The impact of patient characteristics and disease-specific factors on first-line treatment decisions for BRAF-mutated melanoma: results from a European expert panel study

Real-world management practices and characteristics of patients with advanced melanoma initiated on immuno-oncology or targeted therapy in the first-line setting during the period 2015-2018 in Greece. The 'SUMMER' study: a retrospective multicenter chart review project

This study primarily aimed to generate real-world evidence (RWE) on the profile and first-line treatment (1LT) patterns of patients with advanced (unresectable Stage III/metastatic) cutaneous melanoma initiated on immuno-oncology (IO)- or targeted therapy (TT)-based 1LT between 1 January 2015 and 1 January 2018 (index period), in routine settings of Greece. This was a multicenter, retrospective chart review study. Eligible consented (unless deceased, for whom consent was waived by the hospital) patients were consecutively included by six oncology clinics. The look-back period extended from informed consent or death to initial melanoma diagnosis. Between 9 Junuary 2021 and 9 February 2022, 225 eligible patients (all Caucasians; 60.4% male; 35.6% diagnosed with de novo advanced melanoma) were included. At 1LT initiation, median age was 62.6 years; 2.7/6.7/90.7% of the patients had Stage IIIB/IIIC/IV disease and 9.3% were unresected. Most frequent metastatic sites were the lung (46.7%), non-regional nodes (33.8%), and liver (20.9%). Among patients, 98.2% had single primary melanoma, 45.6% had disease localized on the trunk, and 63.6% were BRAF-mutant. Of the patients, 45.3% initiated 1LT with an IO-based, 53.3% with a TT-based regimen, and three patients (1.3%) received TT-based followed by IO-based or vice versa. Most common 1LT patterns (frequency ≥10%) were BRAFi/MEKi combination (31.6%), anti-PD-1 monotherapy (25.3%), BRAFi monotherapy (21.8%), and anti-CTLA-4 monotherapy (17.8%). Most frequent regimens were Dabrafenib+Trametinib in 25.3%, and monotherapies with Pembrolizumab/Ipilimumab/Vemurafenib/Dabrafenib in 23.6/17.8/11.1/10.7% of patients, respectively. SUMMER provides RWE on 1LT strategies and profile of patients initiated 1L IO- or TT-based therapy in Greece during the 3-year index period.

Metabolic Profiling to Assess Response to Targeted and Immune Therapy in Melanoma

There is currently no consensus to determine which advanced melanoma patients will benefit from targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or a combination of both, highlighting the critical need to identify early-response biomarkers to advanced melanoma therapy. The goal of this review is to provide scientific rationale to highlight the potential role of metabolic imaging to assess response to targeted and/or immune therapy in melanoma cancer. For that purpose, a brief overview of current melanoma treatments is provided. Then, current knowledge with respect to melanoma metabolism is described with an emphasis on major crosstalks between melanoma cell metabolism and signaling pathways involved in BRAF-targeted therapy as well as in immune checkpoint inhibition therapies. Finally, preclinical and clinical studies using metabolic imaging and/or profiling to assess response to melanoma treatment are summarized with a particular focus on PET (Positron Emission Tomography) imaging and 13C-MRS (Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy) methods.

New systemic therapies for cutaneous melanoma: why, who and what

Incidence of melanoma has been increasing in both sexes in the last decades. Advanced melanoma has always been one of the deadliest cancers worldwide due to his high metastatic capacity. In the last ten years, progresses in the knowledge of the molecular mechanisms involved in the melanoma development and progression, and in immune-response against melanoma, empowered the development of two new classes of systemic therapeutic agents: target-therapies and immunotherapies. Both classes consist of monoclonal antibodies inhibiting specific molecules. Target-therapies are selectively directed against cells harboring the BRAFV600-mutation, while immunotherapies target the two molecules involved in immune-checkpoint regulation, enhancing the immune response against the tumor: cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) and programmed cell death-1 receptor (PD-1). Target- and immunotherapy demonstrated to improve both progression-free and overall survival in melanoma patients either in metastatic or in adjuvant settings. Several drugs have been approved in recent years as monotherapy or in combination, and many other drugs are currently under investigation in clinical trials. In the current review on new systemic therapies for cutaneous melanoma, we revised the molecular basis and the mechanisms of actions of both target- and immunotherapy (why). We discussed who are the best candidate to receive such therapies in both the adjuvant and metastatic setting (who) and which were the most important efficacy and safety data on these drugs (what).

