Five-year survival rates for treatment-naive patients with advanced melanoma who received ipilimumab plus dacarbazine in a phase III trial

Association of Immunotherapy With Durable Survival as Defined by Value Frameworks for Cancer Care

Importance

Modern immuno-oncology agents have generated great excitement because of their potential to provide durable survival for some patients. However, there is concern regarding the cost of cancer care, and multiple frameworks have been developed to assess value. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) framework awards bonus points if substantial durable survival is demonstrated.

Objective

To assess whether modern immuno-oncology agents reach defined efficacy thresholds in value frameworks.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this analysis, all US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for immuno-oncology agents between March 2011 and August 2017 were reviewed. Data required for the ASCO framework were collected, specifically improvement in proportion of patients alive with the test regimen and survival rate with standard treatment.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Awarding of bonus points for durable survival based on the ASCO criteria.

Results

Twenty-three metastatic indications for 6 immuno-oncology agents (ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, avelumab, and durvalumab) were approved by the FDA from March 2011 to August 2017. Ten (43%) of the approvals were based on survival end points, while 13 (57%) were based on response rates. Only 3 drug indications fulfilled the threshold defined for the survival rate of patients receiving standard care (minimum 20%). Nine indications achieved the required level of improvement in proportion to patients alive in the test regimen compared with the standard (above 50%). There was overlap between these 2 criteria for 3 drug indications, allowing them to gain the durable survival bonus points awarded by the ASCO framework.

Conclusions and Relevance

Durable survival and response rates of modern immuno-oncology agents are rarely recognized as significant by current oncology value frameworks. This may be due to insufficient demonstration of efficacy of such agents or inappropriately calibrated value frameworks.

Immune Checkpoint Blockade: The New Frontier in Cancer Treatment

Immune checkpoint blockers have revolutionized cancer treatment in recent years. These agents are now approved for the treatment of several malignancies, including melanoma, squamous and non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer, renal cell carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma, and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Studies have demonstrated the significant impact of immunotherapy versus standard of care on patient outcomes, including durable response and extended survival. The use of immunotherapy-based combination therapy has been shown to further extend duration of response and survival. Immunotherapies function through modulation of the immune system, which can lead to immune-mediated adverse events (imAEs). These include a range of dermatologic, gastrointestinal, endocrine, and hepatic toxicities, as well as other less common inflammatory events. ImAEs are typically low grade and manageable when identified early and treated with appropriate measures. Identifying the right patient for the right therapy will become more important as new immunotherapies and immunotherapy-based combinations are approved and costs of cancer care continue to rise.

Principles of prophylactic and therapeutic management of skin toxicity during treatment with checkpoint inhibitors

The introduction of immunotherapy into the treatment of cancer patients has revolutionised the oncological approach and significantly improved patient survival. The key drugs are immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs), whose mechanism of action is to elicit immune response against cancer cell antigens. Three types of CPIs are currently used and approved: an anti-CTLA-4 antibody, ipilimumab; anti-PD-1 antibodies, nivolumab and pembrolizumab; and anti-PD-L1 antibodies: atezolizumab, avelumab and durvalumab. CPIs have been widely used in metastatic and adjuvant melanoma settings, metastatic lung cancer, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, renal cancer, bladder cancer, head and neck tumours, and Merkel cell carcinoma. However, side effects of CPIs differ from toxicities of other oncological drugs. According to literature data, in 10–30% of patients CPIs are responsible for immune-related adverse events (irAE) associated with excessive activation of the immune system. Systemic irAEs include enterocolitis, pneumonitis, hepatitis, nephritis, hypophysitis, and autoimmune thyroid disease. However, the most common irAEs of checkpoint inhibitors are dermatologic toxicities ranging from pruritus and mild dermatoses to severe reactions including Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis. Each irAE can become serious if not early diagnosed and appropriately treated. In the article we present different types of skin irAEs related to CPIs together with the recommended therapies.

Harnessing immune checkpoints for cancer therapy

Immunomodulatory antibodies that directly trigger and reawaken suppressed T-cell effector function are termed 'checkpoint inhibitors'. CTLA-4 and PD-1/PD-L1 molecules are the most studied inhibitory immune check points against cancer and because of this therapeutic property have entered the clinic for treating a variety of tumor types. The results so far demonstrate a positive impact on cancer remission. Preclinical studies have demonstrated that targeting a number of other T-cell surface molecules including both positive and negative immune regulators, also possesses strong antitumor activity. Some of these molecules have already entered clinical trials. In this report, we briefly highlight the status of these immune checkpoint inhibitors and discuss their side effects and future directions for their use.

Five-Year Outcomes with Dabrafenib plus Trametinib in Metastatic Melanoma

BACKGROUND

Patients who have unresectable or metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600E or V600K mutation have prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival when receiving treatment with BRAF inhibitors plus MEK inhibitors. However, long-term clinical outcomes in these patients remain undefined. To determine 5-year survival rates and clinical characteristics of the patients with durable benefit, we sought to review long-term data from randomized trials of combination therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors.

METHODS

We analyzed pooled extended-survival data from two trials involving previously untreated patients who had received BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib (at a dose of 150 mg twice daily) plus MEK inhibitor trametinib (2 mg once daily) in the COMBI-d and COMBI-v trials. The median duration of follow-up was 22 months (range, 0 to 76). The primary end points in the COMBI-d and COMBI-v trials were progression-free survival and overall survival, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 563 patients were randomly assigned to receive dabrafenib plus trametinib (211 in the COMBI-d trial and 352 in the COMBI-v trial). The progression-free survival rates were 21% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17 to 24) at 4 years and 19% (95% CI, 15 to 22) at 5 years. The overall survival rates were 37% (95% CI, 33 to 42) at 4 years and 34% (95% CI, 30 to 38) at 5 years. In multivariate analysis, several baseline factors (e.g., performance status, age, sex, number of organ sites with metastasis, and lactate dehydrogenase level) were significantly associated with both progression-free survival and overall survival. A complete response occurred in 109 patients (19%) and was associated with an improved long-term outcome, with an overall survival rate of 71% (95% CI, 62 to 79) at 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

First-line treatment with dabrafenib plus trametinib led to long-term benefit in approximately one third of the patients who had unresectable or metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600E or V600K mutation. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; COMBI-d ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01584648; COMBI-v ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01597908.).

Median Survival or Mean Survival: Which Measure Is the Most Appropriate for Patients, Physicians, and Policymakers?

INTRODUCTION

Understanding the efficacy of treatments is crucial for patients, physicians, and policymakers. Median survival, the most common measure used in the outcome reporting of oncology clinical trials, is easy to understand; however, it describes only a single time point. The interpretation of the hazard ratio is difficult, and its underlying statistical assumptions are not always met. The objective of this study was to evaluate alternative measures based on the mean benefit of novel oncology treatments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed all U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for oncology agents between 2013 and 2017. We digitized survival curves as reported in the clinical trials used for the FDA approvals and implemented statistical transformations to calculate for each trial the restricted mean survival time (RMST), as well as the mean survival using Weibull distribution. We compared the mean survival with the median survival benefit in each clinical trial.

RESULTS

The FDA approved 83 solid tumor indications for oncology agents between 2013 and 2017, of which 27 approvals based on response rates, whereas 49 approvals were based on survival endpoints (progression-free survival and overall survival). The average improvement in median overall survival or progression-free survival was 4.6 months versus 3.6 months improvement in the average RMST and 6.1 months improvement in mean survival using Weibull distribution.

CONCLUSION

Mean survival may supply valuable information for different stakeholders. Its inclusion should be considered in the reporting of prospective clinical trials.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Mean survival may supply valuable information for different stakeholders. Its inclusion should be considered in the reporting of clinical trials.

