Preferences of German and Swiss melanoma patients for toxicities versus melanoma recurrence during adjuvant treatment (GERMELATOX-A-trial).

PURPOSE: Adjuvant treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors like PD1-antibodies (ICI) ± CTLA4-antibodies (cICI) or targeted therapy with BRAF/MEK inhibitors (TT) in high-risk melanoma patients demonstrate a significant improvement in disease-free survival (DFS). Due to specific side effects, the choice of treatment is very often driven by the risk for toxicity. This study addressed for the first time in a multicenter setting the attitudes and preferences of melanoma patients for adjuvant treatment with (c)ICI and TT. METHODS: In this study ("GERMELATOX-A"), 136 low-risk melanoma patients from 11 skin cancer centers were asked to rate side effect scenarios typical for each (c)ICI and TT with mild-to-moderate or severe toxicity and melanoma recurrence leading to cancer death. We asked patients about the reduction in melanoma relapse and the survival increase at 5 years they would require to tolerate defined side-effects. RESULTS: By VAS, patients on average valued melanoma relapse worse than all scenarios of side-effects during treatment with (c)ICI or TT. In case of severe side effects, patients required a 15% higher rate of DFS at 5 years for (c)ICI (80%) compared to TT (65%). For survival, patients required an increase of 5-10% for melanoma survival during (c)ICI (85%/80%) compared to TT (75%). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated a pronounced variation of patient preferences for toxicity and outcomes and a clear preference for TT. As adjuvant melanoma treatment with (c)ICI and TT will be increasingly implemented in earlier stages, precise knowledge of the patient perspective can be helpful for decision making.

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.

Biomarkers of treatment benefit with atezolizumab plus vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma.

BACKGROUND: The phase III IMspire150 study (NCT02908672) demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) with atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (atezolizumab group) versus placebo, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (control group) in patients with BRAFV600-mutated advanced melanoma. We report exploratory biomarker analyses to optimize targeting of patients who are more likely to benefit from triplet combination therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Five hundred fourteen patients were randomized to atezolizumab (n = 256) or control (n = 258). Outcomes were evaluated in subgroups defined by key biomarkers, including programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level, tumor mutational burden (TMB), and interferon-γ (IFN-γ) gene signature. Exploratory recursive partitioning analysis was then used to model associations between PFS and baseline covariates, including key biomarkers. RESULTS: PFS benefit for atezolizumab versus control was greater in patients with high TMB [≥10 mutations/Mb; hazard ratio (HR) 0.73; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-1.02; P = 0.067] versus low TMB (<10 mutations/Mb; HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.65-1.30; P = 0.64) and similar between patients with strong IFN-γ (≥median; HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.54-1.06) versus weak IFN-γ (

Pembrolizumab for locally advanced and recurrent/metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (KEYNOTE-629 study): an open-label, nonrandomized, multicenter, phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab demonstrated clinically meaningful and durable antitumor activity with a manageable safety profile in recurrent/metastatic (R/M) cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: KEYNOTE-629 was a global, open-label, nonrandomized, phase II trial of patients with locally advanced (LA) or R/M cSCC conducted at 59 centers. Eligible patients received intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles. Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR), defined as the percentage of patients with a complete (CR) or partial response (PR), by blinded independent central review as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1. Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), disease control rate, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety and tolerability. Efficacy and safety were analyzed in patients who were treated with at least one dose of pembrolizumab. RESULTS: Between 29 November 2017 and 25 September 2019, 159 patients were enrolled and treated with pembrolizumab (LA cohort, n = 54; R/M cohort, n = 105). The median time from the first dose to data cut-off date (29 July 2020) was 14.9 [interquartile range (IQR), 12.6-17.2] months for the LA cohort and 27.2 (IQR, 25.6-29.2) months for the R/M cohort. In the LA cohort, ORR was 50.0% [95% confidence interval (CI), 36.1% to 63.9%], including 16.7% of patients with a CR and 33.3% with a PR. In the R/M cohort, ORR was 35.2% (95% CI, 26.2% to 45.2%), including 10.5% of patients with a CR and 24.8% with a PR. Median DOR was not reached in either cohort. Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 11.9% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The robust antitumor activity of pembrolizumab in both LA and R/M cSCC was confirmed and demonstrated to be durable without unexpected safety signals. Our findings establish pembrolizumab as a promising treatment option for cSCC.

