Disparities in Receipt of Adjuvant Immunotherapy among Stage III Melanoma Patients.

OBJECTIVES: Melanoma survival has greatly improved with the advent of immunotherapy, but unequal access to these medications may exist due to nonmedical patient factors such as insurance status, educational background, and geographic proximity to treatment. METHODS: We used the National Cancer Database to assess patients with nonmetastatic cutaneous melanoma who underwent surgical resection and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) with tumor involvement from 2015 to 2020. We evaluated rates of adjuvant immunotherapy among this patient population based on patient, tumor, and facility variables, including insurance status, socioeconomic status, pathologic stage (IIIA-IIID), and treatment facility type and volume. RESULTS: Adjuvant immunotherapy was associated with improved survival for stage III melanoma, with a slight increase in 5-year OS for stage IIIA (87.9% vs. 85.9%, P=0.044) and a higher increase in stages IIIB-D disease (70.3% vs. 59.6%, P<0.001). Receipt of adjuvant immunotherapy was less likely for patients who were older, low socioeconomic status, or uninsured. Low-volume and community cancer centers had higher rates of adjuvant immunotherapy overall for all stage III patients, whereas high-volume and academic centers used adjuvant immunotherapy much less often for stage IIIA patients compared with those in stages IIIB-D. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate inconsistent use of adjuvant immunotherapy among patients with stage III melanoma despite a significant association with improved survival. Notably, there was a lower use of adjuvant immunotherapy in patients of lower SES and those treated at high-volume centers. Equity in access to novel standards of care represents an opportunity to improve outcomes for patients with melanoma.

Real-World Multicenter Study of PD-1 Blockade in HIV-Associated Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma Across the United States.

BACKGROUND: Despite a higher risk of classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) in people with HIV and the demonstrated safety and efficacy of PD-1 blockade in cHL, there are limited data on the use of these agents in HIV-associated cHL (HIV-cHL). PATIENTS/METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients with HIV-cHL from the "Cancer Therapy using Checkpoint inhibitors in People with HIV-International (CATCH-IT)" database who received nivolumab or pembrolizumab, alone or in combination with other agents, and reviewed records for demographics, disease characteristics, immune-mediated adverse events (imAEs), and treatment outcomes. Changes in CD4+ T-cell counts with treatment were measured via Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Overall response rate (ORR) was defined as the proportion of patients with partial or complete response (PR/CR) per 2014 Lugano classification. RESULTS: We identified 23 patients with HIV-cHL who received a median of 6 cycles of PD-1 blockade: 1 as 1st-line, 6 as 2nd-line, and 16 as ≥3rd-line therapy. Seventeen (74%) patients received monotherapy, 5 (22%) received nivolumab plus brentuximab vedotin, and 1 received nivolumab plus ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide. The median baseline CD4+ T-cell count was 155 cells/µL, which increased to 310 cells/µL at end-of-treatment (P = .009). Three patients had grade 3 imAEs; none required treatment discontinuation. The ORR was 83% with median duration of response of 19.7 months. The median progression-free survival was 21.2 months and did not differ between patients with <200 versus ≥200 CD4+ cells/µL (P = .95). CONCLUSION: Our findings support the use of PD-1 blockade in HIV-cHL for the same indications as the general population with cHL.

Elderberry interaction with pazopanib in a patient with soft­tissue sarcoma: A case report and literature review.

