Adjuvant vemurafenib in resected, BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma (BRIM8): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, phase 3 trial

Understanding quality of life issues in patients with advanced melanoma: Phase 1 and 2 in the development of the EORTC advanced melanoma module

AIMS

We aimed to develop a European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life (QoL) module tailored for patients with advanced (resectable or unresectable stage III/IV) melanoma receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors or targeted therapy.

METHODS

Following the EORTC QoL Group module development guidelines, we conducted phases 1 and 2 of the development process. In phase 1, we generated a list of health-related (HR)QoL issues through a systematic literature review and semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients with advanced melanoma. In phase 2, these issues were converted into questionnaire items to create the preliminary module.

RESULTS

Phase 1: we retrieved 8006 articles for the literature review, of which 35 were deemed relevant, resulting in 84 HRQoL issues being extracted to create the initial issue list. Semi-structured interviews with 18 HCPs and 28 patients with advanced melanoma resulted in 28 issues being added to the initial issue list. Following EORTC module development criteria, 26 issues were removed, and two issues were added after review by patient advocates. Phase 2: To ensure uniformity and avoid duplication, 16 issues were consolidated into eight items. Additionally, an independent expert contributed one new item, resulting in a preliminary module comprising 80 HRQoL items.

CONCLUSION

We identified a range of HRQoL issues (dry skin, xerostomia, and arthralgia) relevant to patients with stage III/IV melanoma. Future module development phases will refine the questionnaire. Once completed, this module will enable standardized assessment of HRQoL in patients with (locally) advanced melanoma.

Updates on eyelid cancers

In this review, we aim to provide an overview of the five most common malignant eyelid tumors with current treatment recommendations based on international guidelines. Particular attention is paid to the clinicopathological correlation and the update with regard to adequate treatment. Newer systemic therapies enrich the existing treatment options, of which complete tumor excision remains the most important therapeutic measure.

Treatment of Stage III Resectable Melanoma-Adjuvant and Neoadjuvant Approaches

ABSTRACT

Patients with stage III resectable melanoma carry a high risk of melanoma recurrence that ranges from approximately 40% to 90% at 5 years following surgical management alone. Postoperative systemic adjuvant therapy targets residual micrometastatic disease that could be the source of future recurrence and death from melanoma. Randomized phase III adjuvant trials reported significant improvements in overall survival with high-dose interferon α in 2 of 3 studies (compared with observation and GMK ganglioside vaccine) and with anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 ipilimumab at 10 mg/kg compared with placebo and ipilimumab 3 mg/kg compared with high-dose interferon α. In the modern era, more recent phase III trials demonstrated significant recurrence-free survival improvements with anti-programmed cell death protein 1, pembrolizumab, and BRAF-MEK inhibitor combination dabrafenib-trametinib (for BRAF mutant melanoma) versus placebo. Furthermore, anti-programmed cell death protein 1, nivolumab and pembrolizumab have both been shown to significantly improve recurrence-free survival as compared with ipilimumab 10 mg/kg. For melanoma patients with clinically or radiologically detectable locoregionally advanced disease, emerging data support an important role for preoperative systemic neoadjuvant therapy. Importantly, a recent cooperative group trial (S1801) reported superior event-free survival rates with neoadjuvant versus adjuvant therapy. Collectively, current data from neoadjuvant immunotherapy and targeted therapy trials support a future change in clinical practice in favor of neoadjuvant therapy for eligible melanoma patients.

What Is the Timing and Role of Targeted Therapy in Metastatic Melanoma?

ABSTRACT

Melanoma is the most lethal cutaneous malignancy worldwide. The last 15 years have ushered in several regulatory approvals that have dramatically altered the landscape of treatment options for patients with melanoma. Many patients with melanoma harbor activating mutations in the BRAF proto-oncogene, a key component of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) intracellular signaling pathway. Therapies targeting BRAF have led to remarkable improvements in both response rates and survival in patients with metastatic disease. In parallel with these developments in MAPK-targeted therapy has been the clinical development of immune checkpoint inhibitors, which also have improved response rates and survival in patients with metastatic disease including randomized trials compared with MAPK-targeted therapy in patients with advanced, BRAF-mutant melanoma. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have become the preferred first-line standard-of-care treatment for patients with newly diagnosed metastatic disease in patients irrespective of BRAF mutational status. Given these developments, it is now less clear how to optimize the use of MAPK-targeted therapy regarding treatment setting and in sequence with immune checkpoint inhibitor.

MitoCur-1 induces ferroptosis to reverse vemurafenib resistance in melanoma through inhibition of USP14

Melanoma is an aggressive malignant tumor with a poor prognosis. Vemurafenib (PLX4032, vem) is applied to specifically treat BRAF V600E-mutated melanoma patients. However, prolonged usage of vem makes patients resistant to the drug and finally leads to clinical failure. We previously tested the combination regimen of tubulin inhibitor VERU-111 with vem, as well as USP14 selective inhibitor b-AP15 in combination with vem, both of which have showed profound therapeutic effects in overcoming vem resistance in vitro and in vivo. Most importantly, we discovered that vem-resistant melanoma cell lines highly expressed E3 ligase SKP2 and DUB enzyme USP14, and we have demonstrated that USP14 directly interacts and stabilizes SKP2, which contributes to vem resistance. These works give us a clue that USP14 might be a promising target to overcome vem resistance in melanoma. MitoCur-1 is a curcumin derivative, which was originally designed to specifically target tumor mitochondria inducing redox imbalance, thereby promoting tumor cell death. In this study, we have demonstrated that it can work as a novel USP14 inhibitor, and thus bears great potential in providing an anti-tumor effect and sensitizing vem-resistant cells by inducing ferroptosis in melanoma. Application of MitoCur-1 dramatically induces USP14 inhibition and inactivation of GPX4 enzyme, meanwhile, increases the depletion of GSH and decreases SLC7A11 expression level. As a result, ferrous iron-dependent lipid ROS accumulated in the cell, inducing ferroptosis, thus sensitizes the vem-resistant melanoma cell. Interestingly, overexpression of USP14 antagonized all the ferroptosis cascade events induced by MitoCur-1, therefore, we conclude that MitoCur-1 induces ferroptosis through inhibition of USP14. We believe that by inhibition of USP14, vem resistance can be reversed and will finally benefit melanoma patients in future.

BRAF-Mutated Melanoma Journey in Latin America: Expert Recommendations From Diagnosis to Treatment

OBJECTIVES

• Gather a panel of Latin American experts in testing and treating BRAF-melanoma. • Describe the current landscape of BRAF-mutated melanoma in Latin America. • Outline the current gaps in testing and recommend improvements for testing and treating BRAF-mutated melanoma in the region.

INTRODUCTION

Melanoma prevalence in Latin America is lower than in high- and middle-income countries. However, recent data indicate that the region's incidence and mortality are rising, with more stage IV patients being diagnosed. According to international clinical practice guidelines, conducting BRAF-mutation testing in patients with stage III or stage IV melanoma and high-risk resected disease is imperative. Still, BRAF-mutation testing and targeted therapies are inconsistently available in the region.

