1
|
Pavlick AC, Ariyan CE, Buchbinder EI, Davar D, Gibney GT, Hamid O, Hieken TJ, Izar B, Johnson DB, Kulkarni RP, Luke JJ, Mitchell TC, Mooradian MJ, Rubin KM, Salama AK, Shirai K, Taube JM, Tawbi HA, Tolley JK, Valdueza C, Weiss SA, Wong MK, Sullivan RJ. Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of melanoma, version 3.0. J Immunother Cancer 2023; 11:e006947. [PMID: 37852736 PMCID: PMC10603365 DOI: 10.1136/jitc-2023-006947] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/16/2023] [Indexed: 10/20/2023] Open
Abstract
Since the first approval for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for the treatment of cutaneous melanoma more than a decade ago, immunotherapy has completely transformed the treatment landscape of this chemotherapy-resistant disease. Combination regimens including ICIs directed against programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) with anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) agents or, more recently, anti-lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3) agents, have gained regulatory approvals for the treatment of metastatic cutaneous melanoma, with long-term follow-up data suggesting the possibility of cure for some patients with advanced disease. In the resectable setting, adjuvant ICIs prolong recurrence-free survival, and neoadjuvant strategies are an active area of investigation. Other immunotherapy strategies, such as oncolytic virotherapy for injectable cutaneous melanoma and bispecific T-cell engager therapy for HLA-A*02:01 genotype-positive uveal melanoma, are also available to patients. Despite the remarkable efficacy of these regimens for many patients with cutaneous melanoma, traditional immunotherapy biomarkers (ie, programmed death-ligand 1 expression, tumor mutational burden, T-cell infiltrate and/or microsatellite stability) have failed to reliably predict response. Furthermore, ICIs are associated with unique toxicity profiles, particularly for the highly active combination of anti-PD-1 plus anti-CTLA-4 agents. The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a panel of experts to develop this clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of melanoma, including rare subtypes of the disease (eg, uveal, mucosal), with the goal of improving patient care by providing guidance to the oncology community. Drawing from published data and clinical experience, the Expert Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for healthcare professionals using immunotherapy to treat melanoma, with topics including therapy selection in the advanced and perioperative settings, intratumoral immunotherapy, when to use immunotherapy for patients with BRAFV600-mutated disease, management of patients with brain metastases, evaluation of treatment response, special patient populations, patient education, quality of life, and survivorship, among others.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Charlotte E Ariyan
- Department of Surgery Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | | | - Diwakar Davar
- Hillman Cancer Center, University of Pittsburg Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Geoffrey T Gibney
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | - Omid Hamid
- The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, A Cedars-Sinai Affiliate, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Tina J Hieken
- Department of Surgery and Comprehensive Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Benjamin Izar
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Douglas B Johnson
- Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
| | - Rajan P Kulkarni
- Departments of Dermatology, Oncological Sciences, Biomedical Engineering, and Center for Cancer Early Detection Advanced Research, Knight Cancer Institute, OHSU, Portland, Oregon, USA
- Operative Care Division, VA Portland Health Care System (VAPORHCS), Portland, Oregon, USA
| | - Jason J Luke
- Hillman Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Tara C Mitchell
- Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Meghan J Mooradian
- Cancer Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Krista M Rubin
- Cancer Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - April Ks Salama
- Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Duke University, Durham, Carolina, USA
| | - Keisuke Shirai
- Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA
| | - Janis M Taube
- Department of Dermatology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Hussein A Tawbi
- Department of Melanoma Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - J Keith Tolley
- Patient Advocate, Melanoma Research Alliance, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Caressa Valdueza
- Cutaneous Oncology Program, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, USA