LNMAT1 Promotes Invasion-Metastasis Cascade in Malignant Melanoma by Epigenetically Suppressing CADM1 Expression

The invasion-metastasis cascade is one of the most important factors relating to poor survival and prognosis of malignant melanoma (MM) patients. Long non-coding RNA lymph node metastasis associated transcript 1 (LNMAT1) is a key regulator in lymph node metastasis of multiple cancer types, but the roles and underlying mechanisms of LNMAT1 in the invasion-metastasis cascade of MM remain unclear. In the present study, we aimed to investigate the expression and function of LNMAT1 in MM. Here, we found that LNMAT1 was upregulated in MM tissues and cells, and its expression levels were further enhanced in MM patients with lymph node metastasis and metastatic MM cells. Using loss-of-function assays, we found that LNMAT1 promoted cell migration and invasion and lung metastasis in MM in vitro and in vivo. Moreover, we found that cell adhesion molecule 1 (CADM1), the established tumor suppressor in MM, was the downstream target of LNMAT1. Mechanistically, LNMAT1 epigenetically suppressed CADM1 expression by recruiting EZH2, the key regulator of trimethylation of histone H3 at lysine 27 (H3K27me3), to the CADM1 promoter, resulting in transcriptional inhibition of CADM1. Lastly, rescue assays demonstrated that LNMAT1 promoted cell migration and invasion of MM by suppressing CADM1 expression. Our findings elucidate a new mechanism for LNMAT1-mediated invasion-metastasis cascade in MM and suggest that LNMAT1 may be a new therapeutic target and prognostic predictor for MM.

Comparison of Long-term Survival Benefits in Trials of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor vs Non-Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Anticancer Agents Using ASCO Value Framework and ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale

IMPORTANCE

Recently, anticancer agents have generated excitement owing to their capacity to preserve long-term durable survival in some patients who are represented by a tail of the survival curve. However, because traditional measures of clinical benefit may not accurately capture durable survival, amendments to various valuation frameworks have been proposed to capture this benefit.

OBJECTIVES

To determine how frequently immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) anticancer agents vs non-ICI anticancer agents displayed trends of long-term durable survival, as defined by the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework version 2 (ASCO-VF v2) and European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1), as well as to further analyze the degree of agreement between ASCO and ESMO frameworks.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this cohort study, anticancer agents from phase 2 or 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) cited for clinical efficacy evidence in drug approval by the US Food and Drug Administration between January 2011 and March 2018 were identified. Data required for the ASCO-VF v2 tail-of-the-curve bonus and the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 immunotherapy-triggered long-term plateau adjustments were extracted from relevant RCTs. Frequency and difference in proportions were calculated to determine how often survival benefits were awarded to anticancer agents overall and to ICI and non-ICI anticancer agents individually.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework v2 tail-of-the-curve bonuses and ESMO-MCBS v1.1 immunotherapy-triggered long-term plateau adjustments.

RESULTS

In total, 247 RCTs were identified, and 100 RCTs involving 57 164 patients were included, with 14 examining ICI agents (1 ipilimumab, 5 pembrolizumab, 5 nivolumab, 2 atezolizumab, and 1 durvalumab) and 86 examining non-ICI agents (74 targeted therapy, 8 chemotherapy, 3 hormone therapy, and 1 radiopharmaceutical). Randomized clinical trials were awarded ASCO-VF v2 tail-of-the-curve bonuses more often than ESMO-MCBS v1.1 immunotherapy-triggered long-term plateau adjustments (ASCO-VF v2, 45.0% [8 of 14 ICI RCTs and 37 of 86 non-ICI RCTs] vs ESMO-MCBS v1.1, 2.6% [1 of 12 ICI RCTs and 1 of 66 non-ICI RCTs). Randomized clinical trials for ICIs were not more likely to receive an ASCO-VF v2 bonus or ESMO-MCBS v1.1 adjustment than non-ICI RCTs (ASCO-VF: risk difference, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.14 to 0.42; P = .32; ESMO-MCBS: risk difference, 0.07; 95% CI, -0.09 to 0.23; P = .40). Poor agreement was found between the framework algorithms in identifying long-term survival benefits from RCTs (κ = 0.01; 95% CI, -0.23 to 0.22; P = .50).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The ASCO-VF v2 and ESMO-MCBS v1.1 may require additional refinement to accurately capture the benefit of durable long-term survival, or ICI agents may not preserve long-term survival as conventionally thought.

Hijacking antibody-induced CTLA-4 lysosomal degradation for safer and more effective cancer immunotherapy

It remains unclear why the clinically used anti-CTLA-4 antibodies, popularly called checkpoint inhibitors, have severe immunotherapy-related adverse effects (irAEs) and yet suboptimal cancer immunotherapeutic effects (CITE). Here we report that while irAE-prone Ipilimumab and TremeIgG1 rapidly direct cell surface CTLA-4 for lysosomal degradation, the non-irAE-prone antibodies we generated, HL12 or HL32, dissociate from CTLA-4 after endocytosis and allow CTLA-4 recycling to cell surface by the LRBA-dependent mechanism. Disrupting CTLA-4 recycling results in robust CTLA-4 downregulation by all anti-CTLA-4 antibodies and confers toxicity to a non-irAE-prone anti-CTLA-4 mAb. Conversely, increasing the pH sensitivity of TremeIgG1 by introducing designed tyrosine-to-histidine mutations prevents antibody-triggered lysosomal CTLA-4 downregulation and dramatically attenuates irAE. Surprisingly, by avoiding CTLA-4 downregulation and due to their increased bioavailability, pH-sensitive anti-CTLA-4 antibodies are more effective in intratumor regulatory T-cell depletion and rejection of large established tumors. Our data establish a new paradigm for cancer research that allows for abrogating irAE while increasing CITE of anti-CTLA-4 antibodies.

Ultrasound, CT, MRI, or PET-CT for staging and re-staging of adults with cutaneous melanoma

BACKGROUND

Melanoma is one of the most aggressive forms of skin cancer, with the potential to metastasise to other parts of the body via the lymphatic system and the bloodstream. Melanoma accounts for a small percentage of skin cancer cases but is responsible for the majority of skin cancer deaths. Various imaging tests can be used with the aim of detecting metastatic spread of disease following a primary diagnosis of melanoma (primary staging) or on clinical suspicion of disease recurrence (re-staging). Accurate staging is crucial to ensuring that patients are directed to the most appropriate and effective treatment at different points on the clinical pathway. Establishing the comparative accuracy of ultrasound, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and positron emission tomography (PET)-CT imaging for detection of nodal or distant metastases, or both, is critical to understanding if, how, and where on the pathway these tests might be used.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objectivesWe estimated accuracy separately according to the point in the clinical pathway at which imaging tests were used. Our objectives were:• to determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound or PET-CT for detection of nodal metastases before sentinel lymph node biopsy in adults with confirmed cutaneous invasive melanoma; and• to determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound, CT, MRI, or PET-CT for whole body imaging in adults with cutaneous invasive melanoma:○ for detection of any metastasis in adults with a primary diagnosis of melanoma (i.e. primary staging at presentation); and○ for detection of any metastasis in adults undergoing staging of recurrence of melanoma (i.e. re-staging prompted by findings on routine follow-up).We undertook separate analyses according to whether accuracy data were reported per patient or per lesion.Secondary objectivesWe sought to determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound, CT, MRI, or PET-CT for whole body imaging (detection of any metastasis) in mixed or not clearly described populations of adults with cutaneous invasive melanoma.For study participants undergoing primary staging or re-staging (for possible recurrence), and for mixed or unclear populations, our objectives were:• to determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound, CT, MRI, or PET-CT for detection of nodal metastases;• to determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound, CT, MRI, or PET-CT for detection of distant metastases; and• to determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound, CT, MRI, or PET-CT for detection of distant metastases according to metastatic site.