METHODS

Americas Health Foundation convened a meeting of Latin American experts on BRAF-mutated melanoma to develop guidelines and recommendations for diagnosis through treatment.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Some recommendations for improving diagnostics through improving access and reducing the cost of BRAF-mutation testing, enhancing efficiency in pathology laboratories, and creating country-specific local guidelines. The panel also gave treatment recommendations for neo-adjuvant therapy, adjuvant therapy, and therapy for patients with metastatic disease in Latin America.

Targeted therapeutic strategies for melanoma

ABSTRACT

Melanoma accounts for a small proportion of skin cancers diagnosed each year, but it has a high degree of malignancy and rapid progression, resulting in a short survival period for patients. The incidence of melanoma continues to rise, and now melanoma accounts for 1.7% of cancer diagnoses worldwide and is the fifth most common cancer in the United States. With the development of high-throughput sequencing technologies, the understanding of the pathophysiology of melanoma had also been improved. The most common activating mutations in melanoma cells are BRAF , NRAS , and KIT mutations, which disrupt cell signaling pathways related to tumor proliferation. The progress has led to the emergence of molecularly targeted drugs, which extends the survival of patients with advanced melanoma. A large number of clinical trials have been conducted to confirm that targeted therapy for patients with advanced melanoma can improve progression-free survival and overall survival, and for stage III patients after radical tumor resection targeted therapy can reduce the recurrence of melanoma. Patients who were originally stage III or IV inoperable have the opportunity to achieve tumor radical resection after targeted therapy. This article reviewed the clinical trial data and summarized the clinical benefits and limitations of these therapies.

Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies in resected melanoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background: Multiple immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and targeted therapies have been widely used as adjuvant treatments for high-risk resected melanoma, with unclear comparative efficacy and safety. Methods: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from database inception until 6 June 2023. We included RCTs that assess adjuvant ICIs or targeted therapies in high-risk resected melanoma. Frequentist random-effect network meta-analyses (NMA) were performed. The primary outcome was recurrence-free survival (RFS). Results: Eleven trials including 10,712 patients and comparing 10 treatments (nivolumab [Nivo], ipilimumab 3 mg/kg [Ipi3], Ipi10, pembrolizumab [Pemb], vemurafenib [Vemu], bevacizumab [Beva], Nivo + Ipi1, Nivo + Ipi3, dabrafenib plus trametinib [Dab + Tram], and placebo/observation [Pla/Obs]) were included. NMA showed that all treatments showed RFS benefit over placebo/observation except Ipi3 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.58-1.05). Combination therapy of Nivo + Ipi3 was the most effective treatment, which significantly improved RFS compared with other treatments. NMA also showed that all treatments were associated with an increased risk of grade 3-5 adverse events over placebo/observation except Nivo (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.87-1.80). NMA suggested that Nivo and Pemb were the two safest treatments except for placebo/observation. Although three combination therapies ranked as the top three in terms of RFS, they did not show significant overall survival benefits compared to monotherapies including Pemb, Nivo, Ipi3, and Ipi10. Conclusion: In this NMA, adjuvant Nivo and Pemb are the preferred options in patients with resected melanoma considering the benefits and harms. Combination therapy of Nivo + Ipi3 may be a promising strategy, but more evidence from phase 3 trials is needed. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=438667, PROSPERO (CRD42023438667).

Systemic Therapy for Melanoma: ASCO Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To provide guidance to clinicians regarding the use of systemic therapy for melanoma.

METHODS

American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel and conducted an updated systematic review of the literature.

RESULTS

The updated review identified 21 additional randomized trials.

UPDATED RECOMMENDATIONS

Neoadjuvant pembrolizumab was newly recommended for patients with resectable stage IIIB to IV cutaneous melanoma. For patients with resected cutaneous melanoma, adjuvant nivolumab or pembrolizumab was newly recommended for stage IIB-C disease and adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab was added as a potential option for stage IV disease. For patients with unresectable or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, nivolumab plus relatlimab was added as a potential option regardless of BRAF mutation status and nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab was preferred over BRAF/MEK inhibitor therapy. Talimogene laherparepvec is no longer recommended as an option for patients with BRAF wild-type disease who have progressed on anti-PD-1 therapy. Ipilimumab- and ipilimumab-containing regimens are no longer recommended for patients with BRAF-mutated disease after progression on other therapies.This full update incorporates the new recommendations for uveal melanoma published in the 2022 Rapid Recommendation Update.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/melanoma-guidelines.

Adjuvant Targeted Therapy in Solid Cancers: Pioneers and New Glories

Targeted therapy (TT) has revolutionized cancer treatment, successfully applied in various settings. Adjuvant TT in resected early-stage gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST), melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and breast cancer has led to practice-changing achievements. In particular, standard treatments include BRAF inhibitors for melanoma, osimertinib for NSCLC, hormone therapy or HER2 TT for breast cancer, and imatinib for GIST. Despite the undeniable benefit derived from adjuvant TT, the optimal duration of TT and the appropriate managing of the relapse remain open questions. Furthermore, neoadjuvant TT is emerging as valuable, particularly in breast cancer, and ongoing studies evaluate TT in the perioperative setting for early-stage NSCLC. In this review, we aim to collect and describe the large amount of data available in the literature about adjuvant TT across different histologies, focusing on epidemiology, major advances, and future directions.

Treatment management for BRAF-mutant melanoma patients with tumor recurrence on adjuvant therapy: a multicenter study from the prospective skin cancer registry ADOREG

BACKGROUND

Adjuvant therapy with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) or BRAF/MEK-directed targeted therapy (TT) improves recurrence-free survival (RFS) for patients with advanced, BRAFV600-mutant (BRAFmut) resected melanoma. However, 40% of these patients will develop distant metastases (DM) within 5 years, which require systemic therapy. Little data exist to guide the choice of upfront adjuvant therapy or treatment management upon DM. This study evaluated the efficacy of subsequent treatments following tumor recurrence upon upfront adjuvant therapy.

METHODS

For this multicenter cohort study, we identified 515 BRAFmut patients with resected stage III melanoma who were treated with PD-1 inhibitors (anti-PD1) or TT in the adjuvant setting. Disease characteristics, treatment regimens, details on tumor recurrence, subsequent treatment management, and survival outcomes were collected within the prospective, real-world skin cancer registry ADOReg. Primary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) following DM and best tumor response to first-line (1L) treatments.

RESULTS

Among 515 eligible patients, 273 patients received adjuvant anti-PD1 and 242 adjuvant TT. At a median follow-up of 21 months, 54.6% of anti-PD1 patients and 36.4% of TT patients recurred, while 39.6% (anti-PD1) and 29.3% (TT) developed DM. Risk of recurrence was significantly reduced in patients treated with TT compared with anti-PD1 (adjusted HR 0.52; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.68, p<0.001). Likewise, median RFS was significantly longer in TT-treated patients (31 vs 17 months, p<0.001). Patients who received TT as second adjuvant treatment upon locoregional recurrence had a longer RFS2 as compared with adjuvant CPI (41 vs 6 months, p=0.009). Patients who recurred at distant sites following adjuvant TT showed favorable response rates (42.9%) after switching to 1L ipilimumab+nivolumab (ipi+nivo). Patients with DM during adjuvant anti-PD1 achieved response rates of 58.7% after switching to 1L TT and 35.3% for 1L ipi+nivo. Overall, median PFS was significantly longer in patients who switched treatments for stage IV disease (median PFS 9 vs 5 months, p=0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

BRAFmut melanoma patients who developed DM upon upfront adjuvant therapy achieve favorable tumor control and prolonged PFS after switching treatment modalities in the first-line setting of stage IV disease. Patients with locoregional recurrence benefit from complete resection of recurrence followed by a second adjuvant treatment with TT.