Effectiveness, safety and utilization of vismodegib in locally advanced basal cell carcinoma under real-world conditions in Germany - The non-interventional study NIELS.

BACKGROUND: Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) can arise by the uncontrolled proliferation of cells from multiple epidermal compartments due to aberrant activation of the Hedgehog (Hh) signalling pathway. Vismodegib, a small-molecule inhibitor of this pathway, is approved for treatment of patients with locally advanced (la) BCC inappropriate for surgery or radiotherapy or patients with symptomatic metastatic (m) BCC. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this non-interventional study was to assess effectiveness with a special focus on duration of response (DOR), safety and utilization of vismodegib for treatment of laBCC in daily practice in Germany. METHODS: This non-interventional study (NIS) observed treatment of laBCC with vismodegib according to the German label in clinical practice. All available patients who had received at least one dose of vismodegib between commercial availability of vismodegib in Germany (02 August 2013) and 3 years before end of study (31 March 2016) could be included and were documented retrospectively and/or prospectively for up to 3 years. Primary effectiveness variable was DOR. Assessment of tumour response was carried out by the treating physicians. Exploratory variables included utilization of vismodegib, decision makers for therapy and method of tumour response evaluation. All statistical analyses were descriptive. RESULTS: Between September 2015 and March 2019, 66 patients were observed at 26 German centres. The objective response rate (ORR) was 74.2% and the disease control rate (DCR) was 90.9%. The median DOR was 15.9 months (95% CI: 9.2; 25.7; n = 49 patients with response). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 19.1 months and the median time to response (TTR) 2.7 months. A total of 340 adverse events were reported in 63 (95.5%) patients; no new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The NIS NIELS shows effectiveness and safety of vismodegib in patients with laBCC. It confirms the transferability of the results of the pivotal trial into routine clinical practice.

Protective measures for patients with advanced cancer during the Sars-CoV-2 pandemic: Quo vadis?

Cancer patients represent a vulnerable cohort during the Sars-CoV-2 pandemic. Oncological societies have generated a plethora of recommendations, but precise instructions about routine oncological procedures remain scarce. Here, we report on local COVID-19 protection measures established in an interdisciplinary approach at a tertiary care center during the first wave of the pandemia in Germany. Following these measures, no additional morbidity or mortality during oncological procedures was observed, and no nosocomial infections were registered. However, Validation of our measures is outstanding and regional SARS-CoV-2 prevalence was low. However, specific oncological measures might be important to ensure optimal oncological results, especially for advanced cancer stages during this and future pandemia. In the future, communication about these measures might be crucial to a cancer patient´s assigned network to reduce the danger of excess mortality within the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

[Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma]. / Kutanes Plattenepithelkarzinom.

Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) is one of the most common cancers of the Caucasian population and accounts for 20% of all skin tumours. An S3 guideline of the German Guideline Program in Oncology has been available since 2019. The diagnosis is based on the clinical examination. Excision and histological confirmation is required for all clinically suspicious lesions to allow prognostic assessment and correct treatment. The therapy of first choice is complete excision with histological control of the surgical margin. In cSCC with risk factors such as tumor thickness >6 mm, sentinel lymph node biopsy may be discussed, but there is currently no clear evidence of its prognostic and therapeutic relevance. Adjuvant radiation therapy may be considered in cases of high risk of recurrence and should be tested in cases of inoperable tumors. The indication for electrochemotherapy should also be considered in the treatment of local or locoregional recurrence. The immune checkpoint inhibitor cemiplimab is approved for the treatment of inoperable or metastasized cSCC. In case of contraindications, chemotherapeutic agents, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors or palliative radiotherapy can be used. Since the evidence is low in these cases, a systemic therapy should be used preferentially within clinical studies. Follow-up care should be risk-adapted and includes a dermatological control, supplemented by ultrasound examinations in high-risk patients.

GNAQ and GNA11 mutant nonuveal melanoma: a subtype distinct from both cutaneous and uveal melanoma.