Outcome of melanoma patients with elevated LDH treated with first-line targeted therapy or PD-1-based immune checkpoint inhibition

BACKGROUND

Elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) is a known predictive and prognostic factor for a poor outcome in patients with metastatic melanoma. It is unclear whether first-line targeted therapy (TT) or immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) is more beneficial in melanoma patients with elevated LDH because prospective studies in this area are lacking.

METHODS

This multicentre retrospective cohort study was conducted at 25 melanoma centres worldwide to analyse progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) among melanoma patients with elevated LDH. The role of confounders was addressed by using inverse probability of treatment weighting.

RESULTS

Among 173 BRAFV600-mutant patients, PFS at 12 months in the TT group was 22% compared with 52% in the combined anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 group (HR 0.6, 95% CI 0.4-1.0, p = 0.07) and 18% in the anti-PD-1 monotherapy group (HR 1.8, 95% CI 1.2-2.8, p = 0.003). Twelve months' OS was 48% in the TT group compared with 83% in the combined anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 group (HR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-1.0, p = 0.03) and 50% in the anti-PD-1 monotherapy group (HR 1.2, 95% CI 0.8-2.0, p = 0.37). The ORR in the TT group was 63%, compared with 55% and 20% in the combined anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 monotherapy group, respectively. Among 314 patients receiving ICI first-line, PFS at 12 months was 33% in the anti-PD-1 group versus 38% in the combined anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 group (HR 0.8, 95% CI 0.6-1.0; p = 0.07). OS at 12 months was 54% in the anti-PD-1 group versus 66% in the combined ICI group (HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.5-1.0; p = 0.03). The ORR was 30% in the anti-PD-1 monotherapy group and 43% in the combined anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 group. Results from multivariate analysis confirmed the absence of qualitative confounding.

CONCLUSIONS

Among BRAF-mutant patients with elevated LDH, combined anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 blockade seems to be associated with prolonged OS compared with first-line TT. Among patients receiving ICI as a first-line treatment, OS appears to be longer for the combination of anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 than for anti-PD-1 alone.

Imidazopyridine-fused [1,3]diazepinones: modulations of positions 2 to 4 and their impacts on the anti-melanoma activity

A series of 19 novel pyrido-imidazodiazepinones, with modulations of positions 2, 3 and 4 of the diazepine ring were synthesised and screened for their in vitro cytotoxic activities against two melanoma cell lines (A375 and MDA-MB-435) and for their potential toxicity against NIH-3T3 non-cancerous cells. Selected compounds were also evaluated on the NCI-60 cell line panel. The SAR study revealed that the molecular volume and the cLogP of compounds modified at position 2 were significantly correlated with the activity of these compounds on melanoma cell lines. Moreover, introduction of a heterocyclic group at position 2 or an azido-alkyl chain at position 4 led to compounds displaying a significantly different activity profile on the NCI-60 cell line panel, compared to phenyl-substituted compounds at position 2 of the diazepinone. This study provides us crucial information for the development of new derivatives active against melanoma.

Targeted and immunotherapies in BRAF mutant melanoma: where we stand and what to expect

The therapeutic landscape for melanoma has evolved drastically in the past decade. Currently, immune checkpoint inhibitors and small-molecule inhibitors targeting the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway are the two mainstay therapies for BRAF^V600 mutant advanced melanoma. Although MAPK dependence has been variably demonstrated in melanomas lacking BRAF^V600 mutations, definitive evidence of benefit with MAPK inhibitors has not been demonstrated. Thus, in the BRAF^V600 'wild-type' setting, immune checkpoint inhibitors are the standalone option(s). In the BRAF^V600 mutant setting, there is no definitive evidence prioritizing one therapeutic modality over another. Herein, we review the updated data of the pivotal phase III randomized controlled trials that established the standard-of-care first-line treatment for advanced melanoma, as it provides insights into long-term benefit, which is a major factor in therapy selection. We discuss the clinical considerations for choosing between these therapies in the front-line setting and beyond, specifically for patients with BRAF^V600 mutant melanoma based on currently available evidence. We have previously proposed a time-dependent resistance paradigm in which future therapeutic development strategies can be rooted. We also discuss how these Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved therapeutic modalities are being pursued earlier in the course of disease management, namely in adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings. FDA-approved interlesional oncolytic virotherapy in the modern era is also briefly discussed.