Elderberry flower extract is marketed as an herbal supplement with purported benefits in boosting the immune system. The use of elderberry increased during the coronavirus pandemic. However, the interaction of elderberry with cytotoxic medicines has remained elusive. Pazopanib is a multikinase inhibitor approved for patients diagnosed with soft-tissue sarcoma. The present study reported on the case of a middle-aged woman diagnosed with localized intermediate-grade sarcoma of the left sartorius muscle who received neoadjuvant pazopanib with radiation therapy. The patient had no other medical comorbidities and only took over-the-counter (OTC) elderberry supplements for numerous years to 'boost' her immune system. She started pazopanib at 400 mg per os (PO) daily, which was increased to 800 mg PO daily after a week. By week three on pazopanib, the patient reported intense nausea and a number of loose stools, requiring anti-nausea medication. By the fourth week on pazopanib, laboratory tests showed grade 3 liver injury, as demonstrated by a fivefold rise in liver enzymes along with severe nausea and loose stools. All medications, including elderberry supplement, were stopped. Within two weeks of stopping all medicines, the liver enzymes started normalizing within two weeks and were normal by the end of four weeks. Pazopanib treatment was resumed without the recurrence of side effect. Pazopanib is metabolized in the liver via the cytochrome P 450 (CYP)3A4 enzyme pathway. Hence, potent inhibitors of CYP3A4 are avoided for concurrent use with pazopanib. Small in vitro studies on elderberry extracts have shown weak inhibition of CYP3A4. However, considering the wide usage of elderberry and the availability of mixed supplements OTC, it is essential to pursue clinical studies in cancer patients to understand the interactions of elderberry extracts with cytotoxic medicines. In this report, the scientific evidence behind the use of elderberry was reviewed and a hypothesis of its interaction with pazopanib was proposed.

Neoadjuvant Dual Checkpoint Inhibitors vs Anti-PD1 Therapy in High-Risk Resectable Melanoma: A Pooled Analysis.

Importance: Despite the clear potential benefits of neoadjuvant therapy, the optimal neoadjuvant regimen for patients with high-risk resectable melanoma (HRRM) is not known. Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of dual checkpoint inhibitors with anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (anti-PD1) therapy in a neoadjuvant setting among patients with HRRM. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this pooled analysis of clinical trials, studies were selected provided they investigated immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment, were published between January 2018 and March 2023, and were phase 1, 2, or 3 clinical trials. Participant data included in the analysis were derived from trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of anti-PD1 monotherapy and the combination of anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein-4 with anti-PD1 in the neoadjuvant setting, specifically among patients with HRRM. Interventions: Patients were treated with either anti-PD1 monotherapy; dual checkpoint inhibition (DCPI) with a conventional dose of 3-mg/kg ipilimumab and 1-mg/kg nivolumab; or DCPI with an alternative-dose regimen of 1-mg/kg ipilimumab and 3-mg/kg nivolumab. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were radiologic complete response (rCR), radiologic overall objective response (rOOR), and radiologic progressive disease. Also, pathologic complete response (pCR), the proportion of patients undergoing surgical resection, and occurrence of grade 3 or 4 immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were considered. Results: Among 573 patients enrolled in 6 clinical trials, neoadjuvant therapy with DCPI was associated with higher odds of achieving pCR compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy (odds ratio [OR], 3.16; P < .001). DCPI was associated with higher odds of grade 3 or 4 irAEs compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy (OR, 3.75; P < .001). When comparing the alternative-dose ipilimumab and nivolumab (IPI-NIVO) regimen with conventional-dose IPI-NIVO, no statistically significant difference in rCR, rOOR, radiologic progressive disease, or pCR was noted. However, the conventional-dose IPI-NIVO regimen was associated with increased grade 3 or 4 irAEs (OR, 4.76; P < .001). Conventional-dose IPI-NIVO was associated with greater odds of achieving improved rOOR (OR, 1.95; P = .046) and pCR (OR, 2.99; P < .001) compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy. The alternative dose of IPI-NIVO also was associated with higher odds of achieving rCR (OR, 2.55; P = .03) and pCR (OR, 3.87; P < .001) compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy. The risk for grade 3 or 4 irAEs is higher with both the conventional-dose (OR, 9.59; P < .001) and alternative-dose IPI-NIVO regimens (OR, 2.02; P = .02) compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy. Conclusion and Relevance: In this pooled analysis of 6 clinical trials, although DCPI was associated with increased likelihood of achieving pathological and radiologic responses, the associated risk for grade 3 or 4 irAEs was significantly lower with anti-PD1 monotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting for HRRM. Additionally, compared with alternative-dose IPI-NIVO, the conventional dose of IPI-NIVO was associated with increased risk for grade 3 or 4 irAEs, with no significant distinctions in radiologic or pathologic efficacy.