BACKGROUND: GNAQ and GNA11 mutant nonuveal melanoma represent a poorly characterized rare subgroup of melanoma with a gene mutation profile similar to uveal melanoma. OBJECTIVES: To characterize these tumours in terms of clinical behaviour and genetic characteristics. METHODS: Patients with nonuveal GNAQ/11 mutated melanoma were identified from the prospective multicentre tumour tissue registry ADOREG, Tissue Registry in Melanoma (TRIM) and additional cooperating skin cancer centres. Extensive data on patient, tumour and treatment characteristics were collected retrospectively. Targeted sequencing was used to determine tumour mutational burden. Immunohistochemistry staining was performed for programmed death-ligand 1 and BRCA1-associated protein (BAP)1. Existing whole-exome cutaneous and uveal melanoma data were analysed for mutation type and burden. RESULTS: We identified 18 patients with metastatic GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanoma. Tumours had a lower tumour mutational burden and fewer ultraviolet signature mutations than cutaneous melanomas. In addition to GNAQ and GNA11 mutations (nine each), six splicing factor 3b subunit 1 (SF3B1), three eukaryotic translation initiation factor 1A X-linked (EIF1AX) and four BAP1 mutations were detected. In contrast to uveal melanoma, GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas frequently metastasized lymphatically and concurrent EIF1AX, SF3B1 and BAP1 mutations showed no apparent association with patient prognosis. Objective response to immunotherapy was poor with only one partial response observed in 10 treated patients (10%). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas are a subtype of melanoma that is both clinically and genetically distinct from cutaneous and uveal melanoma. As they respond poorly to available treatment regimens, novel effective therapeutic approaches for affected patients are urgently needed. What is already known about this topic? The rare occurrence of GNAQ/11 mutations in nonuveal melanoma has been documented. GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas also harbour genetic alterations in EIF1AX, SF3B1 and BAP1 that are of prognostic relevance in uveal melanoma. What does this study add? GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas show metastatic spread reminiscent of cutaneous melanoma, but not uveal melanoma. GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas have a low tumour mutational burden that is higher than uveal melanoma, but lower than cutaneous melanoma. What is the translational message? Primary GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas are a subtype of melanoma that is clinically and genetically distinct from both cutaneous and uveal melanoma. As metastatic GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas respond poorly to available systemic therapies, including immune checkpoint inhibition, novel therapeutic approaches for these tumours are urgently needed. Linked Comment: Rafei-Shamsabadi. Br J Dermatol 2020; 183:806-807.

Sonidegib and vismodegib in the treatment of patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma: a joint expert opinion.

Sonidegib and vismodegib are hedgehog pathway inhibitors (HhIs) approved for the treatment of advanced basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Until recently, vismodegib was the only targeted treatment available for patients with locally advanced BCC (laBCC) in cases where surgery and radiotherapy are inappropriate. Sonidegib has recently been approved and now presents an alternative treatment option. The clinical differences between the two HhIs in patients with laBCC are unclear, as no head-to-head randomized controlled trials are or will be initiated. Moreover, there were important differences in the designs of their pivotal studies, BOLT (sonidegib) and ERIVANCE (vismodegib), and these differences complicate evidence-based analysis of their relative efficacy and safety profiles. In this paper, a group of clinical experts in the management of laBCC summarizes the clinical and pharmacological profiles of sonidegib and vismodegib based on published data and their own clinical experience. One key difference between the two pivotal studies was the criteria used to assess BCC severity. ERIVANCE (a single-arm phase II trial) used the conventional Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), while the more recent double-blind randomized BOLT trial used the stringent modified RECIST. A preplanned analysis adjusted the outcomes from BOLT with RECIST-like criteria, and this enabled the experts to discuss relative efficacy outcomes for the two treatments. Centrally reviewed objective response rate (ORR) for vismodegib was 47.6% (95% CI: 35.5-60.6) at 21-month follow-up using RECIST. After adjusting with RECIST-like criteria, the ORR for sonidegib according to central review at 18-month follow-up was 60.6% (95% CI: 47.8-72.4). Both treatments were associated with similar patterns of adverse events. Sonidegib and vismodegib share the same efficacy and tolerability profiles, but their pharmacokinetic profiles show several differences, such as volume of distribution and half-life. Further studies are needed to understand how these differences may impact clinical practice.

Long-term efficacy and safety of sonidegib in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma: 42-month analysis of the phase II randomized, double-blind BOLT study.