SEARCH METHODS

We undertook a comprehensive search of the following databases from inception up to August 2016: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; CPCI; Zetoc; Science Citation Index; US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register; NIHR Clinical Research Network Portfolio Database; and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We studied reference lists as well as published systematic review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies of any design that evaluated ultrasound (with or without the use of fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC)), CT, MRI, or PET-CT for staging of cutaneous melanoma in adults, compared with a reference standard of histological confirmation or imaging with clinical follow-up of at least three months' duration. We excluded studies reporting multiple applications of the same test in more than 10% of study participants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted all data using a standardised data extraction and quality assessment form (based on the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2)). We estimated accuracy using the bivariate hierarchical method to produce summary sensitivities and specificities with 95% confidence and prediction regions. We undertook analysis of studies allowing direct and indirect comparison between tests. We examined heterogeneity between studies by visually inspecting the forest plots of sensitivity and specificity and summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plots. Numbers of identified studies were insufficient to allow formal investigation of potential sources of heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 39 publications reporting on 5204 study participants; 34 studies reporting data per patient included 4980 study participants with 1265 cases of metastatic disease, and seven studies reporting data per lesion included 417 study participants with 1846 potentially metastatic lesions, 1061 of which were confirmed metastases. The risk of bias was low or unclear for all domains apart from participant flow. Concerns regarding applicability of the evidence were high or unclear for almost all domains. Participant selection from mixed or not clearly defined populations and poorly described application and interpretation of index tests were particularly problematic.The accuracy of imaging for detection of regional nodal metastases before sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) was evaluated in 18 studies. In 11 studies (2614 participants; 542 cases), the summary sensitivity of ultrasound alone was 35.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 17.0% to 59.4%) and specificity was 93.9% (95% CI 86.1% to 97.5%). Combining pre-SLNB ultrasound with FNAC revealed summary sensitivity of 18.0% (95% CI 3.58% to 56.5%) and specificity of 99.8% (95% CI 99.1% to 99.9%) (1164 participants; 259 cases). Four studies demonstrated lower sensitivity (10.2%, 95% CI 4.31% to 22.3%) and specificity (96.5%,95% CI 87.1% to 99.1%) for PET-CT before SLNB (170 participants, 49 cases). When these data are translated to a hypothetical cohort of 1000 people eligible for SLNB, 237 of whom have nodal metastases (median prevalence), the combination of ultrasound with FNAC potentially allows 43 people with nodal metastases to be triaged directly to adjuvant therapy rather than having SLNB first, at a cost of two people with false positive results (who are incorrectly managed). Those with a false negative ultrasound will be identified on subsequent SLNB.Limited test accuracy data were available for whole body imaging via PET-CT for primary staging or re-staging for disease recurrence, and none evaluated MRI. Twenty-four studies evaluated whole body imaging. Six of these studies explored primary staging following a confirmed diagnosis of melanoma (492 participants), three evaluated re-staging of disease following some clinical indication of recurrence (589 participants), and 15 included mixed or not clearly described population groups comprising participants at a number of different points on the clinical pathway and at varying stages of disease (1265 participants). Results for whole body imaging could not be translated to a hypothetical cohort of people due to paucity of data.Most of the studies (6/9) of primary disease or re-staging of disease considered PET-CT, two in comparison to CT alone, and three studies examined the use of ultrasound. No eligible evaluations of MRI in these groups were identified. All studies used histological reference standards combined with follow-up, and two included FNAC for some participants. Observed accuracy for detection of any metastases for PET-CT was higher for re-staging of disease (summary sensitivity from two studies: 92.6%, 95% CI 85.3% to 96.4%; specificity: 89.7%, 95% CI 78.8% to 95.3%; 153 participants; 95 cases) compared to primary staging (sensitivities from individual studies ranged from 30% to 47% and specificities from 73% to 88%), and was more sensitive than CT alone in both population groups, but participant numbers were very small.No conclusions can be drawn regarding routine imaging of the brain via MRI or CT.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Review authors found a disappointing lack of evidence on the accuracy of imaging in people with a diagnosis of melanoma at different points on the clinical pathway. Studies were small and often reported data according to the number of lesions rather than the number of study participants. Imaging with ultrasound combined with FNAC before SLNB may identify around one-fifth of those with nodal disease, but confidence intervals are wide and further work is needed to establish cost-effectiveness. Much of the evidence for whole body imaging for primary staging or re-staging of disease is focused on PET-CT, and comparative data with CT or MRI are lacking. Future studies should go beyond diagnostic accuracy and consider the effects of different imaging tests on disease management. The increasing availability of adjuvant therapies for people with melanoma at high risk of disease spread at presentation will have a considerable impact on imaging services, yet evidence for the relative diagnostic accuracy of available tests is limited.

Metastatic Melanoma: Recent Therapeutic Progress and Future Perspectives

The prognosis of patients with metastatic melanoma has dramatically improved in recent years with the introduction of two new therapeutic strategies. BRAF and MEK inhibitors are small molecules that are able to block the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway, which is constitutively activated by recurrent BRAF V600 mutations in 45% of melanoma patients. These agents were shown to provide a rapid and strong response but are often limited by a high rate of secondary resistance. Monoclonal antibodies against the immune checkpoints cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed death 1 (PD-1) can restore an efficient and durable anti-tumor immunity, even following treatment discontinuation. Anti-PD-1 antibodies were shown to prolong survival of metastatic melanoma patients and a real cure seems to be obtainable in some patients. Many more therapies are currently under investigation, given that 50% of patients still do not have long-term benefits from approved treatments. The main goal is to avoid or circumvent primary or secondary immune resistance to anti-PD-1 therapy not only by targeting other players in the tumor microenvironment but also by optimizing treatment sequencing and combining anti-PD-1 with other treatments, especially with BRAF and MEK inhibitors. The unexpected major successes of immunotherapies in melanoma have opened the way for the development of these treatments in other cancers. In this review, we describe the different available treatments, their toxicities, and the key components of our decisional algorithms, and give an overview of what we expect to be the near future of melanoma treatment.

Analysis of Survival Curves: Statistical Methods Accounting for the Presence of Long-Term Survivors

Some anti-cancer treatments (e. g., immunotherapies) determine, on the long term, a durable survival in a small percentage of treated patients; in graphical terms, long-term survivors typically give rise to a plateau in the right tail of the survival curve. In analysing these datasets, medians are unable to recognize the presence of this plateau. To account for long-term survivors, both value-frameworks of ASCO and ESMO have incorporated post-hoc corrections that upgrade the framework scores when a survival plateau is present. However, the empiric nature of these post-hoc corrections is self-evident. To capture the presence of a survival plateau by quantitative methods, two approaches have thus far been proposed: the milestone method and the area-under-the-curve (AUC) method. The first approach identifies a long-term time-point in the follow-up (“milestone”) at which survival percentages are extracted. The second approach, which is based on the measurement of AUC of survival curves, essentially is the rearrangement of previous methods determining mean lifetime survival; similarly to the milestone method, the application of AUC can be “restricted” to a pre-specified time-point of the follow-up. This Mini-Review examines the literature published on this topic. The main characteristics of these two methods are highlighted along with their advantages and disadvantages. The conclusion is that both the milestone method and the AUC method are able to capture the presence of a survival plateau.

Current and emerging systemic therapies for cutaneous metastatic melanoma

INTRODUCTION

Melanoma therapies have evolved rapidly, and initial successes have translated into survival gains for patients with advanced melanoma. Both targeted and immune-therapy now have evidence in earlier stage disease. There are many new agents and combinations of treatments in development as potential future treatment options. This highlights the need for a reflection on current treatment practice trends that are guiding the development of potential new therapies.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, the authors discuss the evidence for currently approved therapies for cutaneous melanoma, including adjuvant therapy, potential new biomarkers, and emerging treatments with early phase clinical trial data. The authors have searched both the PubMed and clinicaltrials.gov databases for published clinical trials and discuss selected landmark trials of current therapies and of investigational treatment strategies with early evidence for the treatment of melanoma.