Disparities in the Receipt of Systemic Treatment in Metastatic Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: In 2011, immunotherapy and targeted therapy revolutionized melanoma treatment. However, inequities in their use may limit the benefits seen by certain patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients in the National Cancer Database for patients with stage IV melanoma from 2 time periods: 2004-2010 and 2016-2020, distinguishing between those who received systemic therapy and those who did not. We investigated the rates and factors associated with treatment omission. We employed Kaplan-Meier analysis to explore the impact of treatment on overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 19,961 patients met the inclusion criteria: 7621 patients were diagnosed in 2004-2010 and 12,340 patients in 2016-2020, of whom 54.9% and 28.3% did not receive systemic treatment, respectively. The rate of "no treatment" has decreased to a plateau of ∼25% in 2020. Median overall survival was improved with treatment in both time periods (2004-2010: 8.8 vs. 5.6 mo [ P <0.05]; and 2016-2020: 25.9 vs. 4.3 mo [ P <0.05]). Nonmedical factors associated with the omission of treatment in both periods included low socioeconomic status, Medicaid or no health insurance, and treatment at low-volume centers. In the period from 2016 to 2020, patients treated at nonacademic programs were also less likely to receive treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Systemic therapies significantly improve survival for patients with metastatic melanoma, but significant disparities exist with their receipt. Local efforts are needed to ensure all patients benefit from these revolutionary treatments.

Desmoid Tumors: Current Perspective and Treatment.

OPINION STATEMENT: Desmoid tumors are rare tumors with a tendency to infiltrate locally. The lack of a standard treatment approach makes choosing the most appropriate treatment for patients challenging. Most experts recommend watchful observation for asymptomatic patients as spontaneous regression of tumor is observed in up to 20% of patients. Upfront resection of the desmoid tumor has fallen out of favor due to high morbidity and high relapse rates associated with the tumor. Systemic therapy has evolved over several decades. Where chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were used over the last several decades, tyrosine kinase inhibitors came to the forefront within the last decade. Most recently, gamma-secretase inhibitors have shown significant clinical benefit in patients with desmoid tumors, bringing forth an entirely new mechanistic approach. Several Wnt pathway inhibitors are also under development. Invasive approaches like cryoablation have also shown clinical benefit in patients with extra-abdominal desmoid tumors in recent years. The recent approval of nirogacestat has ushered in a new era of treatment for patients diagnosed with desmoid tumors. Several new molecules are expected to be approved over the coming years.

Preoperative therapy in melanoma: Evolving perspectives in clinical trials.

We reviewed phase II and III trials beginning after 2010 studying preoperative therapy in melanoma (61 trials). Compared to standard adjuvant treatment, neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) show improved outcomes with approximately 70-80% recurrence free survival at 2 years. Several biomarkers demonstrate predictive value for pathological response (higher PD-L1 expression) and survival (IFN-γ signatures, CD8 + cell density). A number of 'non-standard' treatment mechanisms are being studied in combination with ICI therapies such as TLR-9 agonists, and anti-LAG3 checkpoint inhibitors, which show promise for alternative therapy options in the neoadjuvant setting. Finally, trials for advanced unresectable melanomas show improved survival compared to definitive systemic treatment when upfront systemic therapies lead to resectability. To conclude, in the preoperative setting for melanoma, ICIs have potential to improve outcomes for patients, and will likely change the standard treatment approach for advanced resectable disease.