Treatment of Advanced/Metastatic Melanoma in the United States and Western Europe: Results of the CancerMPact Survey

Context

Melanoma treatment has substantially changed over the last several years, yet little information regarding physician's preferences around treatment exists.

Objective

Our aim is to describe the results of the CancerMPact (CMP) survey performed in 2019 about the treatment of advanced/metastatic melanoma.

Methods

CMP is a data source from Kantar, Health Division, containing data on cancer epidemiology and treatment. Once a year, Kantar performs a series of surveys with specialists in the field of interest in the United States of America (USA), Western Europe (WE), Japan, and China. The results of the survey reported in this work comprise the answers from 94 USA and 99 WE physicians about the treatment of melanoma.

Results

In the first-line for the BRAF wild-type population, immuno-oncology (IO) drugs including nivolumab, ipilimumab or pembrolizumab (alone or in combination) were used in 80.1% of the cases in the USA and 70.6% in WE. Conventional chemotherapy or cytokine-based treatments were used in 16.4% of the USA patients and 28.2% in WE. In the second-line in the USA, 45.8% of BRAF wild-type patients received IO drugs, while 45.0% of patients received conventional chemotherapy or cytokine-based treatments. The majority of patients with BRAF mutant advanced/metastatic melanoma were treated in the first-line with BRAF-targeted therapy (61.3% USA, 71.9% WE), and few patients received conventional chemotherapy or cytokine-based treatments (11.9% USA, 12.4% WE); the most commonly used BRAF-targeted therapy was the combination of dabrafenib plus trametinib. In the second-line, BRAF mutant patients received IO drugs (45.1% USA, 53.7% WE), targeted therapy (37.6% USA, 32% WE) or conventional chemotherapy/cytokine-based treatments (14.4% USA, 11.7% WE).

Conclusion

The use of IO or targeted therapy for patients with advanced/metastatic melanoma is the preferred treatment strategy by physicians in the USA and WE based on BRAF mutation status. Many patients still receive conventional chemotherapies or cytokines with unsubstantial benefit, especially in recurrent patients of BRAF wild type.

Immune checkpoint blockade in solid organ tumours: Choice, dose and predictors of response

Immune checkpoint blockade has transformed outcomes across solid organ tumours. Monoclonal antibodies targeting the negative inhibitory cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4 and programmed-death 1/programmed death-ligand 1 axis can lead to deep and durable responses across several tumour streams in the advanced setting. This immunotherapy approach is increasingly used earlier in the treatment paradigm. A rapidly evolving regulatory, reimbursement and drug development landscape has accompanied this novel class of immunotherapy. Unfortunately, only a small proportion of patients respond meaningfully to these agents. Here we review how the underlying tumoural genomic, histological and immunological characteristics interact within various patient phenotypes, leading to variations in response to checkpoint blockade. Concurrently, we outline the clinical trial and real-world evidence that allows for appropriate selection of agent, dose and schedule in solid organ malignancies. An exploration of current trends in basic and translational research in immune checkpoint blockade accompanies a commentary on future clinical directions for checkpoint blockade in oncology.

Switch to checkpoint inhibition after targeted therapy at time of progression or during ongoing response: A retrospective single-centre experience in patients with BRAF-mutated melanoma