EXPERT OPINION

Significant efficacy has been demonstrated with both immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies in treating advanced melanoma. A multitude of novel therapies are in development and there is need for instructive biomarker assessment to identify patients likely to respond or be refractory to current therapies, to identify mechanisms of resistance and to direct further treatment options to patients based on individual disease biology.

PD-1 Blockade Following Isolated Limb Perfusion with Vaccinia Virus Prevents Local and Distant Relapse of Soft-tissue Sarcoma

PURPOSE

The prevention and treatment of metastatic sarcoma are areas of significant unmet need. Immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy has shown little activity in sarcoma and there is great interest in identifying novel treatment combinations that may augment responses. In vitro and in vivo, we investigated the potential for an oncolytic vaccinia virus (GLV-1h68) delivered using isolated limb perfusion (ILP) to promote antitumor immune responses and augment response to PD-1 blockade in sarcoma.Experimental Design: In an established animal model of extremity sarcoma, we evaluated the potential of locoregional delivery of a vaccinia virus (GLV-1h68) alongside biochemotherapy (melphalan/TNFα) in ILP. Complementary in vitro assays for markers of immunogenic cell death were performed in sarcoma cell lines.

RESULTS

PD-1 monotherapy had minimal efficacy in vivo, mimicking the clinical scenario. Pretreatment with GLV-1h68 delivered by ILP (viral ILP) significantly improved responses. Furthermore, when performed prior to surgery and radiotherapy, viral ILP and PD-1 blockade prevented both local and distant relapse, curing a previously treatment-refractory model. Enhanced therapy was associated with marked modulation of the tumor microenvironment, with an increase in the number and penetrance of intratumoral CD8+ T cells and expansion and activation of dendritic cells. GLV-1h68 was capable of inducing markers of immunogenic cell death in human sarcoma cell lines.

CONCLUSIONS

Viral ILP augments the response to PD-1 blockade, transforming this locoregional therapy into a potentially effective systemic treatment for sarcoma and warrants translational evaluation.

Endobronchial, laryngeal and mediastinal melanoma: a rare constellation of metastatic disease

A 45-year-old man presents with acute respiratory failure. Imaging revealed a left mainstem endobronchial mass with subcarinal lymphadenopathy, but no other evidence of a primary tumour. An incidental laryngeal nodule was found during bronchoscopy. Biopsies of this lesion by nasopharyngoscopy and subcarinal lymph nodes via mediastinoscopy were performed. Histopathological and immunohistochemical examination showed evidence of melanoma in both samples. Mutational analysis identified the presence of a BRAFV600E mutation. The patient underwent bronchoscopic ablation of the left mainstem endobronchial tumour with laser therapy followed by initiation of encorafenib and binimetinib combination therapy. The patient remains alive at 4 months after initial presentation of disease. This case adds to the body of literature highlighting the clinical heterogeneity and challenges of the management of metastatic pulmonary melanoma. To the best of our knowledge, this simultaneous constellation of metastasis has not been described before.

Immunotherapy and targeted therapies in older patients with advanced melanoma; Young International Society of Geriatric Oncology review paper

Malignant melanoma is an aggressive cancer associated with a poor prognosis in patients with metastatic disease. As in many other cancers, the incidence of melanoma rises with age; and combined with the longer life expectancy, this led to an increasing prevalence of melanoma in the older population. Recently, immune checkpoint inhibitors significantly improved the treatment of melanoma given their efficacy and tolerability profile. Two major classes of agents include the anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitors, such as ipilimumab, and the anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-1) inhibitors, such as nivolumab and pembrolizumab. Treatment of metastatic disease with immune checkpoint inhibitors demonstrated improved efficacy and better safety profiles compared to cytotoxic drugs and appears to be an attractive treatment option. Nevertheless, there is a need for tools designed to better predict which older patients will benefit from its use and who will experience toxicities related to the treatment. Current data do not show a major increase in toxicity rates in older patients. However, patients above 75 are often under-represented and those who are included are not representative of the general population of older patients, thereby also stressing the need for real-life data. Ongoing research is aiming at maximizing the potential treatment efficacy and developing novel immune-targeting modalities. Future studies should include older patients and assess geriatric domains in these older patients to better guide decision-making. This review discusses published clinical trials and where known, the efficacy and toxicity in older patients. Moreover, the clinical implications and future perspectives are discussed, with current recommendations for older patients, management of toxicities, and a proposal for an initial approach to the treatment of older patients with metastatic melanoma.

From immune checkpoints to vaccines: The past, present and future of cancer immunotherapy

Cancer is a worldwide medical problem with significant repercussions on individual patients and societies as a whole. In order to alter the outcomes of this deadly disease the treatment of cancer over the centuries has undergone a unique evolution. However, utilizing the best treatment modalities and achieving cures or long-term durable responses have been inconsistent and limited, that is until recently. Contemporary research has highlighted a fundamental gap in our understanding of how we approach treating cancer, by revealing the intricate relationship between the immune system and tumors. In this atmosphere, the growth of immunotherapy has not only forever changed our understanding of cancer biology, but the manner by which we treat patients. It's paradigm shifting success has led to the approval of over 10 different immunotherapeutic agents, including checkpoint inhibitors, vaccine-based therapies, oncolytic viruses and T cell directed therapies for nearly 20 different indications across countless tumor types. Despite the breakthroughs that have occurred in the field of immunotherapy, it has not been the panacea for all cancers. With a deeper understanding of the immune system we have been able to peer into tumor immune escape and therapy resistance. Simultaneously this understanding has paved the way for the investigation and development of novel immune system altering agents and combinatorial therapies. In this chapter we review the immune system and its intricate relationship with cancer, the evolution of immunotherapy, its current landscape, and future directions in the context of resistance mechanisms and the challenges faced by immunotherapy against cancer.

Long-Term Survival, Quality of Life, and Psychosocial Outcomes in Advanced Melanoma Patients Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have become a standard of care option for the treatment of patients with advanced melanoma. Since the approval of the first immune checkpoint (CTLA-4) inhibitor ipilimumab in 2011 and programmed death-1 (PD-1) blocking monoclonal antibodies pembrolizumab and nivolumab thereafter, an increasing proportion of patients with unresectable advanced melanoma achieved long-term overall survival. Little is known about the psychosocial wellbeing, neurocognitive function, and quality of life (QOL) of these survivors. Knowledge about the long term side-effects of these novel treatments is scarce as long-term survivorship is a novel issue in the field of immunotherapy. The purpose of this review is to summarize our current knowledge regarding the survival and safety results of pivotal clinical trials in the field of advanced melanoma and to highlight potential long-term consequences that are likely to impact psychosocial wellbeing, neurocognitive functioning, and QOL. The issues raised substantiate the need for clinical investigation of these issues with the aim of optimizing comprehensive health care for advanced melanoma survivors.

Emerging strategies in cancer therapy combining chemotherapy with immunotherapy

Cancer immunotherapy holds great potential to battle cancer by exerting a durable immunity effect. However, this process might be limited by various constraints existing in the tumor microenvironment (TME), such as the lack of available neoantigen, insufficient T cells from the naive repertoire, or immunosuppressive networks in which immunogenic tissue is protected from immune attacks. Certain chemotherapeutic drugs could elicit immune-potentiating effects by either inducing immunogenicity or relieving tumor-induced immunosuppression. Some also leave tumors directly susceptible to cytotoxic T cell attacks. Mounting evidence accumulated from preclinical and clinical studies suggests that these two treatment modalities might be mutually reinforcing as an effective "chemo-immunotherapy" strategy. Herein, we reviewed the latest advances in cancer immunotherapy and related mechanisms involved in chemotherapeutic-mediated immune activation. The emerging combination strategies and synergistic effects in response to chemo-immunotherapy are highlighted. We also discuss the challenges and critical considerations in its future development.