Adjuvant Therapy for High-Risk Melanoma: An In-Depth Examination of the State of the Field

The consideration of systemic adjuvant therapy is recommended for patients with stage IIB-IV melanoma who have undergone surgical resection due to a heightened risk of experiencing melanoma relapse and mortality from melanoma. Adjuvant therapy options tested over the past three decades include high-dose interferon-α, immune checkpoint inhibitors (pembrolizumab, nivolumab), targeted therapy (dabrafenib-trametinib for BRAF mutant melanoma), radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Most of these therapies have been demonstrated to enhance relapse-free survival (RFS) but with limited to no impact on overall survival (OS), as reported in randomized trials. In contemporary clinical practice, the adjuvant treatment approach for surgically resected stage III-IV melanoma has undergone a notable shift towards the utilization of nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and BRAF-MEK inhibitors, such as dabrafenib plus trametinib (specifically for BRAF mutant melanoma) due to the significant enhancements in RFS observed with these treatments. Pembrolizumab has obtained regulatory approval in the United States to treat resected stage IIB-IIC melanoma, while nivolumab is currently under review for the same indication. This review comprehensively analyzes completed phase III adjuvant therapy trials in adjuvant therapy. Additionally, it provides a summary of ongoing trials and an overview of the main challenges and future directions with adjuvant therapy.

Personalized follow-up of circulating DNA in resected stage III/IV melanoma: PERCIMEL multicentric prospective study protocol

BACKGROUND

With more than 15,000 new cases /year in France and 2,000 deaths, cutaneous melanoma represents approximately 4% of incidental cancers and 1.2% of cancer related deaths. In locally advanced (stage III) or resectable metastatic (stage IV) melanomas, medical adjuvant treatment is proposed and recent advances had shown the benefit of anti-PD1/PDL1 and anti-CTLA4 immunotherapy as well as anti-BRAF and anti-MEK targeted therapy in BRAF V600 mutated tumors. However, the recurence rate at one year is approximately 30% and justify extensive research of predictive biomarkers. If in metastatic disease, the follow-up of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has been demonstrated, its interest in adjuvant setting remains to be precised, especially because of a lower detection rate. Further, the definition of a molecular response could prove useful to personalized treatment.

METHODS

PERCIMEL is an open prospective multicentric study executed through collaboration of the Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine (non-profit comprehensive cancer center) and 6 French university and community hospitals. A total of 165 patients with resected stage III and IV melanoma, eligible to adjuvant imunotherapy or anti-BRAF/MEK kinase inhibitors will be included. The primary endpoint is the presence of ctDNA, 2 to 3 weeks after surgery, defined as mutated ctDNA copy number calculated as the allelic fraction of a clonal mutation relative to total ctDNA. Secondary endpoints are recurrence-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival and specific survival. We will follow ctDNA along treatment, quantitatively through ctDNA mutated copy number variation, qualitatively through the presence of cfDNA and its clonal evolution. Relative and absolute variations of ctDNA during follow-up will be also analyzed. PERCIMEL study aims at provide scientific evidence that ctDNA quantitative and qualitative variations can be used to predict the recurrence of patients with melanoma treated with adjuvant immunotherapy or kinase inhibitors, thus defining the notion of molecular recurrence.

The "Great Debate" at Melanoma Bridge 2022, Naples, December 1st-3rd, 2022

The Great Debate session at the 2022 Melanoma Bridge congress (December 1-3) featured counterpoint views from leading experts on five contemporary topics of debate in the management of melanoma. The debates considered the choice of anti-lymphocyte-activation gene (LAG)-3 therapy or ipilimumab in combination with anti-programmed death (PD)-1 therapy, whether anti-PD-1 monotherapy is still acceptable as a comparator arm in clinical trials, whether adjuvant treatment of melanoma is still a useful treatment option, the role of adjuvant therapy in stage II melanoma, what role surgery will continue to have in the treatment of melanoma. As is customary in the Melanoma Bridge Great Debates, the speakers are invited by the meeting Chairs to express one side of the assigned debate and the opinions given may not fully reflect personal views. Audiences voted in favour of either side of the argument both before and after each debate.

Recurrence Patterns for Regionally Metastatic Melanoma Treated in the Era of Adjuvant Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the timing and patterns of recurrence for patients with regionally metastatic melanoma on the basis of nodal management and receipt of adjuvant therapy.

METHODS

We identified randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies published between 2010 and 2020 that reported timing and/or patterns of recurrence. We evaluated recurrence-free survival (RFS), location of recurrence, and surveillance strategy on the basis of receipt of adjuvant systemic therapy and nodal management with observation versus completion dissection. We compared differences in patterns of recurrence across studies using RevMan. RFS was evaluated graphically using point estimates and confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Among the 19 publications, there was wide variation in study populations, imaging surveillance regimens, and format of recurrence reporting. Patterns of disease recurrence did not differ between adjuvant and placebo/observation groups. A total of 11 studies reported RFS at variable time intervals, which ranged in adjuvant therapy groups (38-88% at 1 year, 29-67% at 2 years, 33-58% at 3 years, and 34-53% at 5 years) and placebo/observation groups (47-63% at 1 year, 39-47% at 2 years, 33-68% at 3 years, and 57% at 5 years). Anti-PD-1 immune therapy and BRAF/MEK inhibitor therapy were superior to placebo at year 1.

DISCUSSION

We found that adjuvant treatment improved RFS but did not alter the patterns of disease recurrence compared with patients managed without adjuvant systemic treatment. Future studies should separately report sites of disease recurrence on the basis of specific adjuvant systemic treatment and surveillance practices to better advise patients about their patterns and risk of recurrence.

Alternatives and reduced need for sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) staging for melanoma

Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) has been introduced in the 1990s to identify patients who might benefit from completion lymph node dissection. Neither SLNB nor CLND improved survival, but SLNB staging did provide the best staging, above Breslow thickness and ulceration. The SLN status and SLN tumour burden were used in all trials until date looking at modern adjuvant systemic therapy with immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) or targeted therapies (TT). Adjuvant ICI and TT are shifting towards stage II melanoma. The question is whether there is still role for SLNB in melanoma, in this day and age, and if so, how does the future look for SLNB staging? The SLN status and SLN tumour burden might be useful for a consultation to discuss the number needed to treat in a risk/benefit discussion. For stage IIB/C patients, it seems likely, however, that patients will forego a nuclear scan followed by the risk of surgical intervention and morbidity associated with SLNB if they opt to receive adjuvant therapy regardless of the SLNB result. For stage I/IIA, it is still required to detect high-risk patients who might benefit from adjuvant therapy. However, biomarkers are emerging, such as gene expression profilers (GEP), immunohistological signatures and liquid biopsies with ctDNA. There still is a role for SLNB staging in melanoma today, but we expect that the availability of therapeutic option independent of SLNB status as well as emergence of validated biomarkers to predict risk will reduce the need for SLNB staging in the upcoming decade to the point it will no longer be used.