BACKGROUND: Basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) exhibit aberrant activation of the hedgehog pathway. Sonidegib is a hedgehog pathway inhibitor approved for the treatment of locally advanced BCC (laBCC) and metastatic BCC (mBCC) based on primary results of the BOLT study [Basal Cell Carcinoma Outcomes with LDE225 (sonidegib) Treatment]. OBJECTIVES: This is the final 42-month analysis of the BOLT study, evaluating the efficacy and safety of sonidegib. METHODS: Adults with no prior hedgehog pathway inhibitor therapy were randomized in a 1 : 2 ratio to sonidegib 200 mg or 800 mg once daily. Treatment continued for up to 42 months or until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, death, study termination or withdrawal of consent. The primary efficacy end point was the objective response rate (ORR) by central review, assessed at baseline; weeks 5, 9 and 17; then subsequently every 8 or 12 weeks during years 1 or 2, respectively. Safety end points included adverse event monitoring and reporting. RESULTS: The study enrolled 230 patients, 79 and 151 in the 200-mg and 800-mg groups, respectively, of whom 8% and 3.3% remained on treatment by the 42-month cutoff, respectively. The ORRs by central review were 56% [95% confidence interval (CI) 43-68] for laBCC and 8% (95% CI 0·2-36) for mBCC in the 200-mg group and 46·1% (95% CI 37·2-55·1) for laBCC and 17% (95% CI 5-39) for mBCC in the 800-mg group. No new safety concerns emerged. CONCLUSIONS: Sonidegib demonstrated sustained efficacy and a manageable safety profile. The final BOLT results support sonidegib as a viable treatment option for laBCC and mBCC. What's already known about this topic? Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is usually treatable with surgery or radiation therapy, but there are limited treatment options for patients with advanced BCC. Sonidegib, a hedgehog pathway inhibitor approved for the treatment of advanced BCC, demonstrated clinically relevant efficacy and manageable safety in prior analyses of the phase II randomized, double-blind BOLT study [Basal Cell Carcinoma Outcomes with LDE225 (sonidegib) Treatment]. What does this study add? This final 42-month analysis of BOLT is the longest follow-up available for a hedgehog pathway inhibitor. Clinically relevant efficacy results were sustained from prior analyses, with objective response rates by central review of the approved 200-mg daily dose of 56% in locally advanced BCC and 8% in metastatic BCC. No new safety concerns were raised. The results confirmed sonidegib as a viable long-term treatment option for patients with advanced BCC.

Medical treatment of advanced cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma.

Considering the rising incidence, cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma (cSCC) has a high clinical relevance. In patients with localized cSCC, complete surgical resection is indicated. Radiotherapy should be performed in patients with non-resectable tumours or in patients who are not suitable for surgery. Systemic therapy is reserved for cSCC that are neither surgically nor radiotherapeutically curable due to their extensive local spread and/or local or distant metastasis. In the absence of prospective randomized phase 3 trials to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of chemotherapeutics, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors and anti-PD-1 antibodies, no final recommendation for systemic therapy can be given for patients with locally advanced or metastatic cSCC. Anti-PD-1 antibodies currently show promising results with response rates of up to 50% in both locally advanced and metastatic cSCC. Anti-PD-1 antibodies appear to achieve higher response rates compared with EGFR inhibitors, and the duration of response appears to be superior to both chemotherapy and EGFR inhibitors. Compared with chemotherapy, the side effect profile of anti-PD-1 antibodies appears to be favourable. Altogether, PD-1 inhibitors are expected to become the new standard of care for patients with locally advanced and metastatic cSCC. Currently, placebo-controlled clinical trials are investigating the adjuvant use of cemiplimab and pembrolizumab in patients undergoing resection and radiotherapy of high-risk cSCC. Patients not eligible for anti-PD-1 treatment, e.g. in organ transplant recipients, or in patients refractory to anti-PD-1 may be offered EGFR inhibitors and/or chemotherapies. Chemotherapies appear to be superior to EGFR inhibitors in terms of response rates, whereas EGFR inhibitors have a more favourable toxicity profile. EGFR inhibitors are therefore more suitable for multimorbid and/or frail elderly patients. By combining EGFR inhibitors with local therapy such as surgery or radiotherapy, response rates and duration of response may be improved.

Sequence-dependent cross-resistance of combined radiotherapy plus BRAFV600E inhibition in melanoma.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma is hampered by drug-resistance and often requires combination with radiotherapy as last-resort option. However, also after radiotherapy, clinical relapses are common. METHODS & RESULTS: Our preclinical models indicated a higher rate of tumour relapse when melanoma cells were first treated with BRAFV600E inhibition (BRAFi) followed by radiotherapy as compared to the reverse sequence. Accordingly, retrospective follow-up data from 65 stage-IV melanoma patients with irradiated melanoma brain metastases confirmed a shortened duration of local response of mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK)-inhibitor-pretreated compared with MAPK-inhibitor-naïve intracranial metastases. On the molecular level, we identified JARID1B/KDM5B as a cellular marker for cross-resistance between BRAFi and radiotherapy. JARID1Bhigh cells appeared more frequently under upfront BRAFi as compared with upfront radiation. JARID1B favours cell survival by transcriptional regulation of genes controlling cell cycle, DNA repair and cell death. CONCLUSION: The level of cross-resistance between combined MAPK inhibition and radiotherapy is dependent on the treatment sequence. JARID1B may represent a novel therapy-overarching resistance marker.