Current Immunotherapy Practices in Melanoma

Immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of melanoma, with implications for the surgical management of this disease. Surgeons must be aware of the impact of various immunotherapies on patients with resectable and unresectable disease, and how surgical decision-making should progress as a result. We expect that current and developing immunotherapies will increase surgeon involvement for resection of metastatic melanoma, whether for tumor harvests to generate autologous lymphocytes or for consolidating control of disease beyond what immunotherapies alone can achieve. Despite remarkable advancements in the field, significant work is needed to optimize the immuno-modulation that targets cancers while minimizing toxicity for patients.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence of dermatological toxicities associated with vemurafenib treatment in patients with melanoma

BACKGROUND

Vemurafenib has been linked to dermatological adverse events in patients with melanoma, including an increased risk of rash, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, photosensitivity reaction and keratoacanthoma. However, there has been no systematic attempt to assess the dermatological toxicity data of vemurafenib associated with melanoma treatment.

AIM

To evaluate the point prevalence of dermatological toxicities associated with vemurafenib treatment in patients with melanoma.

METHODS

Searches were conducted of the electronic databases PubMed and EMBASE and of conference abstracts published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Eligible studies included prospective clinical trials and expanded-access programmes (i.e. outside a clinical trial) of patients with melanoma assigned to vemurafenib treatment. Outcomes included prevalence of dermatological toxicities treated with vemurafenib. Statistical analyses were performed using the R2.8.1 meta package.

RESULTS

In total, 11 studies comprising 4197 patients were included in the meta-analysis. For patients assigned to vemurafenib, the overall prevalence of all-grade cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) was 18.00% (95% CI 12.00-26.00%), rash 45.00% (95% CI 34.00-57.00%), photosensitivity reaction (PR) 30.00% (95% CI 23.00-38.00%), keratoacanthoma (KA) 10.00% (95% CI 6.00-15.00%) and hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) 9.00% (95% CI 4.00-20.00%), while the prevalence of high-grade events was: cSCC 16.00% (95% CI 11.00-23.00%), rash 12.00% (95% CI 3.00-38.00%), PR 4% (95% CI 2.00-8.00%) and KA 6.00% (95% CI 5.00-7.00%).

CONCLUSION

The most frequent dermatological toxicities associated with vemurafenib treatment in patients with melanoma were cSCC, rash, PR and KA. These data may be useful for estimation of the efficacy and safety of the drug during clinical treatment and for reducing the prevalence of adverse reactions to vemurafenib treatment in patients with melanoma.

Diagnostic and therapeutic applications of miRNA-based strategies to cancer immunotherapy

Cancer immunotherapy has shown impressive clinical results in the last decade, improving both solid and hematologic cancer patients' overall survival. Nevertheless, most of the molecular aspects underlying the response to this approach are still under investigation. miRNAs in particular have been described as regulators of a plethora of different immunologic processes and thus have the potential to be key in the future developments of immunotherapy. In this review, we summarize and discuss the emerging role of miRNAs in the diagnosis and therapeutics of the four principal cancer immunotherapy approaches: immune checkpoint blockade, adoptive cell therapy, cancer vaccines, and cytokine therapy. In particular, this review is focused on potential roles for miRNAs to be adjuvants in soluble factor- and cell-based therapies, with the aim of helping to increase specificity and decrease toxicity, and on the potential for rationally identified miRNA-based diagnostic approaches to aid in precision clinical immunooncology.

Cutaneous Melanoma, Version 2.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Cutaneous melanoma have been significantly revised over the past few years in response to emerging data on immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies and BRAF-targeted therapy. This article summarizes the data and rationale supporting extensive changes to the recommendations for systemic therapy as adjuvant treatment of resected disease and as treatment of unresectable or distant metastatic disease.

Prognostic biomarkers for immunotherapy with ipilimumab in metastatic melanoma

New therapies, including the anti‐cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen (CTLA)‐4 antibody, ipilimumab, is approved for metastatic melanoma. Prognostic biomarkers need to be identified, because the treatment has serious side effects. Serum samples were obtained before and during treatment from 56 patients with metastatic or unresectable malignant melanoma, receiving treatment with ipilimumab in a national Phase IV study (NCT0268196). Expression of a panel of 17 inflammatory‐related markers reflecting different pathways including extracellular matrix remodeling and fibrosis, vascular inflammation and monocyte/macrophage activation were measured at baseline and the second and/or third course of treatment with ipilimumab. Six candidate proteins [endostatin, osteoprotegerin (OPG), C‐reactive protein (CRP), pulmonary and activation‐regulated chemokine (PARC), growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF15) and galectin‐3 binding‐protein (Gal3BP)] were persistently higher in non‐survivors. In particular, high Gal3BP and endostatin levels were also independently associated with poor 2‐year survival after adjusting for lactate dehydrogenase, M‐stage and number of organs affected. A 1 standard deviation increase in endostatin gave 1·74 times [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1·10–2·78, P = 0·019] and for Gal3BP 1·52 times (95% CI = 1·01–2·29, P = 0·047) higher risk of death in the adjusted model. Endostatin and Gal3BP may represent prognostic biomarkers for patients on ipilimumab treatment in metastatic melanoma and should be further evaluated. Owing to the non‐placebo design, we could only relate our findings to prognosis during ipilimumab treatment.

Clinical Development of PD-1 in Advanced Melanoma

The development of new treatment options has dramatically improved the landscape for patients with advanced melanoma. Part of these advances emerged through the identification of the importance of factors that regulate the immune system, including proteins that negatively modulate T cell-mediated responses termed "immune checkpoints." Indeed, blockade of the cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) immune checkpoint served as a proof of principle that the manipulation of these molecules could induce robust anticancer effects, yet limited to a small percentage of patients. Targeting a distinct checkpoint, the PD-1 yielded improved outcomes and reduced toxicity compared with CTLA-4 blockade and, in separate studies, chemotherapy. More recently, combined CTLA-4/PD-1 blockade was shown to result in higher response rates, while accompanied by increased toxicity. In this article, we review the clinical development of anti-PD-1 monotherapy and combinations that may expand the benefit of immunotherapy for patients with advanced melanoma.

Updates in Melanoma

Skin cancer is reaching epidemic levels in the United States. Recent advances in the understanding of the pathophysiology of melanoma have allowed improved risk stratification in the revised American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) criteria, new tests to capture patients at higher risk than their stage may indicate, and new treatments to offer hope and cures to patients with advanced disease.

Survival Extrapolation in Cancer Immunotherapy: A Validation-Based Case Study

BACKGROUND

Immune-checkpoint inhibitors may provide long-term survival benefits via a cured proportion, yet data are usually insufficient to prove this upon submission to health technology assessment bodies.

OBJECTIVE

We revisited the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence assessment of ipilimumab in melanoma (TA319). We used updated data from the pivotal trial to assess the accuracy of the extrapolation methods used and compared these to previously unused techniques to establish whether an alternative extrapolation may have provided more accurate survival projections.

METHODS

We compared projections from the piecewise survival model used in TA319 and those produced by alternative models (fit to trial data with minimum follow-up of 3 years) to a longer-term data cut (5-year follow-up). We also compared projections to external data to help assess validity. Alternative approaches considered were parametric, spline-based, mixture, and mixture-cure models.

RESULTS

Only the survival model used in TA319 and a mixture-cure model provided 5-year survival predictions close to those observed in the 5-year follow-up data set. Standard parametric, spline, and non-curative-mixture models substantially underestimated 5-year survival. Survival estimates from the TA319 model and the mixture-cure model diverge considerably after 5 years and remain unvalidated.

CONCLUSIONS

In our case study, only models that incorporated an element of external information (through a cure fraction combined with background mortality rates or using registry data) provided accurate estimates of 5-year survival. Flexible models that were able to capture the complex hazard functions observed during the trial, but which did not incorporate external information, extrapolated poorly.

