5-Year Outcomes with Cobimetinib plus Vemurafenib in BRAFV600 Mutation-Positive Advanced Melanoma: Extended Follow-up of the coBRIM Study

Review on radiomic analysis in 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for prediction of melanoma outcomes

Over the past decade, several strategies have revolutionized the clinical management of patients with cutaneous melanoma (CM), including immunotherapy and targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)-based therapies. Indeed, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), alone or in combination, represent the standard of care for patients with advanced disease without an actionable mutation. Notably BRAF combined with MEK inhibitors represent the therapeutic standard for disease disclosing BRAF mutation. At the same time, FDG PET/CT has become part of the routine staging and evaluation of patients with cutaneous melanoma. There is growing interest in using FDG PET/CT measurements to predict response to ICI therapy and/or target therapy. While semiquantitative values such as standardized uptake value (SUV) are limited for predicting outcome, new measures including tumor metabolic volume, total lesion glycolysis and radiomics seem promising as potential imaging biomarkers for nuclear medicine. The aim of this review, prepared by an interdisciplinary group of experts, is to take stock of the current literature on radiomics approaches that could improve outcomes in CM.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors in cancers: Treatment optimization - Part I

A multitude of TKI has been developed and approved targeting various oncogenetic alterations. While these have provided improvements in efficacy compared with conventional chemotherapies, resistance to targeted therapies occurs. Mutations in the kinase domain result in the inability of TKI to inactivate the protein kinase. Also, gene amplification, increased protein expression and downstream activation or bypassing of signalling pathways are commonly reported mechanisms of resistance. Improved understanding of mechanisms involved in TKI resistance has resulted in the development of new generations of targeted agents. In a race against time, the search for new, more potent and efficient drugs, and/or combinations of drugs, remains necessary as new resistance mechanisms to the latest generation of TKI emerge. This review examines the various generations of TKI approved to date and their common mechanisms of resistance, focusing on TKI targeting BCR-ABL, epidermal growth factor receptor, anaplastic lymphoma kinase and BRAF/MEK tyrosine kinases.

Pharmacological inhibition of PDGF-C/neuropilin-1 interaction: A novel strategy to reduce melanoma metastatic potential

Activation of neuropilin-1 (NRP-1) by platelet derived growth factor (PDGF)-C sustains melanoma invasiveness. Therefore, in the search of novel agents capable of reducing melanoma spreading, PDGF-C/NRP-1 interaction was investigated as a potential druggable target. Since the PDGF-C region involved in NRP-1 binding is not yet known, based on the sequence and structural homology between PDGF-C and vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A), we hypothesized that the NRP-1 b1 domain region involved in the interaction with VEGF-A might also be required for PDGF-C binding. Hence, this region was selected from the protein crystal structure and used as target in the molecular docking procedure. In the following virtual screening, compounds from a DrugBank database were used as query ligands to identify agents potentially capable of disrupting NRP-1/PDGF-C interaction. Among the top 45 candidates with the highest affinity, five drugs were selected based on the safety profile, lack of hormonal effects, and current availability in the market: the antipsychotic pimozide, antidiabetic gliclazide, antiallergic cromolyn sodium, anticancer tyrosine kinase inhibitor entrectinib, and antihistamine azelastine. Analysis of drug influence on PDGF-C in vitro binding to NRP-1 and PDGF-C induced migration of human melanoma cells expressing NRP-1, indicated gliclazide and entrectinib as the most specific agents that were active at clinically achievable and non-toxic concentrations. Both drugs also reverted PDGF-C ability to stimulate extracellular matrix invasion by melanoma cells resistant to BRAF inhibitors. The inhibitory effect on tumor cell motility involved a decrease of p130Cas phosphorylation, a signal transduction pathway activated by PDGF-C-mediated stimulation of NRP-1.

Toxicities from BRAF and MEK Inhibitors: Strategies to Maximize Therapeutic Success

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This report highlights several of the recent therapeutic advancements in the treatment of BRAF-mutant tumors, discusses the most common adverse events observed with BRAF-targeted agents, and suggests strategies to manage and mitigate treatment-related toxicities.