Long-term efficacy and safety of sonidegib in patients with locally advanced and metastatic basal cell carcinoma: 30-month analysis of the randomized phase 2 BOLT study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma (laBCC) or metastatic BCC (mBCC), two difficult-to-treat populations, have had limited treatment options. Sonidegib, a hedgehog pathway inhibitor (HPI), was approved in laBCC based on results from the BOLT trial. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate long-term efficacy and safety of sonidegib in laBCC and mBCC in the BOLT 18- and 30-month analyses. METHODS: BOLT (NCT01327053, ClinicalTrials.gov), a double-blind phase 2 study, enrolled patients from July 2011 until January 2013. Eligible HPI-treatment-naïve patients with laBCC not amenable to curative surgery/radiotherapy or mBCC were randomized 1 : 2 to sonidegib 200 mg (laBCC, n = 66; mBCC, n = 13) or 800 mg (laBCC, n = 128; mBCC, n = 23). Tumour response was assessed per central and investigator review. RESULTS: With 30 months of follow-up, among patients treated with sonidegib 200 mg (approved dose), objective response rates were 56.1% (central) and 71.2% (investigator) in laBCC and 7.7% (central) and 23.1% (investigator) in mBCC. Tumour responses were durable as follows: median duration of response was 26.1 months (central) and 15.7 months (investigator) in laBCC and 24.0 months (central) and 18.1 months (investigator) in mBCC. Five patients with laBCC and three with mBCC in the 200-mg arm died. Median overall survival was not reached in either population; 2-year overall survival rates were 93.2% (laBCC) and 69.3% (mBCC). In laBCC, efficacy was similar regardless of aggressive or non-aggressive histology. Sonidegib 200 mg continued to have a better safety profile than 800 mg, with lower rates of grade 3/4 adverse events (43.0% vs. 64.0%) and adverse events leading to discontinuation (30.4% vs. 40.0%). CONCLUSION: Sonidegib continued to demonstrate long-term efficacy and safety in these populations. These data support the use of sonidegib 200 mg per local treatment guidelines.

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.

Safety and immunogenicity of the PRAME cancer immunotherapeutic in metastatic melanoma: results of a phase I dose escalation study.

PURPOSE: The PRAME tumour antigen is expressed in several tumour types but in few normal adult tissues. A dose-escalation phase I/II study (NCT01149343) assessed the safety, immunogenicity and clinical activity of the PRAME immunotherapeutic (recombinant PRAME protein (recPRAME) with the AS15 immunostimulant) in patients with advanced melanoma. Here, we report the phase I dose-escalation study segment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IV PRAME-positive melanoma were enrolled to 3 consecutive cohorts to receive up to 24 intramuscular injections of the PRAME immunotherapeutic. The RecPRAME dose was 20, 100 or 500 µg in cohorts 1, 2 and 3, respectively, with a fixed dose of AS15. Adverse events (AEs), including predefined dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and the anti-PRAME humoral response (ELISA), were coprimary end points. Cellular immune responses were evaluated using in vitro assays. RESULTS: 66 patients were treated (20, 24 and 22 in the respective cohorts). AEs considered by the investigator to be causally related were mostly grade 1 or 2 injection site symptoms, fatigue, chills, fever and headache. Two DLTs (grade 3 brain oedema and proteinuria) were recorded in two patients in two cohorts (cohorts 2 and 3). All patients had detectable anti-PRAME antibodies after four immunisations. Percentages of patients with predefined PRAME-specific-CD4+T-cell responses after four immunisations were similar in each cohort. No CD8+ T-cell responses were detected. CONCLUSIONS: The PRAME immunotherapeutic had an acceptable safety profile and induced similar anti-PRAME-specific humoral and cellular immune responses in all cohorts. As per protocol, the phase II study segment was initiated to further evaluate the 500 µg PRAME immunotherapeutic dose. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01149343, Results.