirolimus may be considered. For small, superficial IHs, topical timolol maleate or pulsed dye laser may be considered. Where the IH involutes with cutaneous sequelae, a range of interventions have been reported, including surgery, laser, and embolization. IHs have a well-described clinical trajectory and are readily diagnosed and managed via telemedicine. Algorithms have been constructed to stratify those patients who can be managed remotely from those who warrant in-person review during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on quality of life in skin cancer patients.

With more than 82 million cases worldwide and almost two million deaths, the Covid-19 global pandemic shows little sign of abating. However, its effect on quality of life (QoL) in skin cancer patients has not been systematically evaluated to date. Given that QoL impairments may be associated with increased psychological morbidity, and may interfere with engagement with cancer therapy and follow-up, we prospectively evaluated quality of life in skin cancer patients using the Covid-19 Emotional Impact Survey (C-19EIS) and the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaires. 101 patients (48 females and 53 males) completed both questionnaires. The mean C-19EIS score was 3.8 on a scale from 0 (no impact) to 12 (severe impact). Patients undergoing systemic therapy showed significantly impaired physical (p = 0.006) and social functioning (p = 0.003). However, when compared to the published normative EORTC QLQ-C30 data, there was no evidence that the Covid-19 pandemic had significantly impacted upon overall quality of life. Subscales of the EORTC QLQ-C30 were significantly inversely correlated with the C-19EIS, validating its use in skin cancer patients. Despite the Covid-19 pandemic, skin cancer patients in our tertiary referral center were surprisingly resilient. However, given the geographical variations in the rates of Sars-CoV-2 infection it is possible that the low incidence in Northern Germany may have resulted in a lack of general QoL impairments. Multi-center studies are required to further determine the impact of Covid-19 on psychological wellbeing in skin cancer patients in order to develop supportive interventions and to ensure that engagement with cancer care services is maintained in order to enable early detection of cancer progression and/or recurrence.

[Long-term efficacy of encorafenib plus binimetinib combined treatment: case report.] / Efficacia a lungo termine del trattamento di combinazione con encorafenib e binimetinib: caso clinico.

Combination treatment with BRAF plus MEK inhibitors is a standard of care in patients with BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma. In addition to dabrafenib+trametinib and vemurafenib+cobimetinib, a new combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors, encorafenib and binimetinib, was recently introduced into clinical practice. Encorafenib plus binimetinib achieved similar efficacy to that observed with previously available combinations, but incidence of some toxicities such as pyrexia and photosensitivity, which have a relevant impact on patients quality of life, is lower. In this article, the case of a patient who received encorafenib and binimetinib within the phase 3 trial COLUMBUS is presented and discussed, with a focus on the clinical management during the pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Relatively mild symptoms after chronic overdose with a double-dose encorafenib: a case report.

Encorafenib (Braftovi) is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600 mutation, in combination with binimetinib (Mektovi). According to the product label of encorafenib, there are no specific treatment recommendations in case of an overdose. We report on a 63-year-old man who ingested a double dose (900 mg) of encorafenib for 16 days. He developed overall minor chronic overdose symptoms such as nausea and vomiting grade 1 and muscle pain. Based on the most occurring adverse events of encorafenib, liver values, kidney function parameters and QTc interval were measured. Kidney function parameters were normal, whereas liver values were slightly increased (grade 1) and QTc slightly prolonged. The plasma concentration 3 h after the last dose was 2110 ng/mL. We describe the course of a case with a chronic overdose during 16 days of the double dose of encorafenib as well as the followed approach, which could be taken into account when observing an encorafenib overdose. Providing information in times of Covid-19 is challenging, but remains necessary for good clinical care.