A review and validation of overall survival extrapolation in health technology assessments of cancer immunotherapy by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: how did the initial best estimate compare to trial data subsequently made available?

BACKGROUND

Validation of overall survival (OS) extrapolations of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) during the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Single Technology Assessment (STA) process is limited due to data still maturing at the time of submission. Inaccurate extrapolation may lead to inappropriate decision-making. The availability of more mature trial data facilitates a retrospective analysis of the plausibility and validity of initial extrapolations. This study compares these extrapolations to subsequently available longer-term data.

METHODS

A systematic search of completed NICE appraisals of ICIs from March 2000 to December 2017 was performed. A targeted search was also undertaken to procure published OS data from the pivotal clinical trials for each identified STA made available post-submission to NICE. Initial Kaplan-Meier curves and associated extrapolations from NICE documentation were extracted to compare the accuracy of OS projections versus the most mature data.

RESULTS

The review identified 11 STAs, of which 10 provided OS data upon submission to NICE. The extrapolations undertaken considered parametric or piecewise survival models. Additional data cut-offs provided a mean of 18 months of OS beyond the end of the original data. Initial extrapolations typically under-estimated OS from the most mature data cut-off by 0.4-2.7%, depending on the choice of assessment method and use of the manufacturer- or ERG-preferred extrapolation.

CONCLUSION

Long-term extrapolation of OS is required for NICE STAs based on initial immature OS data. The results of this study demonstrate that the initial OS extrapolations employed by manufacturers and ERGs generally predicted OS reasonably well when compared to more mature data (when available), although on average they appeared to underestimate OS. This review and validation shows that, while the choice of OS extrapolation is uncertain, the methods adopted are generally aligned with later-published follow-up data and appear appropriate for informing HTA decisions.

A population-based study of the treatment effect of first-line ipilimumab for metastatic or unresectable melanoma

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Ipilimumab is an anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibody with demonstrated efficacy for metastatic melanoma in randomized controlled trials, including in the first-line setting. Population-based outcomes directly compared with historic chemotherapy treatment in metastatic or unresectable melanoma are lacking. Using population-based data from the province of Ontario, the benefit of first-line ipilimumab was estimated by comparing outcomes of patients treated with first-line dacarbazine over the period 2007–2009 with patients treated over the period 2010–2015 with first-line ipilimumab. Cutaneous and noncutaneous cases were included. The administrative data set utilized was high-dimensional; meaning, there was a large number of variables relative to the sample size. To adjust for important confounders among the many available variables, we utilized a double-selection method, a modified machine learning algorithm to extract the important variables that were related to both survival times and treatment usage. Time-dependent treatment modeling was utilized. Among the 2793 melanoma patients receiving palliative treatment (systemic therapy, surgery, or radiation) in Ontario (2007–2015), there were 289 patients treated with first-line ipilimumab (2010–2015) and 175 patients treated with first-line dacarbazine (2007–2009). For first-line ipilimumab, the adjusted hazard ratio compared with dacarbazine for overall survival (OS) was 0.63 (95% confidence interval: 0.47–0.84) with a 1-year survival of 46.5 versus 18.9% with dacarbazine. In subgroup analysis, ipilimumab was associated with improved OS across groups (age, sex, comorbidity, income quintile, previous interferon). First-line ipilimumab was found to have a significant OS benefit compared with historical controls in a population including those patients not routinely included in clinical trials. The treatment effect was similar to randomized controlled trials, suggesting a meaningful benefit when utilized in a population-based setting.

Recent success and limitations of immune checkpoint inhibitors for cancer: a lesson from melanoma

Several researches have been carried over the last few decades to understand of how cancer evades the immune system and thus to identify therapies that could directly act on patient's immune system in the way of restore or induce a response to cancer. As a consequence, "cancer immunotherapy" is conquering predominantly the modern scenario of the fight against cancer. The recent clinical success of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has created an entire new class of anti-cancer drugs and restored interest in the field of immuno-oncology, leading to regulatory approvals of several agents for the treatment of a variety of malignancies. The first to be approved in 2011 was the anti-CTLA-4 antibody ipilimumab for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Subsequently, the anti-PD-1s, nivolumab and pembrolizumab, received regulatory approvals for the treatment of melanoma and several other cancers. More recently, three anti-PD-L1 antibodies have received approval: atezolizumab and durvalumab for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma and metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and avelumab for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma and metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma. This review, starting from the results of melanoma trials, highlights in turn different ICIs and data for different indications in several malignancies are included under each drug class.

Three antigen-loading methods in dendritic cell vaccines for metastatic melanoma

In the current era of checkpoint inhibitors, some patients with metastatic melanoma have shown a significant improvement in survival. However, optimization of immunotherapy is an ongoing effort. Monocyte-derived dendritic cell (MODC) vaccines have been shown in clinical trials to be safe and capable of inducing tumor-specific immunity as well as occasional objective clinical responses. Here, we conducted a three-arm pilot clinical study in 15 patients with metastatic melanoma to evaluate three types of MODC vaccines, differing only by strategies of tumor antigen delivery. MODCs were isolated from each patient and loaded with patients' own melanoma cells as sources of antigens. Antigen loading was achieved ex vivo by fusing melanoma cells with MODCs, co-culturing melanoma cells with MODCs, or by pulsing MODCs with melanoma cell lysates. The vaccines were then injected into superficial lymph nodes using high-resolution ultrasound guidance. Primary end points included delayed-type hypersensitivity responses and positive ELISpot result, which measures interferon-γ production. Five of 15 patients achieved delayed-type hypersensitivity responses and six of 15 patients had positive ELISpot results. We demonstrated that the vaccines were safe and well-tolerated by all patients and produced immunological responses in all arms. Although MODC vaccine monotherapy has limited efficacy, combining this vaccine with other immunotherapies, such as checkpoint inhibitors, to engage multiple components of the immune system may be an effective and viable future approach.

The Italian Network for Tumor Bio-Immunotherapy (NIBIT) Foundation: ongoing and prospective activities in immuno-oncology

The ongoing revolution in cancer immunotherapy stems from the knowledge that distinct immune-checkpoints regulate the physiological crosstalk between and among immune cells by delivering inhibitory or activating signals. These notions, and the availability of mAb directed to diverse immune-checkpoint molecules, have led to a significant clinical improvement in cancer treatment. In this scenario, further achievements are undoubtedly to be expected from the contribution of novel, proof-of-principle clinical trials designed to explore the therapeutic efficacy of new immunotherapy-based combinations and treatment sequences. Along these lines, the clinical translation of pre-clinical evidence generated by non-profit research entities is likely to provide a significant contribution to gaining new insights that will further boost the field of cancer immunotherapy. To pursue this goal, and to provide comprehensive educational programs in immune-oncology (I-O), several national and global networks have been revitalized or newly established in recent years. This rapidly evolving scenario led the Board of Directors of the Italian Network of Tumor Bio-Immunotherapy (NIBIT) to establish the NIBIT Foundation. This Focused Research Review summarizes the main ongoing and prospective I-O activities of the NIBIT Foundation.

Safety Profiles and Pharmacovigilance Considerations for Recently Patented Anticancer Drugs: Cutaneous Melanoma

BACKGROUND

Malignant melanoma is a skin cancer responsible for 90% of cutaneous cancer- related deaths. In recent years, breakthroughs in treatment strategy have revolutionized the prognosis in both early and advanced melanoma patients. In particular, treatment with monoclonal antibodies targeting co-inhibitory checkpoints or specific molecular pathways leads to a new era of promising options, by prolonging the survival time of these patients. Moreover, unlike the chemotherapy that was used until some time ago, these new drugs have a good and more manageable toxicity profile. However, because of the recent introduction in clinical practice of the new agents, there is a learning curve among physicians regarding early recognition and management of the associated side effects.