| | - Sarah A Weiss
- Department of Medical Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA
| | - Michael K Wong
- Patient Advocate, Melanoma Research Alliance, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Ryan J Sullivan
- Cancer Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Rutkowski P, Czarnecka AM. Pembrolizumab for the adjuvant treatment of IIB or IIC melanoma. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2023; 23:897-902. [PMID: 37573515 DOI: 10.1080/14737140.2023.2247565] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/04/2022] [Accepted: 08/09/2023] [Indexed: 08/15/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Up to 30% of patients with stage IIB and 50% of stage IIC melanoma experience recurrence within 5 years after radical surgery. Adjuvant treatment is expected to improve this prognosis. AREAS COVERED Pembrolizumab (MK-3475) is a humanized monoclonal antibody that acts against the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) receptor. Pembrolizumab was first approved in monotherapy for the treatment of unresectable/metastatic melanoma based on the results of the prospective KEYNOTE-001, KEYNOTE-002, and KEYNOTE-006 trials. KEYNOTE-716 is the randomized phase III trial of pembrolizumab treatment in resected stage II melanoma. Treatment with pembrolizumab is statistically significant, reducing the risk of recurrence as well as distant metastases risk after primary tumor resection. Pembrolizumab treatment has a 24-month RFS rate of 81.2% (HR 0.64 vs placebo) and a DMFS rate of 88.1%. EXPERT OPINION 1-year adjuvant pembrolizumab treatment of stage IIB/C melanoma patients significantly reduces recurrence or death risk. The safety profile of adjuvant treatment is not different from previously reported and is manageable. Longer follow-up is required to fully understand the efficacy and safety of adjuvant therapy for stage II melanoma, as the number of patients needed to treat is twice as high as for stage III patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Piotr Rutkowski
- Department of Soft Tissue/Bone Sarcoma and Melanoma, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland
| | - Anna M Czarnecka
- Department of Soft Tissue/Bone Sarcoma and Melanoma, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland
- Department of Experimental Pharmacology, Mossakowski Medical Research Centre, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Weber JS, Poretta T, Stwalley BD, Sakkal LA, Du EX, Wang T, Chen Y, Wang Y, Betts KA, Shoushtari AN. Nivolumab versus placebo as adjuvant therapy for resected stage III melanoma: a propensity weighted indirect treatment comparison and number needed to treat analysis for recurrence-free survival and overall survival. Cancer Immunol Immunother 2023; 72:945-954. [PMID: 36197494 PMCID: PMC10025222 DOI: 10.1007/s00262-022-03302-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/10/2022] [Accepted: 09/23/2022] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) data for adjuvant nivolumab versus placebo (proxy for routine surveillance) in patients with high-risk, resected melanoma are lacking. This post hoc, indirect treatment comparison (ITC) used pooled data from the phase 3 EORTC 18,071 (ipilimumab vs. placebo) and CheckMate 238 (nivolumab vs. ipilimumab) trials to assess RFS and OS with nivolumab versus placebo and the numbers needed to treat (NNT) over 4 years. METHODS Patients with resected stage IIIB-C cutaneous melanoma (American Joint Committee on Cancer seventh edition) were included. Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance baseline characteristics. RFS NNTs were calculated for nivolumab versus ipilimumab and placebo. OS NNTs were calculated for nivolumab versus placebo. To adjust for different post-recurrence treatments, the difference in post-recurrence survival between the two ipilimumab arms was added to OS of the placebo arm. RESULTS This ITC included 278, 643, and 365 patients treated with nivolumab, ipilimumab, and placebo, respectively. Following IPTW, nivolumab was associated with improved RFS versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-0.61) and ipilimumab (HR: 0.69; 95% CI 0.56-0.85). RFS NNT was 4.2 for nivolumab versus placebo and 8.9 for nivolumab versus ipilimumab. After post-recurrence survival adjustment, weighted 4-year OS rates were 75.8% for nivolumab and 64.1% for placebo; OS NNT for nivolumab versus placebo was 8.5. CONCLUSIONS In patients with resected stage IIIB-C cutaneous melanoma in this ITC, nivolumab improved RFS versus placebo and ipilimumab, and OS versus placebo after post-recurrence survival adjustment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeffrey S Weber
- Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA.