Common toxicities associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapy in the treatment of melanoma: A systematic scoping review

INTRODUCTION

This systematic scoping review compares the toxicities experienced by patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) or targeted therapy (TT) for stage III (resected and unresectable) and stage IV melanoma.

METHODS

OVID Medline, Embase, and PsycInfo were searched to identify Phase III trials reporting toxicities of FDA-approved ICIs and TT for advanced melanoma. AEs that were reported by ≥ 10% of patients in the evaluated trials were included.

RESULTS

Toxicity profiles of 11208 patients from 24 studies were reviewed. The rate of AEs was lower with ICIs compared to TT. However, ICIs were associated with higher rates of long-term or permanent AEs compared to TT, where toxicities generally were shortterm and reversible with treatment discontinuation.

CONCLUSION

The toxicity profiles of ICIs and TT vary substantially. Whilst the rate of AEs was lower with ICIs than during TT, it was also associated with higher rates of potentially chronic AEs.

Impact of immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapy on health-related quality of life of people with stage III and IV melanoma: a mixed-methods systematic review

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and targeted therapies (TT) have significantly improved disease control and survival in people with stage III and IV cutaneous melanoma. Understanding the impact of therapy on health-related quality of life (HRQL) is vital for treatment decision-making and determining targets for supportive care intervention. We conducted a mixed-methods systematic review to synthesise the impact of ICIs and TT on all domains of HRQL in these populations.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in April 2022 on MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Quantitative and qualitative data relevant to the review question were extracted and synthesised in tables according to setting (adjuvant versus metastatic), treatment type (ICI versus TT) and HRQL issue.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight papers describing 27 studies were included: 15 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), four cohort studies, four single arm cross-sectional studies, two qualitative studies, one case control study and one mixed-methods study. In four studies of people with resected stage III melanoma, adjuvant pembrolizumab and dabrafenib-trametinib did not clinically or statistically change HRQL compared to baseline. In 17 studies of people with unresectable stage III/IV melanoma, inconsistencies in the impact of ICI on symptoms, functioning and overall HRQL were noted across different study designs. TT was associated with improvements in symptoms, functioning and HRQL across six studies.

CONCLUSION

This review highlights the key physical, psychological and social issues experienced by people with stage III and IV melanoma treated with ICI and TT. Inconsistencies in the impact of ICI on HRQL were observed in different study designs. This highlights the need for treatment-specific patient-reported outcome measures for determining the impact of these therapies on HRQL and real-world data to inform treatment decision-making and appropriate supportive care interventions.

The Evolution of the Sentinel Node Biopsy in Melanoma

The growing repertoire of approved immune-checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapy has revolutionized the adjuvant treatment of melanoma. While the treatment of primary cutaneous melanoma remains wide local excision (WLE), the management of regional lymph nodes continues to evolve in light of practice-changing clinical trials and dramatically improved adjuvant therapy. With large multicenter studies reporting no benefit in overall survival for completion lymph node dissection (CLND) after a positive sentinel node biopsy (SLNB), controversy remains regarding patient selection and clinical decision-making. This review explores the evolution of the SLNB in cutaneous melanoma in the context of a rapidly changing adjuvant treatment landscape, summarizing the key clinical trials which shaped current practice guidelines.

Comparison of efficacy and tolerability of adjuvant therapy for resected high-risk stage III-IV cutaneous melanoma: a systemic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

Background

Although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and targeted therapies have been widely used as adjuvant treatment for resected melanoma, the optimal therapy remains controversial. Therefore, we conducted this updated network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the efficacy and tolerability of adjuvant therapies for cutaneous melanoma.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and Web of Science were systematically searched for relevant literatures published in the last 30 years. Disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and serious adverse events were considered as the efficacy and tolerability outcomes.

Results

In all, 27 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 16,709 stage III-IV melanoma patients were enrolled in this NMA. For BRAF wild-type melanoma, our analysis showed that both nivolumab and pembrolizumab demonstrated significantly better DFS and tolerability than ipilimumab (10 mg/kg). Nivolumab, pembrolizumab, ipilimumab (3 mg/kg), and ipilimumab (10 mg/kg) all appeared to be effective in prolonging OS, but no therapy demonstrated significantly better OS than ipilimumab (10 mg/kg). Nivolumab + ipilimumab showed the best DFS, but did not appear to be effective in improving OS and ranked only seventh in tolerability. Vaccines and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor therapies were well tolerated, but all failed to improve the DFS or OS in stage III melanoma patients. In terms of BRAF mutation-positive melanoma, ICIs (nivolumab + ipilimumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, ipilimumab; 10 mg/kg) exhibited comparable efficacy to dabrafenib + trametinib, and all these therapies showed significantly better DFS than placebo.

Conclusion

Considering efficacy and tolerability, nivolumab and pembrolizumab seem to be preferable adjuvant therapies for patients with stage III-IV melanoma. For BRAF mutation-positive patients, more RCTs are still required to determine which is better between ICIs and targeted therapy.

Clinical Trials in Melanoma: Margins, Lymph Nodes, Targeted and Immunotherapy

Multiple randomized controlled trials have influenced the current standard of care for patients with cutaneous melanoma. Since the development of targeted and immune therapy, studies of adjuvant therapy for patients with resected stage III/IV melanoma have led to the approval of combined B-raf proto-oncogene (BRAF) and mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase inhibitors for patients with a BRAF mutation, and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein-4 or antiprogrammed cell death-1 therapy for patients without a BRAF mutation. This article discusses the details of the trials that have influenced these treatment decisions, in addition to discussing ongoing trials and possible future directions.

BRAF and MEK Inhibitors and Their Toxicities: A Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

This meta-analysis summarizes the incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AE) of BRAFi and MEKi.

METHODS

A systematic search of Medline/PubMed was conducted to identify suitable articles published in English up to 31 December 2021. The primary outcomes were profiles for all-grade and grade 3 or higher treatment-related AEs, and the analysis of single side effects belonging to both categories.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of treatment-related all-grade Aes was 99% for Encorafenib (95% CI: 0.97-1.00) and 97% for Trametinib (95% CI: 0.92-0.99; I² = 66%) and Binimetinib (95% CI: 0.94-0.99; I² = 0%). In combined therapies, the rate was 98% for both Vemurafenib + Cobimetinib (95% CI: 0.96-0.99; I² = 77%) and Encorafenib + Binimetinib (95% CI: 0.96-1.00). Grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported in 69% of cases for Binimetinib (95% CI: 0.50-0.84; I² = 71%), 68% for Encorafenib (95% CI: 0.61-0.74), and 72% for Vemurafenib + Cobimetinib (95% CI: 0.65-0.79; I² = 84%). The most common grade 1-2 AEs were pyrexia (43%) and fatigue (28%) for Dabrafenib + Trametinib and diarrhea for both Vemurafenib + Cobimetinib (52%) and Encorafenib + Binimetinib (34%). The most common AEs of grade 3 or higher were pyrexia, rash, and hypertension for Dabrafenib + Trametinib (6%), rash and hypertension for Encorafenib + Binimetinib (6%), and increased AST and ALT for Vemurafenib + Cobimetinib (10%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study provides comprehensive data on treatment-related adverse events of BRAFi and MEKi combination therapies, showing related toxicity profiles to offer a helpful tool for clinicians in the choice of therapy.