BRAF + MEK inhibition is preferentially applied as first-line therapy in BRAF V600-mutated melanoma patients with unfavourable prognostic features, due to the ability of targeted therapy (TT) to induce rapid symptom control, decrease tumour burden and normalize lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels. In addition, short-term TT transiently increases tumour antigen presentation and tumour influx of T cells. Therefore, it might be favourable to switch TT to checkpoint inhibition (CPI) before progression (PD). We retrospectively analysed melanoma patients treated first line with TT (TT1) and who subsequently switched to CPI during response to TT (sDR group) or at progression upon TT (sPD group). We identified 74 patients (n = 37 sDR group and n = 37 sPD group). ORR to CPI was 27.0% in the sDR group versus 24.3% in the sPD group (p = .790). Median was PFS 2.5 months versus 1.2 months (p = .145), and median OS was 30.6 versus 14.1 months (p = .007). After adjusting for baseline differences and known prognostic factors, hazard ratios (HRs) favouring sDR were 0.89 for PFS upon CPI (p = .956) and 0.48 for OS (p = .055). Thus, patients switching to CPI during ongoing clinical benefit from TT do not have an inferior outcome. Due to baseline imbalances and small patient population, a favourable trend for the sDR group can be hypothesized only.

Efficacy of PD-1-based immunotherapy after radiologic progression on targeted therapy in stage IV melanoma

OBJECTIVES

Targeted therapy (TT) is an effective treatment for advanced BRAFV600-mutated melanoma, but most patients eventually acquire resistance and progress. Here, we evaluated the outcome of second-line immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) after progression on dual BRAF and MEK inhibition.

METHODS

Patients with metastatic melanoma progressing on combined BRAF + MEK inhibition and receiving second-line ICB between 2015 and 2019 in 9 tertiary referral centres were enrolled. Demographic and clinical data and blood counts of all patients were collected retrospectively.

RESULTS

We identified 99 patients with stage IV melanoma receiving ICB (nivolumab, pembrolizumab [n = 39] or ipilimumab plus nivolumab [n = 60]) after progression on combined TT. The median progression-free survival was similar in the PD-1 and ipilimumab plus nivolumab group (2.6 months [95% confidence interval {CI}, 2.0-3.1] vs. 2.0 [95% CI, 1.4-2.6], p = 0.15). The objective response rate was 18.0% in the PD-1 and 15.0% in the ipilimumab plus nivolumab group (p = 0.70). The disease control rate was 25.7% for monotherapy and 18.3% for combined ICB (p = 0.39). The median overall survival was 8.4 months (95% CI, 5.1-11.7) for patients receiving PD-1 monotherapy and 7.2 months (95% CI, 5.2-9.1) for patients receiving ipilimumab plus nivolumab (p = 0.86). The latter was associated with a higher rate of treatment-related adverse events (AEs). No significant association of laboratory values or clinicopathological characteristics with response to second-line ICB was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

PD-1 monotherapy and combined ipilimumab plus nivolumab show similar activity and outcome in patients with melanoma resistant to BRAF + MEK inhibition. However, combined ipilimumab plus nivolumab was associated with a higher rate of treatment-related AEs compared with monotherapy.

First-line therapy-stratified survival in BRAF-mutant melanoma: a retrospective multicenter analysis

BACKGROUND

Inhibition of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway as well as programmed death 1 receptor (PD-1) blockade was shown to prolong overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced B-Raf proto-oncogene (BRAF)-mutant melanoma. However, due to the lack of head-to-head trials, it remains unclear if one of these therapeutic approaches should be preferred in first-line therapy. Here, we present a retrospective analysis comparing anti-PD-1 monotherapy with BRAF/MAPK/ERK kinase (MEK) combined inhibition used as first-line agents in a real-world clinical setting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Clinical data, routine blood counts and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels of 301 patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma harboring an activating mutation in BRAF (V600E/K) were included. Of these, 106 received anti-PD-1 antibodies, while 195 patients were treated with a selective BRAF inhibitor combined with an MEK inhibitor as palliative first-line therapy. Patients were sub-grouped according to previously described predictive and prognostic markers.

RESULTS

OS was significantly longer in patients receiving anti-PD-1 monotherapy compared to patients receiving combined MAPK inhibitors. Subsequent therapies were comparable among these groups. The difference in OS was less pronounced in patients with high LDH levels and visceral metastatic spread.

CONCLUSION

First-line treatment with a PD-1 blocking antibody might be associated with longer OS than first-line inhibition of the MAPK pathway in patients with advanced melanoma harboring mutant BRAF. These hypothesis-generating data need to be confirmed or rejected in prospective, randomized trials.