| | | | | | | | - Ella X Du
- Analysis Group, Inc., Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | | | - Yan Chen
- Analysis Group, Inc., Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Yan Wang
- Analysis Group, Inc., Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | | | - Alexander N Shoushtari
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
- Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Ito T, Hashimoto H, Kaku-Ito Y, Tanaka Y, Nakahara T. Nail Apparatus Melanoma: Current Management and Future Perspectives. J Clin Med 2023; 12:jcm12062203. [PMID: 36983205 PMCID: PMC10057171 DOI: 10.3390/jcm12062203] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/11/2023] [Revised: 03/10/2023] [Accepted: 03/10/2023] [Indexed: 03/16/2023] Open
Abstract
Nail apparatus melanoma (NAM) is a rare type of cutaneous melanoma that belongs to the acral melanoma subtype. NAM is managed principally in accordance with the general treatment for cutaneous melanoma, but there is scarce evidence in support of this in the literature. Acral melanoma is genetically different from non-acral cutaneous melanoma, while recently accumulated data suggest that NAM also has a different genetic background from acral melanoma. In this review, we focus on recent advances in the management of NAM. Localized NAM should be surgically removed; amputation of the digit and digit-preserving surgery have been reported. Sentinel lymph node biopsy can be considered for invasive NAM for the purpose of accurate staging. However, it is yet to be clarified whether patients with metastatic sentinel lymph nodes can be safely spared completion lymph node dissection. Similar to cutaneous melanoma, immune checkpoint inhibitors and BRAF/MEK inhibitors are used as the first-line treatment for metastatic NAM, but data on the efficacy of these therapies remain scarce. The therapeutic effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors could be lower for NAM than for cutaneous melanoma. This review highlights the urgent need to accumulate data to better define the optimal management of this rare melanoma.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Takamichi Ito
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +81-92-642-5585; Fax: +81-92-642-5600
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Garbe C, Keim U, Amaral T, Berking C, Eigentler TK, Flatz L, Gesierich A, Leiter U, Stadler R, Sunderkötter C, Tüting T, Utikal J, Wollina U, Zimmer L, Zouboulis CC, Ascierto PA, Eggermont AM, Grob JJ, Hauschild A, Sekulovic LK, Long GV, Luke JJ, Michielin O, Peris K, Schadendorf D, Kirkwood JM, Lorigan PC. Prognosis of Patients With Primary Melanoma Stage I and II According to American Joint Committee on Cancer Version 8 Validated in Two Independent Cohorts: Implications for Adjuvant Treatment. J Clin Oncol 2022; 40:3741-3749. [PMID: 35709414 PMCID: PMC9649277 DOI: 10.1200/jco.22.00202] [Citation(s) in RCA: 36] [Impact Index Per Article: 18.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/27/2022] [Revised: 04/13/2022] [Accepted: 05/12/2022] [Indexed: 01/21/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The first randomized trial of adjuvant treatment with checkpoint inhibitor in stage II melanoma reported a significant reduction in risk of tumor recurrence. This study evaluates two independent data sets to further document survival probabilities for patients with primary stage I and II melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS The Central Malignant Melanoma Registry (CMMR) in Germany evaluated 17,544 patients with a primary diagnosis of stage I and II melanoma from 2000 to 2015. The exploratory cohort consisted of 6,725 patients from the Center for Dermato-Oncology at the University of Tübingen, and the confirmatory cohort consisted of 10,819 patients from 11 other German centers. Survival outcomes were compared with published American Joint Committee on Cancer version 8 (AJCCv8) stage I and II survival data. RESULTS For the two CMMR cohorts in stage IA compared with the AJCCv8 cohort, melanoma-specific survival rates at 10 years were 95.1%-95.6% versus 98%; 89.7%-90.9% versus 94% in stage IB; 80.7%-83.1% versus 88% in stage IIA; 72.0%-79.9% versus 82% in stage IIB; and 57.6%-64.7% versus 75% in stage IIC, respectively. Recurrence rates were approximately twice as high as melanoma-specific mortality rates in stages IA-IIA. CONCLUSION The melanoma-specific survival rates in the two CMMR cohorts across stages I and II are less favorable than published in AJCCv8. This has important implications for the consideration of adjuvant treatment in this population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claus Garbe
- Department of Dermatology, Center for Dermatooncology, Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Ulrike Keim
- Department of Dermatology, Center for Dermatooncology, Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Teresa Amaral
- Department of Dermatology, Center for Dermatooncology, Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Carola Berking
- Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Thomas K. Eigentler
- Department of Dermatology, Skin Cancer Center, Charité Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Lukas Flatz
- Department of Dermatology, Center for Dermatooncology, Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Anja Gesierich
- Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany
| | - Ulrike Leiter
- Department of Dermatology, Center for Dermatooncology, Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Rudolf Stadler
- Department of Dermatology, Johannes Wesling Hospital Minden, Ruhr-University of Bochum, Minden, Germany
| | - Cord Sunderkötter
- Department of Dermatology and Venereology, University Hospital Halle, Halle, Germany
| | - Thomas Tüting
- Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany
| | - Jochen Utikal
- Skin Cancer Unit, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Ruprecht-Karl University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany
| | - Uwe Wollina
- Department of Dermatology and Allergology, Municipal Hospital of Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Lisa Zimmer
- Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium, Heidelberg Partner Site Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Christos C. Zouboulis
- Departments of Dermatology, Venereology, Allergology and Immunology, Dessau Medical Center, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane and Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Dessau, Germany
| | - Paolo A. Ascierto
- Unit of Melanoma, Cancer Immunotherapy and Innovative Therapy, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione G. Pascale, Naples, Italy
| | - Alexander M.M. Eggermont