OBJECTIVES

The analysis of the toxicity profiles of the different agents currently studied for the treatment of early and advanced melanoma, and the description of several relevant recent patents in this field, are the aims of this review.

METHODS

This is a systematically conducted review based on current clinical guidelines and on international Pharmacovigilance databases (AERS-Eudravigilance - WHO Vigibase).

RESULTS

Our systematic analysis outlines a comprehensive overview of the pharmacology, clinical application and the safety of recent anticancer drugs to treat melanoma, which can be an essential instrument for health professionals and researchers.

CONCLUSION

The new oncological therapies against melanoma are based on increasingly specific biological and immunological targets. For this reason, the potential toxicities that are expected from patients would be less relevant than the systemic "classical" chemotherapy. However, the new therapies are not free from the risk of causing adverse reactions, some of which must be managed promptly and appropriately; moreover, the multiplicity of the metabolic pathways exposes the new target therapies to relevant potential interactions. This review can help to understand how important it is not to underestimate potential adverse drug reactions related to new targeted therapies.

Indications for the surgical resection of stage IV disease

Tumor biology and careful patient selection weigh heavily in determining the appropriate role of surgical resection in stage IV melanoma. Historically, surgical resection for highly selected patients with metastatic melanoma was the only treatment modality associated with improved long-term survival and the ability to provide palliation. With the new age of effective systemic therapies, the treatment of metastatic melanoma has become more intricate and future work is needed to better define the role for surgery within the current treatment paradigm.

Reflectance confocal microscopy for diagnosing cutaneous melanoma in adults

BACKGROUND

Melanoma has one of the fastest rising incidence rates of any cancer. It accounts for a small percentage of skin cancer cases but is responsible for the majority of skin cancer deaths. Early detection and treatment is key to improving survival; however, anxiety around missing early cases needs to be balanced against appropriate levels of referral and excision of benign lesions. Used in conjunction with clinical or dermoscopic suspicion of malignancy, or both, reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) may reduce unnecessary excisions without missing melanoma cases.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of reflectance confocal microscopy for the detection of cutaneous invasive melanoma and atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants in adults with any lesion suspicious for melanoma and lesions that are difficult to diagnose, and to compare its accuracy with that of dermoscopy.

SEARCH METHODS

We undertook a comprehensive search of the following databases from inception up to August 2016: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; Embase; and seven other databases. We studied reference lists and published systematic review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies of any design that evaluated RCM alone, or RCM in comparison to dermoscopy, in adults with lesions suspicious for melanoma or atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants, compared with a reference standard of either histological confirmation or clinical follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted all data using a standardised data extraction and quality assessment form (based on QUADAS-2). We contacted authors of included studies where information related to the target condition or diagnostic threshold were missing. We estimated summary sensitivities and specificities per algorithm and threshold using the bivariate hierarchical model. To compare RCM with dermoscopy, we grouped studies by population (defined by difficulty of lesion diagnosis) and combined data using hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) methods. Analysis of studies allowing direct comparison between tests was undertaken. To facilitate interpretation of results, we computed values of specificity at the point on the SROC curve with 90% sensitivity as this value lies within the estimates for the majority of analyses. We investigated the impact of using a purposely developed RCM algorithm and in-person test interpretation.

MAIN RESULTS

The search identified 18 publications reporting on 19 study cohorts with 2838 lesions (including 658 with melanoma), which provided 67 datasets for RCM and seven for dermoscopy. Studies were generally at high or unclear risk of bias across almost all domains and of high or unclear concern regarding applicability of the evidence. Selective participant recruitment, lack of blinding of the reference test to the RCM result, and differential verification were particularly problematic. Studies may not be representative of populations eligible for RCM, and test interpretation was often undertaken remotely from the patient and blinded to clinical information.Meta-analysis found RCM to be more accurate than dermoscopy in studies of participants with any lesion suspicious for melanoma and in participants with lesions that were more difficult to diagnose (equivocal lesion populations). Assuming a fixed sensitivity of 90% for both tests, specificities were 82% for RCM and 42% for dermoscopy for any lesion suspicious for melanoma (9 RCM datasets; 1452 lesions and 370 melanomas). For a hypothetical population of 1000 lesions at the median observed melanoma prevalence of 30%, this equated to a reduction in unnecessary excisions with RCM of 280 compared to dermoscopy, with 30 melanomas missed by both tests. For studies in equivocal lesions, specificities of 86% would be observed for RCM and 49% for dermoscopy (7 RCM datasets; 1177 lesions and 180 melanomas). At the median observed melanoma prevalence of 20%, this reduced unnecessary excisions by 296 with RCM compared with dermoscopy, with 20 melanomas missed by both tests. Across all populations, algorithms and thresholds assessed, the sensitivity and specificity of the Pellacani RCM score at a threshold of three or greater were estimated at 92% (95% confidence interval (CI) 87 to 95) for RCM and 72% (95% CI 62 to 81) for dermoscopy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

RCM may have a potential role in clinical practice, particularly for the assessment of lesions that are difficult to diagnose using visual inspection and dermoscopy alone, where the evidence suggests that RCM may be both more sensitive and specific in comparison to dermoscopy. Given the paucity of data to allow comparison with dermoscopy, the results presented require further confirmation in prospective studies comparing RCM with dermoscopy in a real-world setting in a representative population.

Combination Immunotherapy Development in Melanoma

Melanoma has been the most important cancer to drive immunotherapy development of solid tumors. Since 2010, immunotherapy has been revolutionized by the concept of breaking tolerance. It represents a major paradigm shift and marks the beginning of a new era. The impact of the first immune checkpoint inhibitors, anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1, is unprecedented. In 7 years, it transformed advanced-stage melanoma into a curable disease in over 50% of patients. Another major step has been the development of the combination of BRAF inhibitors plus MEK inhibitors in the treatment of BRAF-mutant melanomas. For the treatment of advanced disease, approvals were obtained for the immune checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab (2011), nivolumab (2014), pembrolizumab (2014), the combination ipilimumab plus nivolumab (2015), and the oncolytic virus vaccine laherparepvec (2015). The combination dabrafenib plus trametinib for BRAF-mutant melanoma was approved in 2014, with similar success for other BRAF plus MEK inhibitor combinations. Because of its unique therapeutic index (high efficacy and low toxicity) anti-PD-1 agents (nivolumab and pembrolizumab) have now been placed at the center of practically all combination therapy development strategies in melanoma. Anti-PD-1 agents are the central molecule for combinations with a great variety of other immunotherapeutics such as immune checkpoint inhibitors, agonists, IDO inhibitors, macrophage polarizing agents, monoclonal antibodies, vaccines, targeted agents, chemotherapeutics, radiation therapy, and even microbiome modulators.

Advanced stage melanoma therapies: Detailing the present and exploring the future

Metastatic melanoma therapies have proliferated over the last ten years. Prior to this, decades passed with only very few drugs available to offer our patients, and even then, those few drugs had minimal survival benefits. Many treatment options emerged over the last ten years with diverse mechanisms of action. Further, combination regimens have demonstrated superiority over monotherapy, especially for targeted agents. Each therapeutic combination possesses different advantages and side effect profiles. In this review, we outline the United States Food and Drug Administration-approved melanoma treatment agents and therapies currently in clinical development, focusing on combination approaches.

Comparative safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors in cancer: systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To provide a complete toxicity profile, toxicity spectrum, and a safety ranking of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) drugs for treatment of cancer.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) were systematically searched to include relevant studies published in English between January 2007 and February 2018.

REVIEW METHODS

Only head-to-head phase II and III randomised controlled trials comparing any two or three of the following treatments or different doses of the same ICI drug were included: nivolumab, pembrolizumab, ipilimumab, tremelimumab, atezolizumab, conventional therapy (chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and their combinations), two ICI drugs, or one ICI drug with conventional therapy. Eligible studies must have reported site, organ, or system level data on treatment related adverse events. High quality, single arm trials and placebo controlled trials on ICI drugs were selected to establish a validation group.