The future of targeted kinase inhibitors in melanoma

Melanoma is a cancer of the pigment-producing cells of the body and its incidence is rising. Targeted inhibitors that act against kinases in the MAPK pathway are approved for BRAF-mutant metastatic cutaneous melanoma and increase patients' survival. Response to these therapies is limited by drug resistance and is less durable than with immune checkpoint inhibition. Conversely, rare melanoma subtypes have few therapeutic options for advanced disease and MAPK pathway targeting agents show minimal anti-tumor effects. Nevertheless, there is a future for targeted kinase inhibitors in melanoma: in new applications such as adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy and in novel combinations with immunotherapies or other targeted therapies. Pre-clinical studies continue to identify tumor dependencies and their corresponding actionable drug targets, paving the way for rational targeted kinase inhibitor combinations as a personalized medicine approach for melanoma.

Systemic adjuvant therapy for high-risk cutaneous melanoma

Cutaneous melanoma continues to increase in incidence and poses a significant mortality risk. Surgical excision of melanoma in its early stages is often curative. However, patients with resected stages IIB-IV are considered at high risk for relapse and death from melanoma where systemic adjuvant therapy is indicated. The long-studied high-dose interferon-α was shown to improve relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) but is no longer in use. Adjuvant therapy with ipilimumab at 10 mg/kg (ipi10) demonstrated significant RFS and OS improvements but at a high cost in terms of toxicity, while adjuvant ipilimumab 3 mg/kg was shown to be equally effective and less toxic. More recently, the adjuvant therapy for resected stages III-IV melanoma in clinical practice has changed in favor of nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and BRAF-MEK inhibitors dabrafenib plus trametinib (for BRAF mutant melanoma) based on significant improvements in RFS as compared to ipi10 (nivolumab and pembrolizumab) and placebo (dabrafenib plus trametinib). For resected stages IIB-IIC melanoma, pembrolizumab achieved regulatory approval in the United States based on significant RFS benefits. In this article, we review completed and ongoing phase III adjuvant therapy trials. We also briefly discuss neoadjuvant therapy for locoregionally advanced melanoma. Finally, we explore recent studies on predictive and prognostic melanoma biomarkers in the adjuvant setting.

Small molecule inhibitors targeting the cancers

Compared with traditional therapies, targeted therapy has merits in selectivity, efficacy, and tolerability. Small molecule inhibitors are one of the primary targeted therapies for cancer. Due to their advantages in a wide range of targets, convenient medication, and the ability to penetrate into the central nervous system, many efforts have been devoted to developing more small molecule inhibitors. To date, 88 small molecule inhibitors have been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration to treat cancers. Despite remarkable progress, small molecule inhibitors in cancer treatment still face many obstacles, such as low response rate, short duration of response, toxicity, biomarkers, and resistance. To better promote the development of small molecule inhibitors targeting cancers, we comprehensively reviewed small molecule inhibitors involved in all the approved agents and pivotal drug candidates in clinical trials arranged by the signaling pathways and the classification of small molecule inhibitors. We discussed lessons learned from the development of these agents, the proper strategies to overcome resistance arising from different mechanisms, and combination therapies concerned with small molecule inhibitors. Through our review, we hoped to provide insights and perspectives for the research and development of small molecule inhibitors in cancer treatment.

Cumulative incidence and risk factors of brain metastasis for acral and mucosal melanoma patients with stages I-III

PURPOSE

Few studies focused on the incidence of brain metastasis in patients with acral and mucosal melanoma, and a better understanding of the incidences and predictors of brain metastasis is needed in these patients.

METHOD

A prospectively accrued cohort of 799 patients with acral and mucosal melanoma in stages I-III from July 2011 to December 2015 at Peking University Cancer Hospital were included in this study. Competing risk models (Fine and Gray) were used to estimate the cumulative incidence of brain metastasis and compare the differences in cumulative incidence curves between different primary lesions, stages, and molecular types.

RESULTS

At a median follow-up time of 68.0 months, 60 of the 779 patients (7.7%) developed brain metastasis, and 261 (33.5%) patients developed extracranial metastasis. Considering the risk of competition, the cumulative incidence of brain metastasis at one year, two years, and five years after diagnosis were 5.1%, 10.2%, and 19.5%, respectively. Stage III, BRAF mutations, and NRAS mutations were associated with a high risk of brain metastasis in univariable analysis. Multivariate analysis showed BRAF mutations, and NRAS mutations had statistically correlated with an increased cumulative incidence of brain metastasis at diagnosis and all-time point of one year and two years after diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

This study is the first to report the cumulative incidence and risk factors of brain metastasis for patients with acral and mucosal melanoma in stages I-III. Patients with BRAF and NRAS mutations had a higher incidence at diagnosis and all-time point, providing the basis for surveillance guidelines and further mechanic exploration.

European consensus-based interdisciplinary guideline for melanoma. Part 2: Treatment - Update 2022

A unique collaboration of multidisciplinary experts from the European Dermatology Forum (EDF), the European Association of Dermato-Oncology (EADO), and the European Organization of Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) was formed to make recommendations on cutaneous melanoma diagnosis and treatment, based on the systematic literature reviews and the experts' experience. Cutaneous melanomas are excised with one to 2-cm safety margins. Sentinel lymph node dissection shall be performed as a staging procedure in patients with tumor thickness ≥1.0 mm or ≥0.8 mm with additional histological risk factors, although there is as yet no clear survival benefit for this approach. Therapeutic decisions in stage III/IV patients should be primarily made by an interdisciplinary oncology team ("tumor board"). Adjuvant therapies can be proposed in stage III/completely resected stage IV patients and are primarily anti-PD-1, independent of mutational status, or alternatively dabrafenib plus trametinib for BRAF mutant patients. In distant metastases (stage IV), either resected or not, systemic treatment is always indicated. For first-line treatment particularly in BRAF wild-type patients, immunotherapy with PD-1 antibodies alone or in combination with CTLA-4 antibodies shall be considered. In stage IV melanoma with a BRAF-V600  E/K mutation, first-line therapy with BRAF/MEK inhibitors can be offered as an alternative to immunotherapy. In patients with primary resistance to immunotherapy and harboring a BRAF-V600  E/K mutation, this therapy shall be offered as second-line therapy. Systemic therapy in stage III/IV melanoma is a rapidly changing landscape, and it is likely that these recommendations may change in the near future.

Current State of Adjuvant Therapy for Melanoma: Less Is More, or More Is Better?