- Princess Máxima Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands
- University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Jean-Jacques Grob
- Dermatology and Skin Cancer Department, APHM Timone, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France
| | - Axel Hauschild
- Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH), Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany
| | | | - Georgina V. Long
- Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Mater Hospital, Sydney, Australia
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Jason J. Luke
- Cancer Immunotherapeutic Center of UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Olivier Michielin
- Department of Medical Oncology, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Ketty Peris
- Institute of Dermatology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
- IRCCS, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, Rome, Italy
| | - Dirk Schadendorf
- Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium, Heidelberg Partner Site Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - John M. Kirkwood
- Melanoma and Skin Cancer Program, Hillman Cancer Research Pavilion Laboratory, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Paul C. Lorigan
- Division of Cancer Sciences, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Bartlett EK, Grossman D, Swetter SM, Leachman SA, Curiel-Lewandrowski C, Dusza SW, Gershenwald JE, Kirkwood JM, Tin AL, Vickers AJ, Marchetti MA. Clinically Significant Risk Thresholds in the Management of Primary Cutaneous Melanoma: A Survey of Melanoma Experts. Ann Surg Oncol 2022; 29:5948-5956. [PMID: 35583689 PMCID: PMC10091118 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-022-11869-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/17/2022] [Accepted: 04/20/2022] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Risk-based thresholds to guide management are undefined in the treatment of primary cutaneous melanoma but are essential to advance the field from traditional stage-based treatment to more individualized care. METHODS To estimate treatment risk thresholds, hypothetical clinical melanoma scenarios were developed and a stratified random sample was distributed to expert melanoma clinicians via an anonymous web-based survey. Scenarios provided a defined 5-year risk of recurrence and asked for recommendations regarding clinical follow-up, imaging, and adjuvant therapy. Marginal probability of response across the spectrum of 5-year recurrence risk was estimated. The risk at which 50% of respondents recommended a treatment was defined as the risk threshold. RESULTS The overall response rate was 56% (89/159). Three separate multivariable models were constructed to estimate the recommendations for clinical follow-up more than twice/year, for surveillance cross-sectional imaging at least once/year, and for adjuvant therapy. A 36% 5-year risk of recurrence was identified as the threshold for recommending clinical follow-up more than twice/year. The thresholds for recommending cross-sectional imaging and adjuvant therapy were 30 and 59%, respectively. Thresholds varied with the age of the hypothetical patient: at younger ages they were constant but increased rapidly at ages 60 years and above. CONCLUSIONS To our knowledge, these data provide the first estimates of clinically significant treatment thresholds for patients with cutaneous melanoma based on risk of recurrence. Future refinement and adoption of thresholds would permit assessment of the clinical utility of novel prognostic tools and represents an early step toward individualizing treatment recommendations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Edmund K Bartlett
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
| | - Douglas Grossman
- Department of Dermatology and Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Susan M Swetter
- Department of Dermatology, Pigmented Lesion and Melanoma Program, Stanford University Medical Center and Cancer Institute, Stanford, USA
- Dermatology Service, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA, USA
| | - Sancy A Leachman
- Department of Dermatology and Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA
| | - Clara Curiel-Lewandrowski
- Department of Dermatology and University of Arizona Cancer Center Skin Cancer Institute, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
| | - Stephen W Dusza
- Dermatology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Jeffrey E Gershenwald
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - John M Kirkwood
- Department of Internal Medicine and UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Amy L Tin
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Andrew J Vickers
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Michael A Marchetti
- Dermatology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Eggermont AMM, Hamid O, Long GV, Luke JJ. Optimal systemic therapy for high-risk resectable melanoma. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2022; 19:431-439. [PMID: 35468949 PMCID: PMC11075933 DOI: 10.1038/s41571-022-00630-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 03/29/2022] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
Immunotherapy with immune-checkpoint inhibitors and molecularly targeted therapy with BRAF inhibitors were pioneered in the setting of advanced-stage, unresectable melanoma, where they revolutionized treatment and considerably improved patient survival. These therapeutic approaches have also been successfully transitioned into the resectable disease setting, with the regulatory approvals of ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and dabrafenib plus trametinib as postoperative (adjuvant) treatments for various, overlapping groups of patients with high-risk melanoma. Moreover, these agents have shown variable promise when used in the preoperative (neoadjuvant) period. The expanding range of treatment options available for resectable high-risk melanoma, all of which come with risks as well as benefits, raises questions over selection of the optimal therapeutic strategy and agents for each individual, also considering that many patients might be cured with surgery alone. Furthermore, the use of perioperative therapy has potentially important implications for the management of patients who have disease recurrence. In this Viewpoint, we asked four expert investigators and medical or surgical oncologists who have been involved in the key studies of perioperative systemic therapies for their perspectives on the optimal management of patients with high-risk melanoma.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander M M Eggermont
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Munich, Munich, Germany.