RESULTS

36 head-to-head phase II and III randomised trials (n=15 370) were included. The general safety of ICI drugs ranked from high to low for all adverse events was as follows: atezolizumab (probability 76%, pooled incidence 66.4%), nivolumab (56%, 71.8%), pembrolizumab (55%, 75.1%), ipilimumab (55%, 86.8%), and tremelimumab (54%, not applicable). The general safety of ICI drugs ranked from high to low for severe or life threatening adverse events was as follows: atezolizumab (49%, 15.1%), nivolumab (46%, 14.1%), pembrolizumab (72%, 19.8%), ipilimumab (51%, 28.6%), and tremelimumab (28%, not applicable). Compared with conventional therapy, treatment-related adverse events for ICI drugs occurred mainly in the skin, endocrine, hepatic, and pulmonary systems. Taking one ICI drug was generally safer than taking two ICI drugs or one ICI drug with conventional therapy. Among the five ICI drugs, atezolizumab had the highest risk of hypothyroidism, nausea, and vomiting. The predominant treatment-related adverse events for pembrolizumab were arthralgia, pneumonitis, and hepatic toxicities. The main treatment-related adverse events for ipilimumab were skin, gastrointestinal, and renal toxicities. Nivolumab had a narrow and mild toxicity spectrum, mainly causing endocrine toxicities. Integrated evidence from the pooled incidences, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses implied that nivolumab is the best option in terms of safety, especially for the treatment of lung cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with other ICI drugs used to treat cancer, atezolizumab had the best safety profile in general, and nivolumab had the best safety profile in lung cancer when taking an integrated approach. The safety ranking of treatments based on ICI drugs is modulated by specific treatment-related adverse events.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42017082553.

Disparities in the allocation of research funding to gynecologic cancers by Funding to Lethality scores

PURPOSE

To analyze National Cancer Institute (NCI) funding distributions to gynecologic cancers compared to other cancers from 2007 to 2014.

METHODS

The NCI's Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER), Cancer Trends Progress Report, and Funding Statistics were used to analyze 18 cancer sites. Site-specific mortality to incidence ratios (MIR) were normalized per 100 cases and multiplied by person-years of life lost to derive cancer-specific lethality. NCI funding was divided by its lethality to calculate Funding to Lethality scores for gynecologic malignancies and compared to 15 other cancer sites.

RESULTS

Ovarian, cervical, and uterine cancers ranked 10th (score 0.097, SD 0.008), 12th (0.087, SD 0.009), and 14th (0.057, SD 0.006) for average Funding to Lethality scores. The highest average score was for prostate cancer (score 1.182, SD 0.364). In U.S. dollars per 100 incident cases, prostate cancer received an average of $1,821,000 per person-years of life lost, while ovarian cancer received $97,000, cervical cancer $87,000, and uterine cancer $57,000. Ovarian and cervical cancers had lower average Funding to Lethality scores compared to nine other cancers, while uterine cancer was lower than 13 other cancers (p < 0.01 for all comparisons). Analyses of eight-, five-, and three-year trends for gynecologic cancers showed nearly universal decreasing Funding to Lethality scores.

CONCLUSION

Funding to Lethality scores for gynecologic cancers are significantly lower than other cancer sites, indicating a disparity in funding allocation that persists over the most recent eight years of available data. Prompt correction is required to ensure critical discoveries for women with gynecologic cancers.

Cancer immune checkpoint blockade therapy and its associated autoimmune cardiotoxicity

The immune checkpoint molecules are emerged in the evolution to protect the host from self-attacks by activated T cells. However, cancer cells, as a strategy to survive and expand, can hijack these molecules and mechanisms to suppress T cell-mediated immune responses. Therefore, an idea of blocking the checkpoint molecules to enhance the anti-tumor activities of the host immune system has been developed and applied to the cancer therapy after discovery of the inhibitory T cell co-receptor, cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein 4 (CTLA-4), and further enhanced on the identification of PD-1 and its ligands. Since 2010, several checkpoint inhibitors have been approved by FDA and many more are in clinical trials. In the treatment of advanced cancers, these inhibitors significantly increased response rates and survival benefits. However, accompanied with the striking results, immune-related adverse events (irAEs) that broadly occurred in many organs were observed and reported, some of which were fatal. Herein, we first review the recent progressions in the research of the immune checkpoint molecules and the application of their blocking antibodies in cancer treatment, and then discuss the cardiac toxicity induced by the therapy and the strategy to monitor, manage this adverse event when it occurs.

Evaluation of classical clinical endpoints as surrogates for overall survival in patients treated with immune checkpoint blockers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Classical clinical endpoints [e.g., objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and progression-free survival (PFS)] may not be appropriate for immune checkpoint blockers (ICBs). We evaluated correlations between these endpoints and overall survival (OS) for surrogacy.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of solid tumors patients treated with ICBs published between 01/2005 and 03/2017, and congress proceedings (2014-2016) were included. Arm-level analyses measured 6-month PFS rate to predict 18-month OS rate. Comparison-level analyses measured ORR odds ratio (OR), DCR OR, and 6-month PFS hazard ratio (HR) to predict OS HR. A pooled analysis for single-agent ICBs and ICBs plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy was conducted. Studies of single-agent ICBs vs chemotherapy were separately analyzed.

RESULTS

27 RCTs involving 61 treatment arms and 10,300 patients were included. Arm-level analysis showed higher 6- or 9-month PFS rates predicted better 18-month OS rates for ICB arms and/or chemotherapy arms. ICB arms had a higher average OS rate vs chemotherapy for all PFS rates. Comparison-level analysis showed a nonsignificant/weak correlation between ORR OR (adjusted R2 = - 0.069; P = 0.866) or DCR OR (adjusted R2 = 0.271; P = 0.107) and OS HR. PFS HR correlated weakly with OS HR in the pooled (adjusted R2 = 0.366; P = 0.005) and single-agent (adjusted R2 = 0.452; P = 0.005) ICB studies. Six-month PFS HR was highly predictive of OS HR for single-agent ICBs (adjusted R2 = 0.907; P < 0.001), but weakly predictive in the pooled analysis (adjusted R2 = 0.333; P = 0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

PFS was an imperfect surrogate for OS. Predictive value of 6-month PFS HR for OS HR in the single-agent ICB analysis requires further exploration.

Duration of adjuvant immunotherapy-biologic, clinical and economic considerations

The financial impact of an extensive duration of adjuvant immunotherapy is severe. The clinical and biological rationale for this extensive duration is unclear. This study aims to understand the biologic and clinical rationale for the duration of treatment in designing adjuvant trials and to assess the economic impact of different treatment durations in adjuvant therapy. We searched http://www.clinicaltrials.gov for adjuvant immunotherapy clinical trials. Based on our inclusion and exclusion criteria, we identified 47 trials targeting PD-1, PD-L1, and CTLA-4. We examined the duration of these trials and performed a US based budget impact analysis of three representative trials based on various data sources. Most current adjuvant immunotherapy trials provide treatment for 1 year. Our budget impact analyses estimate that the cost per patient of 1 year treatment with nivolumab for melanoma is $165,000 while the cost of 3 years treatment with ipilimumab for melanoma is more than $1,850,000 assuming full duration of treatment. The annual cost for adjuvant treatment with nivolumab for melanoma is approximately $1.15 billion for the entire target population in the United States assuming full uptake. The necessary duration of adjuvant immunotherapy is unknown. The rationale for duration in current trials is not clear and may be longer than necessary. Non-inferiority trials testing shorter duration of therapies should be conducted. Appropriate mechanisms to fund such trials should be sought out by healthcare payers.