Advances in melanoma treatments over the past decade have changed the course of survival for patients. Several adjuvant therapies have been approved and are now considered standard of care for high-risk patients. These therapies have shown improvements for recurrence-free survival and distant metastases-free survival, but not overall survival, as the data are maturing. The 5-year recurrence-free survival in the COMBI-AD study, which compared dabrafenib and trametinib with placebo, was 65% and 58%, respectively. In the KEYNOTE-054 study, the recurrence-free survival at 3 years was 63.7% versus 41%. Despite these advances, approximately 50% of patients will succumb to their disease. Adjuvant therapy is considered potentially curative and avoids the morbidity of relapsed disease and the poor outcomes seen in metastatic disease. However, the lack of overall survival benefit in clinical trials of patients with high-risk stage II and stage III disease raises the question of whether it is more efficacious to treat when there is residual microscopic disease, or to wait until the disease recurs to avoid treating those who may have been cured by surgery alone. Immunotherapy also has the potential for substantial toxicity that may be lifelong; hence, discussion of risks and benefits of therapy is warranted because there should be less tolerance for substantial toxicity in the adjuvant setting. Adjuvant trials are needed that will integrate biomarkers to allow for better selection of patients who will truly benefit from adjuvant therapy.

Candidate therapeutic agents in a newly established triple wild‐type mucosal melanoma cell line

Background

Mucosal melanoma has characteristically distinct genetic features and typically poor prognosis. The lack of representative mucosal melanoma models, especially cell lines, has hindered translational research on this melanoma subtype. In this study, we aimed to establish and provide the biological properties, genomic features and the pharmacological profiles of a mucosal melanoma cell line that would contribute to the understanding and treatment optimization of molecularly‐defined mucosal melanoma subtype.

Methods

The sample was collected from a 67‐year‐old mucosal melanoma patient and processed into pieces for the establishment of cell line and patient‐derived xenograft (PDX) model. The proliferation and tumorigenic property of cancer cells from different passages were evaluated, and whole‐genome sequencing (WGS) was performed on the original tumor, PDX, established cell line, and the matched blood to confirm the establishment and define the genomic features of this cell line. AmpliconArchitect was conducted to depict the architecture of amplified regions detected by WGS. High‐throughput drug screening (HTDS) assay including a total of 103 therapeutic agents was implemented on the established cell line, and selected candidate agents were validated in the corresponding PDX model.

Results

A mucosal melanoma cell line, MM9H‐1, was established which exhibited robust proliferation and tumorigenicity after more than 100 serial passages. Genomic analysis of MM9H‐1, corresponding PDX, and the original tumor showed genetic fidelity across genomes, and MM9H‐1 was defined as a triple wild‐type (TWT) melanoma subtype lacking well‐characterized “driver mutations”. Instead, the amplification of several oncogenes, telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT), v‐Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1 (BRAF), melanocyte Inducing transcription factor (MITF) and INO80 complex ATPase subunit (INO80), via large‐scale genomic rearrangement potentially contributed to oncogenesis of MM9H‐1. Moreover, HTDS identified proteasome inhibitors, especially bortezomib, as promising therapeutic candidates for MM9H‐1, which was verified in the corresponding PDX model in vivo.

Conclusions

We established and characterized a new mucosal melanoma cell line, MM9H‐1, and defined this cell line as a TWT melanoma subtype lacking well‐characterized “driver mutations”. The MM9H‐1 cell line could be adopted as a unique model for the preclinical investigation of mucosal melanoma.

The "Great Debate" at Melanoma Bridge 2021, December 2nd-4th, 2021

The Great Debate session at the 2021 Melanoma Bridge virtual congress (December 2-4) featured counterpoint views from experts on seven important issues in melanoma. The debates considered the use of adoptive cell therapy versus use of bispecific antibodies, mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) inhibitors versus immunotherapy in the adjuvant setting, whether the use of corticosteroids for the management of side effects have an impact on outcomes, the choice of programmed death (PD)-1 combination therapy with cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen (CTLA)-4 or lymphocyte-activation gene (LAG)-3, whether radiation is needed for brain metastases, when lymphadenectomy should be integrated into the treatment plan and then the last debate, telemedicine versus face-to-face. As with previous Bridge congresses, the debates were assigned by meeting Chairs and positions taken by experts during the debates may not have necessarily reflected their respective personal view. Audiences voted both before and after each debate.

Mechanisms of Immunotherapy Resistance in Cutaneous Melanoma: Recognizing a Shapeshifter

Melanoma is one of the seven most common cancers in the United States, and its incidence is still increasing. Since 2011, developments in targeted therapies and immunotherapies have been essential for significantly improving overall survival rates. Prior to the advent of targeted and immunotherapies, metastatic melanoma was considered a death sentence, with less than 5% of patients surviving more than 5 years. With the implementation of immunotherapies, approximately half of patients with metastatic melanoma now survive more than 5 years. Unfortunately, this also means that half of the patients with melanoma do not respond to current therapies and live less than 5 years after diagnosis. One major factor that contributes to lower response in this population is acquired or primary resistance to immunotherapies via tumor immune evasion. To improve the overall survival of melanoma patients new treatment strategies must be designed to minimize the risk of acquired resistance and overcome existing primary resistance. In recent years, many advances have been made in identifying and understanding the pathways that contribute to tumor immune evasion throughout the course of immunotherapy treatment. In addition, results from clinical trials focusing on treating patients with immunotherapy-resistant melanoma have reported some initial findings. In this review, we summarize important mechanisms that drive resistance to immunotherapies in patients with cutaneous melanoma. We have focused on tumor intrinsic characteristics of resistance, altered immune function, and systemic factors that contribute to immunotherapy resistance in melanoma. Exploring these pathways will hopefully yield novel strategies to prevent acquired resistance and overcome existing resistance to immunotherapy treatment in patients with cutaneous melanoma.

Therapeutic Efficacy of Pharmacological Ascorbate on Braf Inhibitor Resistant Melanoma Cells In Vitro and In Vivo

High-dose ascorbate paradoxically acts as a pro-oxidant causing the formation of hydrogen peroxide in an oxygen dependent manner. Tumor cells (in particular melanoma cells) show an increased vulnerability to ascorbate induced reactive oxygen species (ROS). Therefore, high-dose ascorbate is a promising pharmacological approach to treating refractory melanomas, e.g., with secondary resistance to targeted BRAF inhibitor therapy. BRAF mutated melanoma cells were treated with ascorbate alone or in combination with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib. Viability, cell cycle, ROS production, and the protein levels of phospho-ERK1/2, GLUT-1 and HIF-1α were analyzed. To investigate the treatment in vivo, C57BL/6NCrl mice were subcutaneously injected with D4M.3A (Braf^V600E) melanoma cells and treated with intraperitoneal injections of ascorbate with or without vemurafenib. BRAF mutated melanoma cell lines either sensitive or resistant to vemurafenib were susceptible to the induction of cell death by pharmacological ascorbate. Treatment of Braf^V600E melanoma bearing mice with ascorbate resulted in plasma levels in the pharmacologically active range and significantly improved the therapeutic effect of vemurafenib. We conclude that intravenous high-dose ascorbate will be beneficial for melanoma patients by interfering with the tumor’s energy metabolism and can be safely combined with standard melanoma therapies such as BRAF inhibitors without pharmacological interference.