- Princess Máxima Center for Paediatric Oncology, Utrecht, Netherlands.
- University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
| | - Omid Hamid
- The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Cedar Sinai Affiliate, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
| | - Georgia V Long
- Melanoma Institute Australia and Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
- Mater and Royal North Shore Hospitals, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
| | - Jason J Luke
- Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
- UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Mulder EEAP, Johansson I, Grünhagen DJ, Tempel D, Rentroia-Pacheco B, Dwarkasing JT, Verver D, Mooyaart AL, van der Veldt AAM, Wakkee M, Nijsten TEC, Verhoef C, Mattsson J, Ny L, Hollestein LM, Olofsson Bagge R. Using a Clinicopathologic and Gene Expression (CP-GEP) Model to Identify Stage I-II Melanoma Patients at Risk of Disease Relapse. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14122854. [PMID: 35740520 PMCID: PMC9220976 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14122854] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/06/2022] [Revised: 06/01/2022] [Accepted: 06/05/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: The current standard of care for patients without sentinel node (SN) metastasis (i.e., stage I−II melanoma) is watchful waiting, while >40% of patients with stage IB−IIC will eventually present with disease recurrence or die as a result of melanoma. With the prospect of adjuvant therapeutic options for patients with a negative SN, we assessed the performance of a clinicopathologic and gene expression (CP-GEP) model, a model originally developed to predict SN metastasis, to identify patients with stage I−II melanoma at risk of disease relapse. Methods: This study included patients with cutaneous melanoma ≥18 years of age with a negative SN between October 2006 and December 2017 at the Sahlgrenska University Hospital (Sweden) and Erasmus MC Cancer Institute (The Netherlands). According to the CP-GEP model, which can be applied to the primary melanoma tissue, the patients were stratified into high or low risk of recurrence. The primary aim was to assess the 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) of low- and high-risk CP-GEP. A secondary aim was to compare the CP-GEP model with the EORTC nomogram, a model based on clinicopathological variables only. Results: In total, 535 patients (stage I−II) were included. CP-GEP stratification among these patients resulted in a 5-year RFS of 92.9% (95% confidence interval (CI): 86.4−96.4) in CP-GEP low-risk patients (n = 122) versus 80.7% (95%CI: 76.3−84.3) in CP-GEP high-risk patients (n = 413; hazard ratio 2.93 (95%CI: 1.41−6.09), p < 0.004). According to the EORTC nomogram, 25% of the patients were classified as having a ‘low risk’ of recurrence (96.8% 5-year RFS (95%CI 91.6−98.8), n = 130), 49% as ‘intermediate risk’ (88.4% 5-year RFS (95%CI 83.6−91.8), n = 261), and 26% as ‘high risk’ (61.1% 5-year RFS (95%CI 51.9−69.1), n = 137). Conclusion: In these two independent European cohorts, the CP-GEP model was able to stratify patients with stage I−II melanoma into two groups differentiated by RFS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Evalyn E. A. P. Mulder
- Departments of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands; (E.E.A.P.M.); (D.J.G.); (D.V.); (C.V.)
- Departments of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands;
| | - Iva Johansson
- Departments of Pathology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, 413 45 Gothenburg, Sweden;
- Departments of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences at Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden;
| | - Dirk J. Grünhagen
- Departments of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands; (E.E.A.P.M.); (D.J.G.); (D.V.); (C.V.)
| | - Dennie Tempel
- SkylineDx B.V., 3062 ME Rotterdam, The Netherlands; (D.T.); (B.R.-P.); (J.T.D.)
| | | | | | - Daniëlle Verver
- Departments of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands; (E.E.A.P.M.); (D.J.G.); (D.V.); (C.V.)
| | - Antien L. Mooyaart
- Department of Pathology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands;
| | - Astrid A. M. van der Veldt
- Departments of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands;
- Departments of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marlies Wakkee
- Departments of Dermatology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands; (M.W.); (T.E.C.N.)
| | - Tamar E. C. Nijsten
- Departments of Dermatology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands; (M.W.); (T.E.C.N.)
| | - Cornelis Verhoef
- Departments of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands; (E.E.A.P.M.); (D.J.G.); (D.V.); (C.V.)
| | - Jan Mattsson
- Departments of Surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, 413 45 Gothenburg, Sweden; (J.M.); (R.O.B.)
| | - Lars Ny
- Departments of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences at Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden;
- Departments of Oncology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, 413 45 Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Loes M. Hollestein
- Departments of Dermatology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands; (M.W.); (T.E.C.N.)
