Pembrolizumab Versus Placebo as Adjuvant Therapy in Resected Stage IIB or IIC Melanoma: Final Analysis of Distant Metastasis-Free Survival in the Phase III KEYNOTE-716 Study.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.Pembrolizumab adjuvant therapy was shown to significantly improve recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) in patients with resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma in earlier analyses of the randomized, double-blind, phase III KEYNOTE-716 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03553836). We report results of the protocol-specified final analysis of DMFS for KEYNOTE-716. Overall, 976 patients were randomly allocated to pembrolizumab (n = 487) or placebo (n = 489). As of January 4, 2023, median follow-up was 39.4 months (range, 26.0-51.4 months). The median DMFS was not reached in either treatment group, and the estimated 36-month DMFS was 84.4% for pembrolizumab and 74.7% for placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.59 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.79]). The median RFS was not reached in either treatment group, and the estimated 36-month RFS was 76.2% for pembrolizumab and 63.4% for placebo (HR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.49 to 0.79]). DMFS and RFS results were consistent across most prespecified subgroups, including stage IIB and stage IIC melanoma. The safety profile of pembrolizumab was manageable and consistent with previous reports. These results continue to support the use of pembrolizumab adjuvant therapy in patients with resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma.

Machine Learning Methods for Gene Selection in Uveal Melanoma.

Uveal melanoma (UM) is the most common primary intraocular malignancy with a limited five-year survival for metastatic patients. Limited therapeutic treatments are currently available for metastatic disease, even if the genomics of this tumor has been deeply studied using next-generation sequencing (NGS) and functional experiments. The profound knowledge of the molecular features that characterize this tumor has not led to the development of efficacious therapies, and the survival of metastatic patients has not changed for decades. Several bioinformatics methods have been applied to mine NGS tumor data in order to unveil tumor biology and detect possible molecular targets for new therapies. Each application can be single domain based while others are more focused on data integration from multiple genomics domains (as gene expression and methylation data). Examples of single domain approaches include differentially expressed gene (DEG) analysis on gene expression data with statistical methods such as SAM (significance analysis of microarray) or gene prioritization with complex algorithms such as deep learning. Data fusion or integration methods merge multiple domains of information to define new clusters of patients or to detect relevant genes, according to multiple NGS data. In this work, we compare different strategies to detect relevant genes for metastatic disease prediction in the TCGA uveal melanoma (UVM) dataset. Detected targets are validated with multi-gene score analysis on a larger UM microarray dataset.

Primary endobronchial melanoma: a case report and clinical management indications.

BACKGROUND: While cutaneous melanomas are well-documented, primary melanoma of the lung (PMML), particularly with endobronchial origin, remains rare and poorly characterized. This case report addresses gaps in understanding by presenting a comprehensive case of a 71-year-old male with primary endobronchial melanoma and conducting a systematic review of PMML cases. CASE PRESENTATION: The patient, a former smoker, presented with dyspnea, cough, and hemoptysis. Imaging revealed left lung atelectasis and a suspicious nodule. Bronchoscopy identified an endobronchial mass, subsequently treated with argon plasma coagulation and resection. Biopsy confirmed melanoma. Extensive examinations ruled out a primary skin lesion. Despite initial treatment, recurrence led to pneumonectomy. Histopathology confirmed melanoma. The patient received treatment with pembrolizumab and ipilimumab, but with poor clinical benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Primary endobronchial melanoma is a rare entity, comprising 0.01% of lung tumors. This case underscores diagnostic challenges and emphasizes histological criteria to distinguish primary from metastatic lesions. The pathogenesis remains unclear, with theories proposing foetal melanocyte migration or squamous metaplasia. Prognosis varies, necessitating radical surgical extirpation. A systematic review revealed diverse outcomes, supporting the need for further research. In conclusion, endobronchial melanoma involves an endoscopic and surgical management, but evolving therapies, such as immunotherapy, may reshape treatment paradigms. This case contributes to our understanding of PMML, guiding future research and clinical management. As therapeutic options evolve, continued research is crucial to refine our understanding and improve outcomes for this rare malignancy.