Is sentinel lymph node biopsy needed for lentigo maligna melanoma?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is an area of debate in the management of lentigo maligna melanoma (LMM). The utility of SLNB and its prognostic value in LMM have not yet been studied with large databases. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of the National Cancer Database (2012-2020) and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (2010-2019) database for patients with cutaneous nonmetastatic LMM with Breslow thickness >1.0 mm. Multivariable logistic regression identified factors associated with SLNB performance and sentinel lymph node (SLN) positivity. Univariable and multivariable analyses assessed overall survival (OS) and melanoma-specific survival (MSS) based on SLNB performance and SLN status. RESULTS: Compared to other melanoma subtypes, LMM had lower rates of SLNB (66.6% vs. 80.0%-84.0%) and SLN positivity (11.3% vs. 18.6%-34.2%). Compared to patients who did not undergo SLNB, SLN status was significantly associated with improved OS in patients with SLN positive (HR = 0.64 [0.55-0.76]) and SLN negative (HR = 0.68 [0.49-0.94]), and worse MSS only in patients with positive SLN (HR = 3.93, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The improved OS associated with SLNB likely implies surgical selection bias. Analysis of MSS confirms appropriate patient selection and suggests important prognostic value associated with SLN status. These results support continued SLNB for LMM patients according to standard guidelines.

Safety and Activity of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in People Living With HIV and Cancer: A Real-World Report From the Cancer Therapy Using Checkpoint Inhibitors in People Living With HIV-International (CATCH-IT) Consortium.

PURPOSE: Compared with people living without HIV (PWOH), people living with HIV (PWH) and cancer have traditionally been excluded from immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) trials. Furthermore, there is a paucity of real-world data on the use of ICIs in PWH and cancer. METHODS: This retrospective study included PWH treated with anti-PD-1- or anti-PD-L1-based therapies for advanced cancers. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Objective response rates (ORRs) were measured per RECIST 1.1 or other tumor-specific criteria, whenever feasible. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) was used to compare OS and PFS between matched PWH and PWOH with metastatic NSCLC (mNSCLC). RESULTS: Among 390 PWH, median age was 58 years, 85% (n = 331) were males, 36% (n = 138) were Black; 70% (n = 274) received anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1 monotherapy. Most common cancers were NSCLC (28%, n = 111), hepatocellular carcinoma ([HCC]; 11%, n = 44), and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC; 10%, n = 39). Seventy percent (152/216) had CD4+ T cell counts ≥200 cells/µL, and 94% (179/190) had HIV viral load <400 copies/mL. Twenty percent (79/390) had any grade immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and 7.7% (30/390) had grade ≥3 irAEs. ORRs were 69% (nonmelanoma skin cancer), 31% (NSCLC), 16% (HCC), and 11% (HNSCC). In the matched mNSCLC cohort (61 PWH v 110 PWOH), 20% (12/61) PWH and 22% (24/110) PWOH had irAEs. Adjusted 42-month RMST difference was -0.06 months (95% CI, -5.49 to 5.37; P = .98) for PFS and 2.23 months (95% CI, -4.02 to 8.48; P = .48) for OS. CONCLUSION: Among PWH, ICIs demonstrated differential activity across cancer types with no excess toxicity. Safety and activity of ICIs were similar between matched cohorts of PWH and PWOH with mNSCLC.

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.).

An Atypical Rash on the Chest.

A 71-year-old man presented with a rapidly progressing rash and swelling of the left side of the chest wall. What is your diagnosis?

Trends in Melanoma Phase 3 Clinical Trials since 2010: Is there Hope for Advanced Melanoma Therapies beyond Approved Treatment Mechanisms?

BACKGROUND: Several drugs and treatment modalities are under investigation to improve current melanoma therapy options. This review profiles the trends in clinical trial investment in late-stage melanoma, and anticipates what changes are expected in melanoma treatment, with a focus on exploratory drug mechanisms. METHODS: We reviewed nine international clinical trial databases for registered, interventional, and phase 3 cutaneous melanoma clinical trials since 2010. RESULTS: 73 trials studied drug therapies in late-stage (stage III and IV) melanoma. Exploratory mechanisms were investigated in 32% (23/73) of the late-stage melanoma drug therapy trials. Most exploratory drug trials include immunotherapy drug mechanisms (15/23 trials). Two exploratory mechanisms showed promise: the anti-LAG3 antibody, relatlimab, and the hapten modified vaccine, MVax. Many (52%) trials of exploratory mechanisms are ongoing including the use of adoptive cell transfer immunotherapies, dendritic cell vaccine therapy, and histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors, among others. CONCLUSIONS: Since most clinical trials focus on previously approved drug mechanisms, it is likely that paradigm-changing treatments will involve these therapies being used in new treatment contexts or combinations. Only 2 exploratory drug mechanisms studied since 2010 have achieved promising results in the phase 3 setting, though many other trials are ongoing at this time.