- Department of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL), 3511 DT Utrecht, The Netherlands
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +31-6-5003-24-07
| | - Roger Olofsson Bagge
- Departments of Surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, 413 45 Gothenburg, Sweden; (J.M.); (R.O.B.)
- Departments of Surgery, Institute of Clinical Sciences at Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden
- Wallenberg Centre for Molecular and Translational Medicine, University of Gothenburg, 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Straker RJ, Sharon CE, Chu EY, Miura JT, Ming ME, Karakousis GC. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with clinical stage IIB/C cutaneous melanoma: A national cohort study. J Am Acad Dermatol 2022; 87:754-760. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2022.04.025] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/28/2022] [Revised: 03/17/2022] [Accepted: 04/08/2022] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
|
10
|
Whitman ED, Guenther JM. RE: More sentinel lymph node biopsies for thin melanomas after transition to AJCC 8th edition do not increase positivity rate: A Danish population-based study of 7148 patients. J Surg Oncol 2022; 125:1343-1344. [PMID: 35353374 DOI: 10.1002/jso.26775] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/12/2021] [Accepted: 12/13/2021] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Eric D Whitman
- Atlantic Health System Cancer Care, Atlantic Health System, Morristown, New Jersey, USA
| | - J Michael Guenther
- St. Elizabeth Physicians General & Vascular Surgery, Ft. Mitchell, Kentucky, USA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
A decade of checkpoint blockade immunotherapy in melanoma: understanding the molecular basis for immune sensitivity and resistance. Nat Immunol 2022; 23:660-670. [PMID: 35241833 DOI: 10.1038/s41590-022-01141-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 209] [Impact Index Per Article: 104.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2021] [Accepted: 01/18/2022] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
Ten years since the immune checkpoint inhibitor ipilimumab was approved for advanced melanoma, it is time to reflect on the lessons learned regarding modulation of the immune system to treat cancer and on novel approaches to further extend the efficacy of current and emerging immunotherapies. Here, we review the studies that led to our current understanding of the melanoma immune microenvironment in humans and the mechanistic work supporting these observations. We discuss how this information is guiding more precise analyses of the mechanisms of action of immune checkpoint blockade and novel immunotherapeutic approaches. Lastly, we review emerging evidence supporting the negative impact of melanoma metabolic adaptation on anti-tumor immunity and discuss how to counteract such mechanisms for more successful use of immunotherapy.
Collapse
|
12
|
Eggermont AM, Ascierto PA, Khushalani NI, Schadendorf D, Boland G, Weber J, Lewis KD, Johnson D, Rivalland G, Khattak A, Majem M, Gogas H, Long GV, Currie SL, Chien D, Tagliaferri MA, Carlino MS, Diab A. PIVOT-12: a phase III study of adjuvant bempegaldesleukin plus nivolumab in resected stage III/IV melanoma at high risk for recurrence. Future Oncol 2022; 18:903-913. [PMID: 35073733 DOI: 10.2217/fon-2021-1286] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Bempegaldesleukin (BEMPEG: NKTR-214) is an immunostimulatory IL-2 cytokine prodrug engineered to deliver a controlled, sustained and preferential IL-2 pathway signal. Nivolumab (NIVO), a PD-1 inhibitor, has been shown to prolong survival in patients with advanced melanoma and recurrence-free survival in the adjuvant setting. PIVOT-02 showed that BEMPEG plus NIVO was well-tolerated and demonstrated clinical activity as first-line therapy in metastatic melanoma. PIVOT-12 is a randomized, phase III, global, multicenter, open-label study comparing adjuvant therapy with BEMPEG plus NIVO versus NIVO alone in adult and adolescent patients with completely resected cutaneous stage III/IV melanoma at high risk of recurrence. The primary objective is to compare the efficacy, as measured by recurrence-free survival, of BEMPEG plus NIVO versus NIVO.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander Mm Eggermont
- Princess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology & University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Paolo A Ascierto
- Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione G Pascale, Naples, Italy
| | | | - Dirk Schadendorf
- West German Cancer Center at the University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
| | | | - Jeffrey Weber
- Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Health, New York, NY 10016, USA
| | - Karl D Lewis
- University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, CO 80045, USA
| | | | - Gareth Rivalland
- University of Auckland & Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Adnan Khattak