Immunotherapy in cutaneous melanoma and biologics in psoriatic disease: similarities and differences from a clinical multidisciplinary perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Immunomodulating therapies harness the power of the immune system to combat disease. In advanced melanoma, immune checkpoint inhibitors have significantly improved survival outcomes by activating the immune system to recognize and eliminate cancer cells. In psoriasis, interleukin inhibitors effectively suppress inflammation and improve disease symptoms. AREAS COVERED: We provide a meta-opinion-based consensus paper on the analogies and differences in treatment mechanisms, duration, frequency between immunotherapy for advanced melanoma and biologics for psoriasis. Combining the current scientific evidence with expert insights, we provide valuable guidance for future research and decision-making processes. EXPERT OPINION: The development of immunological treatments in melanoma and psoriasis has revolutionized dermatology, but the quest for tailored therapies that maximize efficacy continues. Managing cutaneous exacerbations during melanoma immunotherapy in psoriatic patients remains challenging. Similarly, treating oncologic psoriasis patients resistant to traditional therapies requires individualized approaches. Research is needed to identify response predictors in both conditions and address the sustainability of healthcare systems due to the high cost of biologics. Drug delay studies for psoriasis and longer follow-up evaluations after immunotherapy discontinuation in melanoma are essential for optimizing treatment outcomes and resource allocation.

The treatment of advanced melanoma: Current approaches and new challenges.

In recent years, advances in melanoma treatment have renewed patient hope. This comprehensive review emphasizes the evolving treatment landscape, particularly highlighting first-line strategies and the interplay between immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and targeted therapies. Ipilimumab plus nivolumab has achieved the best median overall survival, exceeding 70 months. However, the introduction of new ICIs, like relatlimab, has added complexity to first-line therapy decisions. Our aim is to guide clinicians in making personalized treatment decisions. Various features, including brain metastases, PD-L1 expression, BRAF mutation, performance status, and prior adjuvant therapy, significantly impact the direction of advanced melanoma treatment. We also provide the latest insights into the treatment of rare melanoma subtypes, such as uveal melanoma, where tebentafusp has shown promising improvements in overall survival for metastatic uveal melanoma patients. This review provides invaluable insights for clinicians, enabling informed treatment choices and deepening our understanding of the multifaceted challenges associated with advanced melanoma management.

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.

Hedgehog Inhibitors Beyond Clinical Complete Response in Basal Cell Carcinoma: Should I Stop or Should I Go?

INTRODUCTION: In advanced basal cell carcinoma (BCC), the issue of whether Hedgehog inhibitors (HHIs) should be stopped or not after clinical complete response (cCR) achievement remains an unmet clinical need. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, multicenter study across 7 Italian dermato-oncology units including patients with BCC who continued vismodegib after cCR between 2012 and 2019. We assessed the relationship between the duration of vismodegib intake (days to cCR [DTCR], days to stop after cCR [DTS], total treatment days [TTD]), and disease-free survival (DFS). Reasons to stop vismodegib were (R1) toxicity and (R2) disease recurrence. The relationship between DTCR, DTS, TTD, and DFS in the whole population and in R1 subgroup was assessed by Pearson's correlation coefficient (P < .05) and Bayesian statistics (BF10). RESULTS: Sixty-eight BCC patients with a median (m) age of 75.5 years (39-100) were included. Most patients were male (N = 43, 63%), without Gorlin syndrome (N = 56, 82%) and with head and neck area as primary site (N = 51, 75%). After cCR, out of 68 patients, 90% (N = 61/68) discontinued vismodegib: 82% (N = 50/61) due to toxicity (R1), and 18% (N = 11/61) due to recurrence (R2). Conversely, 10% (N = 7/68) continued vismodegib until last follow-up. In the whole population (N = 68), cCR was achieved with a mDTCR of 180.50 days. DFS showed a significant correlation with DTS (P < .01, BF10 = 39.2) and TTD (P < .01, BF10 = 35566), while it was not correlated to DTCR (BF10 < 0.1). The analysis of R1 subgroup (N = 50) confirmed these results. DFS correlated with DTS in all recurrent patients (N = 38, r = 0.44, P < .01) and in the recurrent patients who stopped vismodegib for toxicity (N = 26, r = 0.665, P < .01). DFS was longer when vismodegib was maintained for >2 months after cCR (mDFS > 2 months, N = 54 vs. ≤ 2 months, N = 14: 470 vs. 175 d, P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Our retrospective results suggest that HHIs should be continued after cCR to improve DFS in BCC.