Real-world frequency of BRAF testing and utilization of therapies in patients with advanced melanoma

Both BRAF/MEK targeted agents and immunotherapy are approved for the treatment of advanced melanoma. BRAF testing is recommended at the time of advanced melanoma diagnosis. In addition, little is known regarding the treatment trends for patients with BRAF mutated tumors. This investigation aims to assess the real-world prevalence of molecular testing and treatment trends for patients with BRAF mutated tumors. Using a de-identified database, patients of age ≥18 years with advanced melanoma from 2013 to 2018 were examined. Molecular testing performed within 3 months of advanced diagnosis was considered to have the test performed at the time of diagnosis. Test prevalence was calculated and compared in groups stratified by the patient, tumor and treatment factors. In total 4459 patients were included; 1936 (43.4%) stage III, 1191 (26.7%) stage IV and 1332 (29.9%) recurrent. Totally 50.4% of patients received systemic treatment; 76.4% stage IV, 71% recurrent patients and 26.7% stage III patients. However, 73.5% received first-line immunotherapy. In total 73.8% of patients had molecular testing, and 50.5% had tested at the time of advanced diagnosis. Of those tested 42% had a BRAF mutated tumor. In total 48% of these patients received first-line immunotherapy whereas 43% received a BRAF inhibitor, with increasing immunotherapy use seen over time. The majority of patients with advanced melanoma undergo molecular testing at the time of advanced diagnosis. Immunotherapy is the most commonly prescribed treatment regardless of BRAF mutational status. These results provide real-world data on the frequency of molecular testing and treatment trends for patients with advanced melanoma.

Comparison of Two Rapid Assays for the Detection of BRAF V600 Mutations in Metastatic Melanoma including Positive Sentinel Lymph Nodes

Testing for the BRAF mutation is mandatory for the management of patients with locally advanced or metastatic melanoma. Molecular analysis based on DNA sequencing remains the gold-standard method for the screening of the different BRAF mutations. These methods must be rapid, sensitive, and specific enough to allow optimal therapeutic management in daily practice and also to include patients in clinical trials. Here, we compared the Idylla BRAF Mutation Test and the anti-BRAF V600E (clone VE1) immunohistochemistry (IHC) in 90 melanoma samples, with a focus on a challenging cohort of 32 positive sentinel lymph nodes. The BRAF status was assessed with both methods independently of the percentage of tumor cells. The concordance rate was calculated excluding both non-contributory analyses and BRAFV600K/R/M mutants due to the specific V600E-IHC test design. The incidence of the BRAFV600E mutation was 33% with both BRAF Idylla and BRAF IHC. The agreement rate was 91% (72/79). Although the agreement rate was high, we suggest that the use of IHC is more suitable for rapid BRAF testing on sentinel lymph node biopsies when associated with a low percentage and scattered tumor cells, which gave a high risk of non-contributory analysis and/or false negative results with the Idylla^TMBRAF Mutation Test.

Die Systemtherapie des malignen Melanoms

In den vergangenen 10 Jahren wurde die Systemtherapie des malignen Melanoms durch die Zulassung neuer Substanzen revolutioniert. In der vorliegenden Übersicht werden zunächst die aktuellen adjuvanten Therapiemöglichkeiten beschrieben, anschließend werden der Kenntnisstand zur neoadjuvanten Therapie dargestellt und schließlich die Behandlungsoptionen im inoperablen Stadium beleuchtet.

Adjuvant treatment of high-risk melanoma - cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment options for BRAF 600 mutated tumors

INTRODUCTION

Until recently, adjuvant treatment options for higher stage resectable cutaneous melanoma were limited. Two studies with a similar set-up, published 2017, led to registration of targeted therapy for BRAF-mutated melanoma with dabrafenib and trametinib as well as of the immunotherapy with nivolumab irrespective of BRAF-mutation status. Both options have been positively assessed in Germany since 2019 for the adjuvant treatment of BRAF-V600 mutated melanoma. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of both treatment alternatives (dabrafenib/trametinib and nivolumab) against observation as a comparative therapy from the perspective of German statutory health funds.

METHODS

Partitioned survival analysis based on published survival curves for the investigated treatment options was used for a cohort model for the health states relapse free survival, progression, and death. The partitioned survival analysis approach was based on the survival curves published for the key studies Combi AD and Checkmate-238. The modelling was performed for the remaining lifetime for a cohort with starting age of 50 years. For extrapolation of the survival curves, convergence to general population mortality rates was assumed in the long term. Within the progression state, a Markov model uses three levels of progressions (locoregional, distant metastases with 1st and 2nd line treatment). Lifetime treatment costs were calculated using the German statutory health fund reimbursement scheme. Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) associated to the health states were adopted from previously published utilities based on the Combi AD study.

RESULTS

The treatment with dabrafenib/trametinib yielded an increase in quality adjusted life years of 2.28 QALY at an incremental lifetime cost of 86.1 T€. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio of dabrafenib/trametinib and nivolumab was comparable with 37.8 T€/QALY and 30.0 T€/QALY, respectively. Several sensitivity analyses proved the result to be insensitive. General model parameters like discount rate and length of the time horizon had stronger influence. For nivolumab, the model showed lower discounted lifetime costs (118.1 T€) compared to dabrafenib/trametinib [155.1 T€], associated with a lower gain in QALYs (1.64 years) compared to observation.

CONCLUSION

Both dabrafenib/trametinib and nivolumab turned out to be cost effective within internationally accepted Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) thresholds with comparable cost effectiveness ratios.

Immunotherapy for Melanoma

Melanoma is the leading cause of death from skin cancer and is responsible for over 7000 deaths in the USA each year alone. For many decades, limited treatment options were available for patients with metastatic melanoma; however, over the last decade, a new era in treatment dawned for oncologists and their patients. Targeted therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors represents an important cornerstone in the treatment of metastatic melanoma; however, this chapter carefully reviews the past and current therapy options available, with a significant focus on immunotherapy-based approaches. In addition, we provide an overview of the results of recent advances in the adjuvant setting for patients with resected stage III and stage IV melanoma, as well as in patients with melanoma brain metastases. Finally, we provide a brief overview of the current research efforts in the field of immuno-oncology for melanoma.

Melanoma trials that defined surgical management: Brief overview of current/upcoming adjuvant/neoadjuvant trials

Adjuvant systemic therapy for cutaneous melanoma has experienced practice-changing shifts over the last decade. The successful results of immunotherapies and targeted therapies in the metastatic setting have allowed for investigative trials of the same therapies in the adjuvant and now neoadjuvant setting, with the potential for improved clinical outcomes in patients with high risk resected Stage III and IV melanoma.

Neoantigen-Reactive T Cells: The Driving Force behind Successful Melanoma Immunotherapy

Simple Summary

Cancer immunotherapy is a revolutionary type of cancer therapy. It uses the patient’s own immune system to fight and potentially cure cancer. The first major breakthrough of immunotherapy came from successful clinical trials for melanoma treatments. Since then, researchers have focused on understanding the science behind immunotherapy, so that patients with other types of cancer may also benefit. One of the major findings is that the T cells in melanoma patients may recognize a specific type of tumor antigen, called neoantigens, and then kill tumor cells that present these neoantigens. The neoantigens mainly arise from the DNA mutations found in tumor cells. These mutations are translated into mutated proteins that are then distinguished by T cells. In this article, we discuss the critical role of T cells in immunotherapy, as well as the clinical trials that shaped the treatments for melanoma.