Treatment Outcomes for Primary Hepatic Angiosarcoma: National Cancer Database Analysis 2004-2014.

Background: To determine the risk of mortality and factors associated with survival amongst patients diagnosed with primary hepatic angiosarcoma (PHA). Methods: All patients diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or PHA from 2004 to 2014 were identified from the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Further analysis was performed within the cohort of patients with PHA to assess the impact of surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, and facility type on overall survival (OS). A multivariable analysis using the Cox proportional methods and a survival analysis using the Kaplan−Meier method were used. Results: A total of 117,633 patients with HCC were identified, out of whom 346 patients had PHA. Patients with PHA had a mean age of 62.9 years (SD 13.7), the majority were men (64.7%), white (85.8%), and had a Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) of zero (66.2%). A third of the patients with PHA (35.7%) received chemotherapy, and 14.6% underwent a surgical resection. The median survival was 1.9 months (1.8−2.4 months) compared to patients with HCC (10.4 months, 10.2−10.5) (aHR-2.41, 95% CI: 2.10−2.77, p < 0.0001). Surgical resection was associated with a higher median survival (7.7 versus 1.8 months, aHR-0.23, 95% CI: 0.15−0.37, p < 0.0001). A receipt of chemotherapy was associated with a higher median survival than no chemotherapy (5.1 versus 1.2 months, aHR-0.44, 95% CI: 0.32−0.60, p < 0.0001), although the survival benefit did not persist long term. Conclusion: PHA is associated with poor outcomes. A surgical resection and chemotherapy are associated with improved survival outcomes; however, the long-term benefits of chemotherapy are limited.

Association of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors With Neurologic Adverse Events: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Neurologic adverse events (NAEs) due to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can be fatal but are underexplored. Objective: To compare NAEs reported in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of US Food and Drug Administration-approved ICIs with other forms of chemotherapy and placebo. Data Sources: Bibliographic databases (Embase, Ovid, MEDLINE, and Scopus data) and trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov) were searched from inception through March 1, 2020. Study Selection: Phase II/III RCTs evaluating the use of ICIs were eligible for inclusion. Unpublished trials were excluded from the analysis. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two investigators independently performed screening of trials using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline. NAEs were recorded for each arm. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. Main Outcomes and Measures: The risk of NAEs with ICI use compared with any drug regimen, cytotoxic chemotherapy, and placebo. Results: A total 39 trials including 23 705 patients were analyzed (16 135 [68.0%] men, 7866 [33.1%] White). The overall risk of a NAE was lower in the ICI group (risk ratio [RR], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45-0.77) and in the subgroup of RCTs comparing ICI use with chemotherapy (RR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.13-0.39). In the subgroup of RCTs comparing ICI with placebo, the overall risk of NAE was significantly higher in the ICI group (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.30-1.89). Peripheral neuropathy (RR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17-0.51) and dysgeusia (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.27-0.63) were significantly lower in the ICI group. Headache was more common with the use of ICIs (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.10-1.59). In the subgroup analysis of RCTs comparing ICI use with chemotherapy, peripheral neuropathy (RR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.05-0.17), dysgeusia (RR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.21-0.85), and paresthesia (RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.13-0.67) were significantly lower in the ICI group. RCTs comparing ICIs with placebo showed a higher risk of headache with ICI use (RR, 1.63; 95%, CI, 1.32-2.02). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this meta-analysis suggest that the overall risk of NAEs, peripheral neuropathy, and dysgeusia is lower with the use of ICI. When compared with chemotherapy, the overall risk of NAE, peripheral neuropathy, paresthesia, and dysgeusia was lower with ICI use; however, when compared with placebo, the risk of NAEs is higher with the use of ICI.