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.

Diagnosis of lung cancer following emergency admission: Examining care pathways, clinical outcomes, and advanced NSCLC treatment in an Italian cancer Center.

Background: Lung cancer patients diagnosed following emergency admission often present with advanced disease and poor performance status, leading to suboptimal treatment options and outcomes. This study aimed to investigate the clinical and molecular characteristics, treatment initiation, and survival outcomes of these patients. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 124 patients diagnosed with lung cancer following emergency admission at a single institution. Clinical characteristics, results of molecular analyses for therapeutic purpose, systemic treatment initiation, and survival outcomes were assessed. Correlations between patients' characteristics and treatment initiation were analyzed. Results: Median age at admission was 73 years, and 79.0 % had at least one comorbidity. Most patients (87.1 %) were admitted due to cancer-related symptoms. Molecular analyses were performed in 89.5 % of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases. In this subgroup, two-thirds (66.2 %) received first-line therapy. Median overall survival (OS) was 3.9 months for the entire cohort, and 2.9 months for patients with metastatic lung cancer. Among patients with advanced NSCLC, OS was significantly longer for those with actionable oncogenic drivers and those who received first-line therapy. Improvement of performance status during hospitalization resulted in increased probability of receiving first-line systemic therapy. Discussion: Patients diagnosed with lung cancer following emergency admission demonstrated poor survival outcomes. Treatment initiation, particularly for patients with actionable oncogenic drivers, was associated with longer OS. These findings highlight the need for proactive medical approaches, including improving access to molecular diagnostics and targeted treatments, to optimize outcomes in this patient population.

Interdependence of Molecular Lesions That Drive Uveal Melanoma Metastasis.

The metastatic risk of uveal melanoma (UM) is defined by a limited number of molecular lesions, somatic mutations (SF3B1 and BAP1), and copy number alterations (CNA): monosomy of chromosome 3 (M3), chr8q gain (8q), chr6p gain (6p), yet the sequence of events is not clear. We analyzed data from three datasets (TCGA-UVM, GSE27831, GSE51880) with information regarding M3, 8q, 6p, SF3B1, and BAP1 status. We confirm that BAP1 mutations are always associated with M3 in high-risk patients. All other features (6p, 8q, M3, SF3B1 mutation) were present independently from each other. Chr8q gain was frequently associated with chr3 disomy. Hierarchical clustering of gene expression data of samples with different binary combinations of aggressivity factors shows that patients with 8q|M3, BAP1|M3 form one cluster enriched in samples that developed metastases. Patients with 6p combined with either 8q or SF3B1 are mainly represented in the other, low-risk cluster. Several gene expression events that show a non-significant association with outcome when considering single features become significant when analyzing combinations of risk features indicating additive action. The independence of risk factors is consistent with a random risk model of UM metastasis without an obligatory sequence.

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.

Atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib in patients with melanoma with CNS metastases (TRICOTEL): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Targeted therapy and immunotherapy have shown intracranial activity in melanoma with CNS metastases, but there remains an unmet need, particularly for patients with symptomatic CNS metastases. We aimed to evaluate atezolizumab in combination with cobimetinib or vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in patients with melanoma with CNS metastases. METHODS: TRICOTEL was a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study done in two cohorts: a BRAFV600 wild-type cohort and a BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort, recruited at 21 hospitals and oncology centres in Brazil, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with previously untreated metastatic melanoma, brain metastases of 5 mm or larger in at least one dimension, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less. Patients in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort received intravenous atezolizumab (840 mg, days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle) plus oral cobimetinib (60 mg once daily, days 1-21). Patients in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort received intravenous atezolizumab (840 mg, days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle) plus oral vemurafenib (720 mg twice daily) plus oral cobimetinib (60 mg once daily, days 1-21); atezolizumab was withheld in cycle 1. Treatment was continued until progression, toxicity, or death. The primary outcome was intracranial objective response rate confirmed by assessments at least 4 weeks apart, as assessed by independent review committee (IRC) using modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1. Because of early closure of the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort, the primary endpoint of intracranial objective response rate by IRC assessment was not done in this cohort; intracranial objective response rate by investigator assessment was reported instead. Efficacy and safety were analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is closed to enrolment and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03625141. FINDINGS: Between Dec 13, 2018, and Dec 7, 2020, 65 patients were enrolled in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort; the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort was closed early after enrolment of 15 patients. Median follow-up was 9·7 months (IQR 6·3-15·0) for the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort and 6·2 months (3·5-23·0) for the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort. Intracranial objective response rate was 42% (95% CI 29-54) by IRC assessment in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort and 27% (95% CI 8-55) by investigator assessment in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort. Treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 41 (68%) of 60 patients who received atezolizumab plus vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort, the most common of which were lipase increased (15 [25%] of 60 patients) and blood creatine phosphokinase increased (11 [18%]). Eight (53%) of 15 patients treated with atezolizumab plus cobimetinib in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort had treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events, most commonly anaemia (two [13%]) and dermatitis acneiform (two [13%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 14 (23%) of 60 patients who received triplet therapy in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort and two (13%) of 15 in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort. No treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Atezolizumab plus vemurafenib and cobimetinib provided intracranial activity in patients with BRAFV600-mutated melanoma with CNS metastases. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Efficacy Outcomes from Immune Checkpoint Blockade in Patients with Cancer.

PURPOSE: No evidence exists as to whether type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) impairs clinical outcome from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in patients with solid tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In a large cohort of ICI recipients treated at 21 institutions from June 2014 to June 2020, we studied whether patients on glucose-lowering medications (GLM) for T2DM had shorter overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). We used targeted transcriptomics in a subset of patients to explore differences in the tumor microenvironment (TME) of patients with or without diabetes. RESULTS: A total of 1,395 patients were included. Primary tumors included non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC; 54.7%), melanoma (24.7%), renal cell (15.0%), and other carcinomas (5.6%). After multivariable analysis, patients on GLM (n = 226, 16.2%) displayed an increased risk of death [HR, 1.29; 95% confidence interval (CI),1.07-1.56] and disease progression/death (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.03-1.43) independent of number of GLM received. We matched 92 metformin-exposed patients with 363 controls and 78 patients on other oral GLM or insulin with 299 control patients. Exposure to metformin, but not other GLM, was associated with an increased risk of death (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.16-2.03) and disease progression/death (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.04-1.72). Patients with T2DM with higher pretreatment glycemia had higher neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (P = 0.04), while exploratory tumoral transcriptomic profiling in a subset of patients (n = 22) revealed differential regulation of innate and adaptive immune pathways in patients with T2DM. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, patients on GLM experienced worse outcomes from immunotherapy, independent of baseline features. Prospective studies are warranted to clarify the relative impact of metformin over a preexisting diagnosis of T2DM in influencing poorer outcomes in this population.