- Hollywood Private Hospital, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia
| | | | - Helen Gogas
- National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - Georgina V Long
- Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, & Royal North Shore & Mater Hospitals, Sydney, Australia
| | - Sue L Currie
- Nektar Therapeutics, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA
| | - David Chien
- Nektar Therapeutics, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA
| | | | - Matteo S Carlino
- Westmead & Blacktown Hospitals & Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Adi Diab
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Truong TG, Kennedy LB, Patel SP. 25 Years of Adjuvant Therapy in Melanoma: A Perspective on Current Approvals and Insights into Future Directions. Curr Oncol Rep 2022; 24:533-542. [PMID: 35192117 DOI: 10.1007/s11912-022-01232-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 01/12/2022] [Indexed: 11/03/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Thach-Giao Truong
- Kaiser Permanente Northern California, 975 Sereno Drive, Vallejo, CA, 94589, USA
| | - Lucy Boyce Kennedy
- The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Ave CA-60, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA
| | - Sapna P Patel
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 0430, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Park JY, Lee JY, Lee YY, Shim SH, Suh DH, Kim JW. Major clinical research advances in gynecologic cancer in 2021. J Gynecol Oncol 2022; 33:e43. [PMID: 35245004 PMCID: PMC8899869 DOI: 10.3802/jgo.2022.33.e43] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/10/2022] [Revised: 02/20/2022] [Accepted: 02/20/2022] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
In the 2021 series, we not only summarized the major clinical research advances in gynecologic oncology but also added discussions to every part, based on communications at the conference. A review of cervical cancer included adjuvant treatments such as radiation and chemoradiation (concurrent or sequential) after radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer, and immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced, recurrent, and metastatic disease. Ovarian cancer research included studies of secondary cytoreductive surgery in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer, and various trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors with or without vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors and conventional chemotherapy. The rechallenge of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor maintenance in heavily pretreated ovarian cancer were also addressed. For uterine corpus cancer, dostarlimab (anti-programmed cell death protein 1 antibody) alone, or a tyrosine kinase inhibitor in combination with pembrolizumab for advanced, metastatic, or recurrent endometrial cancer were reviewed. The survival differences between the intensive and minimalist follow-up protocols were also described. In this review, we compared salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy in terms of quality of life in BRCA 1 and 2 pathogenic variant carriers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeong-Yeol Park
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jung-Yun Lee
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Yoo-Young Lee
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Seung-Hyuk Shim
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Research Institute of Medical Science, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Dong Hoon Suh
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea
| | - Jae-Weon Kim
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Friedman CF, Hainsworth JD, Kurzrock R, Spigel DR, Burris HA, Sweeney CJ, Meric-Bernstam F, Wang Y, Levy J, Grindheim J, Shames DS, Schulze K, Patel A, Swanton C. Atezolizumab Treatment of Tumors With High Tumor Mutational Burden From MyPathway, a Multicenter, Open-label, Phase 2a Multiple Basket Study. Cancer Discov 2021; 12:654-669. [PMID: 34876409 PMCID: PMC9394388 DOI: 10.1158/2159-8290.cd-21-0450] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/13/2021] [Revised: 10/15/2021] [Accepted: 12/02/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
High tumor mutational burden (TMB-H) correlates with improved immunotherapy response. We assessed atezolizumab 1,200 mg every 3 weeks for TMB-H tumors from MyPathway (NCT02091141), a phase IIa multibasket study. One hundred twenty-one patients had advanced solid tumors with TMB ≥10 mut/Mb by any Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)–certified assay. The preplanned primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) in patients with TMB ≥16 mut/Mb tumors by FoundationOne TMB testing [F1(CDx)]. Patients with F1(CDx) TMB ≥10 and <16 mut/Mb were also evaluated. Ninety patients with 19 tumor types and F1(CDx) TMB ≥10 mut/Mb were efficacy evaluable. In 42 patients with F1(CDx) TMB ≥16 mut/Mb, confirmed ORR was 38.1% [16/42; 95% confidence interval (CI), 23.6–54.4], and disease control rate was 61.9% (26/42; 95% CI, 45.6–76.4) versus 2.1% (1/48; 95% CI, 0.1–11.1) and 22.9% (11/48; 95% CI, 12.0–37.3) for 48 patients with TMB ≥10 and <16 mut/Mb. Responses were observed in nine different tumor types (47%; 9/19).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claire F Friedman