Abstract

Patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma have experienced significant clinical responses after checkpoint blockade immunotherapy or adoptive cell therapy. Neoantigens are mutated proteins that arise from tumor-specific mutations. It is hypothesized that the neoantigen recognition by T cells is the critical step for T-cell-mediated anti-tumor responses and subsequent tumor regressions. In addition to describing neoantigens, we review the sentinel and ongoing clinical trials that are helping to shape the current treatments for patients with cutaneous melanoma. We also present the existing evidence that establishes the correlations between neoantigen-reactive T cells and clinical responses in melanoma immunotherapy.

Clinical Significance of Distant Metastasis-Free Survival (DMFS) in Melanoma: A Narrative Review from Adjuvant Clinical Trials

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.

External validation of the American Joint Committee on Cancer melanoma staging system eighth edition using the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program

AIM

The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) melanoma staging system eighth edition (AJCC-8) was recently released to provide accurate staging reflecting advances in the treatment of melanoma. Using population registry data, this study independently validates and compares the prognostic performance of AJCC-8 to the seventh edition (AJCC-7).

METHODS

We extracted patient-, tumor-related, and survival data from the SEER-18 registry between 2010 and 2015. To assess overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) for AJCC-7 and AJCC-8, we performed Kaplan-Meier analysis and computed cumulative hazard functions using Nelson-Aalen function.

RESULTS

Of 126,408 individuals, 59,989 (47%) and 60,411 (48%) had available data for pathological and clinical-stage OS analysis, respectively. The 3-year OS for AJCC-7 among pathologically staged patients was: stage IA 97%, stage IB 95%, stage IIA 87%, stage IIB 76%, stage IIC 57%, stage IIIA 86%, stage IIIB 69%, stage IIIC 50%, and stage IV 24%. The 3-year OS for AJCC-8 patients was similar but was 56% for stage IIIC and 30% for stage IIID. Stage IV individuals with an elevated LDH had worse OS and CSS at all measured time-points up to 60 months compared to those with a normal LDH.

CONCLUSION

The discriminatory ability of AJCC-8 and AJCC-7 appear comparable. Changes in AJCC-8 identified stage IIID as a poor prognostic subgroup among stage III patients and elevated LDH in stage IV. However, patients with advanced T-stage, node-negative tumors experienced worse survival compared to those with earlier T-stage, node-positive tumors, and the results of ongoing trials should inform adjuvant therapy in this subset of patients.

Impact of Value Frameworks on the Magnitude of Clinical Benefit: Evaluating a Decade of Randomized Trials for Systemic Therapy in Solid Malignancies

In the era of rapid development of new, expensive cancer therapies, value frameworks have been developed to quantify clinical benefit (CB). We assessed the evolution of CB since the 2015 introduction of The American Society of Clinical Oncology and The European Society of Medical Oncology value frameworks. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing systemic therapies for solid malignancies from 2010 to 2020 were evaluated and CB (Δ) in 2010–2014 (pre-value frameworks (PRE)) were compared to 2015–2020 (POST) for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), and quality of life (QoL). In the 485 studies analyzed (12% PRE and 88% POST), the most common primary endpoint was PFS (49%), followed by OS (20%), RR (12%), and QoL (6%), with a significant increase in OS and decrease in RR as primary endpoints in the POST era (p = 0.011). Multivariable analyses revealed significant improvement in ΔOS POST (OR 2.86, 95% CI 0.46 to 5.26, p = 0.02) while controlling for other variables. After the development of value frameworks, median ΔOS improved minimally. The impact of value frameworks has yet to be fully realized in RCTs. Efforts to include endpoints shown to impact value, such as QoL, into clinical trials are warranted.

The Status of Adjuvant and Neoadjuvant Melanoma Therapy, New Developments and Upcoming Challenges

The global incidence of malignant melanoma, the leading cause of skin cancer death, has steadily increased in recent years. Surgical excision is the treatment of choice for early-stage melanoma. However, 40-60% of patients with high-risk melanoma or with nodal involvement eventually experience loco-regional relapse or tumor progression. Adjuvant therapy aims to reduce the rate of recurrence in radically operated high-risk patients with melanoma and thus improves survival. Interferon-α has long been the only approved drug for adjuvant melanoma therapy, despite an unclear survival benefit. The landmark success of immune-checkpoint inhibitors and BRAF/MEK-directed targeted therapies in the treatment of patients with stage IV melanoma led to the initiation of clinical trials in the adjuvant setting. These trials demonstrated the efficacy of immune-checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies for the adjuvant treatment of high-risk patients with melanoma, as shown both by an increase in recurrence-free survival and the emergence of long-term survivors, finally resulting in the approval of the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 inhibitor ipilimumab, PD1 inhibitors (nivolumab, pembrolizumab), and BRAF/MEK inhibitors for adjuvant melanoma therapy. This review aims to delineate the advances in adjuvant melanoma therapy, issuing particularly recent results from clinical trials. Moreover, we also discuss pending issues and future challenges, which comprise the adequate selection of adjuvant regimens for patient subgroups and the identification of markers likely to predict the individual response to adjuvant treatments. Last, we outline the role of emerging neoadjuvant approaches, which may complement adjuvant strategies and are currently investigated in clinical trials.

Adjuvant and Neoadjuvant Therapeutics for the Treatment of Cutaneous Melanoma

Adjuvant therapy plays an integral role in the treatment algorithm for stage III and stage IV cutaneous melanoma. Current ongoing clinical trials are exploring the effects of neoadjuvant therapeutics, specifically for the presurgical treatment of high-risk, borderline resectable disease. In both the adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings, the early chemotherapeutic and biochemical antitumor agents are making way to newer immune therapies, mutation-specific targeted therapies, and oncolytic vaccines that are transforming the treatment of malignant melanoma. The use of these systemic therapies in addition to surgical resection has been shown to increase both overall and progression-free survival.

Phase I/II Trial of Vemurafenib in Dogs with Naturally Occurring, BRAF-mutated Urothelial Carcinoma

BRAF-targeted therapies including vemurafenib (Zelboraf) induce dramatic cancer remission; however, drug resistance commonly emerges. The purpose was to characterize a naturally occurring canine cancer model harboring complex features of human cancer, to complement experimental models to improve BRAF-targeted therapy. A phase I/II clinical trial of vemurafenib was performed in pet dogs with naturally occurring invasive urothelial carcinoma (InvUC) harboring the canine homologue of human BRAF ^V600E The safety, MTD, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity were determined. Changes in signaling and immune gene expression were assessed by RNA sequencing and phosphoproteomic analyses of cystoscopic biopsies obtained before and during treatment, and at progression. The vemurafenib MTD was 37.5 mg/kg twice daily. Anorexia was the most common adverse event. At the MTD, partial remission occurred in 9 of 24 dogs (38%), with a median progression-free interval of 181 days (range, 53-608 days). In 18% of the dogs, new cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma and papillomas occurred, a known pharmacodynamic effect of vemurafenib in humans. Upregulation of genes in the classical and alternative MAPK-related pathways occurred in subsets of dogs at cancer progression. The most consistent transcriptomic changes were the increase in patterns of T lymphocyte infiltration during the first month of vemurafenib, and of immune failure accompanying cancer progression. In conclusion, the safety, antitumor activity, and cutaneous pharmacodynamic effects of vemurafenib, and the development of drug resistance in dogs closely mimic those reported in humans. This suggests BRAF-mutated canine InvUC offers an important complementary animal model to improve BRAF-targeted therapies in humans.