Activity and safety of first-line treatments for advanced melanoma: A network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for advanced melanoma have increased with the US Food and Drug Administration approval of the anti-LAG3 plus anti-PD-1 relatlimab/nivolumab combination. To date, ipilimumab/nivolumab is the benchmark of overall survival, despite a high toxicity profile. Furthermore, in BRAF-mutant patients, BRAF/MEK inhibitors and the atezolizumab/vemurafenib/cobimetinib triplet are also available treatments, making the first-line therapy selection more complex. To address this issue, we conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of the available first-line treatment options in advanced melanoma. METHODS: Randomised clinical trials of previously untreated, advanced melanoma were included if at least one intervention arm contained a BRAF/MEK or an immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI). The aim was to indirectly compare the ICIs combinations ipilimumab/nivolumab and relatlimab/nivolumab, and these combinations with all the other first-line treatment options for advanced melanoma (irrespective of BRAF status) in terms of activity and safety. The coprimary end-points were progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (≥ G3 TRAEs) rate, defined according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. RESULTS: A total of 9070 metastatic melanoma patients treated in 18 randomised clinical trials were included in the network meta-analysis. No difference in PFS and ORR was observed between ipilimumab/nivolumab and relatlimab/nivolumab (HR = 0.99 [95% CI 0.75-1.31] and RR = 0.99 [95% CI 0.78-1.27], respectively). The PD-(L)1/BRAF/MEK inhibitors triplet combinations were superior to ipilimumab/nivolumab in terms of both PFS (HR = 0.56 [95% CI 0.37-0.84]) and ORR (RR = 3.07 [95% CI 1.61-5.85]). Ipilimumab/nivolumab showed the highest risk of developing ≥ G3 TRAEs. Relatlimab/nivolumab trended to a lower risk of ≥ G3 TRAEs (RR = 0.71 [95% CI 0.30-1.67]) versus ipilimumab/nivolumab. CONCLUSION: Relatlimab/nivolumab showed similar PFS and ORR compared to ipilimumab/nivolumab, with a trend for a better safety profile.

Safety of extended interval dosing immune checkpoint inhibitors: a multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Real-life spectrum and survival implications of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in patients treated with extended interval dosing (ED) immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are unknown. METHODS: Characteristics of 812 consecutive solid cancer patients who received at least 1 cycle of ED monotherapy (pembrolizumab 400 mg Q6W or nivolumab 480 mg Q4W) after switching from canonical interval dosing (CD; pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W or nivolumab 240 mg Q2W) or treated upfront with ED were retrieved. The primary objective was to compare irAEs patterns within the same population (before and after switch to ED). irAEs spectrum in patients treated upfront with ED and association between irAEs and overall survival were also described. RESULTS: A total of 550 (68%) patients started ICIs with CD and switched to ED. During CD, 225 (41%) patients developed any grade and 17 (3%) G3 or G4 irAEs; after switching to ED, any grade and G3 or G4 irAEs were experienced by 155 (36%) and 20 (5%) patients. Switching to ED was associated with a lower probability of any grade irAEs (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64 to 0.99; P = .047), whereas no difference for G3 or G4 events was noted (aOR = 1.55, 95% CI = 0.81 to 2.94; P = .18). Among patients who started upfront with ED (n = 232, 32%), 107 (41%) developed any grade and 14 (5%) G3 or G4 irAEs during ED. Patients with irAEs during ED had improved overall survival (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.34 to 0.82; P = .004 after switching; aHR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.35 to 0.93; P = .025 upfront). CONCLUSIONS: Switching ICI treatment from CD and ED did not increase the incidence of irAEs and represents a safe option also outside clinical trials.

Whole-Exome Sequencing and cfDNA Analysis Uncover Genetic Determinants of Melanoma Therapy Response in a Real-World Setting.

Although several studies have explored the molecular landscape of metastatic melanoma, the genetic determinants of therapy resistance are still largely unknown. Here, we aimed to determine the contribution of whole-exome sequencing and circulating free DNA (cfDNA) analysis in predicting response to therapy in a consecutive real-world cohort of 36 patients, undergoing fresh tissue biopsy and followed during treatment. Although the underpowered sample size limited statistical analysis, samples from non-responders had higher copy number variations and mutations in melanoma driver genes compared to responders in the BRAF V600+ subset. In the BRAF V600- subset, Tumor Mutational Burden (TMB) was twice that in responders vs. non-responders. Genomic layout revealed commonly known and novel potential intrinsic/acquired resistance driver gene variants. Among these, RAC1, FBXW7, GNAQ mutations, and BRAF/PTEN amplification/deletion were present in 42% and 67% of patients, respectively. Both Loss of Heterozygosity (LOH) load and tumor ploidy were inversely associated with TMB. In immunotherapy-treated patients, samples from responders showed higher TMB and lower LOH and were more frequently diploid compared to non-responders. Secondary germline testing and cfDNA analysis proved their efficacy in finding germline predisposing variants carriers (8.3%) and following dynamic changes during treatment as a surrogate of tissue biopsy, respectively.