- Early Drug Development Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Medical College at Cornell University
| | - John D Hainsworth
- Chief Scientific Officer, Sarah Cannon Research Institute/Tennessee Oncology, PLLC
| | - Razelle Kurzrock
- Worldwide Innovative Network (WIN) for Personalized Cancer Therapy, Worldwide Innovative Network (WIN) for Personalized Cancer Therapy
| | | | - Howard A Burris
- Department of Medicine/Medical Oncology, Sarah Cannon Research Institute
| | | | - Funda Meric-Bernstam
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Charles Swanton
- Cancer Evolution and Genome Instability Laboratory, The Francis Crick Institute
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Amabile S, Roccuzzo G, Pala V, Tonella L, Rubatto M, Merli M, Fava P, Ribero S, Fierro MT, Queirolo P, Quaglino P. Clinical Significance of Distant Metastasis-Free Survival (DMFS) in Melanoma: A Narrative Review from Adjuvant Clinical Trials. J Clin Med 2021; 10:jcm10235475. [PMID: 34884176 PMCID: PMC8658595 DOI: 10.3390/jcm10235475] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/26/2021] [Revised: 11/04/2021] [Accepted: 11/17/2021] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Cutaneous melanoma is the most dangerous skin cancer, with high death rates in advanced stages. To assess the impact of each treatment on patient outcomes, most studies use relapse-free survival (RFS) as a primary endpoint and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) as a secondary endpoint. The aim of this narrative review of the main adjuvant studies for resected stage III/IV melanoma, with a specific focus on DMFS, is to evaluate DMFS trends and their potential association with RFS, identify which treatments are possibly associated with better outcomes in terms of DMFS and their potential predictive factors, and discuss DMFS trends in terms of patient management in daily practice. We outline the impact of each available treatment option on DMFS and RFS according to the years of follow-up and compare data from different studies. Overall, the trends of DMFS closely follow those of RFS, with most patients relapsing at visceral rather than regional sites. As it captures the burden of patients who develop distant relapse, DMFS could be considered a primary endpoint, in addition to RFS, in adjuvant trials, identifying patients whose relapse is associated with a worse prognosis and who may need further systemic treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simone Amabile
- Section of Dermatology, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, 10126 Torino, Italy; (S.A.); (V.P.); (L.T.); (M.R.); (M.M.); (P.F.); (S.R.); (M.T.F.); (P.Q.)
| | - Gabriele Roccuzzo
- Section of Dermatology, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, 10126 Torino, Italy; (S.A.); (V.P.); (L.T.); (M.R.); (M.M.); (P.F.); (S.R.); (M.T.F.); (P.Q.)
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +39-01-1633-5843
| | - Valentina Pala
- Section of Dermatology, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, 10126 Torino, Italy; (S.A.); (V.P.); (L.T.); (M.R.); (M.M.); (P.F.); (S.R.); (M.T.F.); (P.Q.)
| | - Luca Tonella
- Section of Dermatology, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, 10126 Torino, Italy; (S.A.); (V.P.); (L.T.); (M.R.); (M.M.); (P.F.); (S.R.); (M.T.F.); (P.Q.)
| | - Marco Rubatto
- Section of Dermatology, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, 10126 Torino, Italy; (S.A.); (V.P.); (L.T.); (M.R.); (M.M.); (P.F.); (S.R.); (M.T.F.); (P.Q.)
| | - Martina Merli
- Section of Dermatology, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, 10126 Torino, Italy; (S.A.); (V.P.); (L.T.); (M.R.); (M.M.); (P.F.); (S.R.); (M.T.F.); (P.Q.)
| | - Paolo Fava
- Section of Dermatology, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, 10126 Torino, Italy; (S.A.); (V.P.); (L.T.); (M.R.); (M.M.); (P.F.); (S.R.); (M.T.F.); (P.Q.)
| | - Simone Ribero
- Section of Dermatology, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, 10126 Torino, Italy; (S.A.); (V.P.); (L.T.); (M.R.); (M.M.); (P.F.); (S.R.); (M.T.F.); (P.Q.)
| | - Maria Teresa Fierro
- Section of Dermatology, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, 10126 Torino, Italy; (S.A.); (V.P.); (L.T.); (M.R.); (M.M.); (P.F.); (S.R.); (M.T.F.); (P.Q.)
| | - Paola Queirolo
- Division of Medical Oncology for Melanoma, Sarcoma, and Rare Tumors, European Institute of Oncology (IEO), European Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS), 20141 Milan, Italy;
| | - Pietro Quaglino
- Section of Dermatology, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, 10126 Torino, Italy; (S.A.); (V.P.); (L.T.); (M.R.); (M.M.); (P.F.); (S.R.); (M.T.F.); (P.Q.)
| |
Collapse
|