Neoadjuvant plus adjuvant combined or sequenced vemurafenib, cobimetinib and atezolizumab in patients with high-risk, resectable BRAF-mutated and wild-type melanoma: NEO-TIM, a phase II randomized non-comparative study.

Background: Following the increased survival of patients with metastatic melanoma thanks to immunotherapy and targeted therapy, neoadjuvant approaches are being investigated to address the unmet needs of unresponsive and intolerant patients. We aim to investigate the efficacy of neoadjuvant plus adjuvant combined or sequenced vemurafenib, cobimetinib and atezolizumab in patients with high-risk, resectable BRAF-mutated and wild-type melanoma. Methods: The study is a phase II, open-label, randomized non-comparative trial in patients with stage IIIB/C/D surgically resectable, BRAF-mutated and wild-type melanoma, with three possible treatments: (1) vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily from day 1 to 42; (2) vemurafenib 720 mg twice daily from day 1 to 42; (3) cobimetinib 60 mg once daily from day 1 to 21 and from day 29 to 42; and (4) atezolizumab 840 mg for two cycles (day 22 and day 43).Patients will be randomized to three different arms: A) BRAF-mutated patients will receive over 6 weeks (1) + (3); B) BRAF-mutated patients will receive over 6 weeks (2) + (3) + (4); C) BRAF wild-type patients will receive over 6 weeks (3) + (4). All patients will also receive atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks for 17 cycles after surgery and after a second screening period (up to 6 weeks). Discussion: Neoadjuvant therapy for regional metastases may improve operability and outcomes and facilitate the identification of biomarkers that can guide further lines of treatment. Patients with clinical stage III melanoma may especially benefit from neoadjuvant treatment, as the outcomes of surgery alone are very poor. It is expected that the combination of neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment may reduce the incidence of relapse and improve survival. Clinical trial registration: eudract.ema.europa.eu/protocol.htm, identifier 2018-004841-17.

Cerivastatin Synergizes with Trametinib and Enhances Its Efficacy in the Therapy of Uveal Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic uveal melanoma (MUM) is a highly aggressive, therapy-resistant disease. Driver mutations in Gα-proteins GNAQ and GNA11 activate MAP-kinase and YAP/TAZ pathways of oncogenic signalling. MAP-kinase and MEK-inhibitors do not significantly block MUM progression, likely due to persisting YAP/TAZ signalling. Statins inhibit YAP/TAZ activation by blocking the mevalonate pathway, geranyl-geranylation, and subcellular localisation of the Rho-GTPase. We investigated drugs that affect the YAP/TAZ pathway, valproic acid, verteporfin and statins, in combination with MEK-inhibitor trametinib. METHODS: We established IC50 values of the individual drugs and monitored the effects of their combinations in terms of proliferation. We selected trametinib and cerivastatin for evaluation of cell cycle and apoptosis. Synergism was detected using isobologram and Chou-Talalay analyses. The most synergistic combination was tested in vivo. RESULTS: Synergistic concentrations of trametinib and cerivastatin induced a massive arrest of proliferation and cell cycle and enhanced apoptosis, particularly in the monosomic, BAP1-mutated UPMM3 cell line. The combined treatment reduced ERK and AKT phosphorylation, increased the inactive, cytoplasmatic form of YAP and significantly impaired the growth of UM cells with monosomy of chromosome 3 in NSG mice. CONCLUSION: Statins can potentiate the efficacy of MEK inhibitors in the therapy of UM.