RECENT FINDINGS

BRAF and MEK inhibitors represent a significant advancement in the treatment of BRAF-mutated malignancies with data across tumor types demonstrating the anti-tumor efficacy of dual MAPK inhibition. Although these agents have a reasonable toxicity profile, variable side effects across organ systems can develop. The discovery of activating BRAF mutations and subsequent development of BRAF and MEK inhibitors has transformed the treatment algorithms of BRAF-mutant malignancies. With increased application of these targeted regimens, identification and prompt management of their unique adverse events are crucial.

Advances in our understanding of genetic markers and targeted therapies for pediatric LCH

INTRODUCTION

Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) is a rare myeloid neoplasm, encompassing a diverse clinical spectrum ranging from localized bone or skin lesions to a multisystemic life-threatening condition. Over the past decade, there has been an expansion in understanding the molecular biology of LCH, which translated into innovative targeted therapeutic approaches.

AREAS COVERED

In this article, we will review the molecular alterations observed in pediatric LCH and the relationship between these molecular changes and the clinical phenotype, as well as targeted therapies in LCH.

EXPERT OPINION

Mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway mutation is a hallmark of LCH and is identified in 80% of the cases. Notably, BRAFV600E mutation is seen in ~50-60% of the cases, ~30% has other MAPK pathway mutations, while 15-20% have no detected mutations. While the first line therapeutic approach is vinblastine and prednisone, targeted therapies - specifically BRAF/MEK inhibitors - emerged as a promising second-line salvage strategy, particularly when a mutation is identified. Most patients respond to BRAF/MEK inhibitors but at least 75% reactivate after stopping, however, most patients respond again when restarting inhibitors.

COLUMBUS 7-year update: A randomized, open-label, phase III trial of encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib in patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma

BACKGROUND

Treatment with encorafenib plus binimetinib and encorafenib monotherapy is associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with vemurafenib in patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. We report results from the 7-year analysis of COLUMBUS part 1 (NCT01909453) at 99.7 months (median duration between randomization and data cutoff).

METHODS

577 patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma who were treatment-naive or progressed after first-line immunotherapy were randomized 1:1:1 to encorafenib 450 mg once daily (QD) plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily (BID) (n = 192), vemurafenib 960 mg BID (n = 191), or encorafenib monotherapy 300 mg QD (n = 194). No prior BRAF/MEK inhibitor was allowed.

RESULTS

Seven-year PFS and OS rates (95 % CI) were 21.2 % (14.7-28.4 %) and 27.4 % (21.2-33.9%) in the encorafenib plus binimetinib arm and 6.4 % (2.1-14.0 %) and 18.2 % (12.8-24.3 %) in the vemurafenib arm, respectively. Median melanoma-specific survival (95 % CI) was 36.8 months (27.7-51.5 months) in the encorafenib plus binimetinib arm and 19.3 months (14.8-25.9 months) in the vemurafenib arm. Thirty-four long-term responders (complete/partial response ongoing at 7 years) were identified across arms.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the longest follow-up from a phase III trial of BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination in BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. Safety results were consistent with the known tolerability profile of encorafenib plus binimetinib. Results support the long-term efficacy and known safety of encorafenib plus binimetinib in this population and provide new insights on long-term responders. Interactive data visualization is available at the COLUMBUS dashboard (https://clinical-trials.dimensions.ai/columbus7/).

Melanoma Management: Exploring Staging, Prognosis, and Treatment Innovations

Melanoma, a malignant neoplasm originating from melanocytes, stands as one of the most prevalent cancers globally, ranking fifth in terms of estimated new cases in recent years. Its aggressive nature and propensity for metastasis pose significant challenges in oncology. Recent advancements have led to a notable shift towards targeted therapies, driven by a deeper understanding of cutaneous tumor pathogenesis. Immunotherapy and tyrosine kinase inhibitors have emerged as promising strategies, demonstrating the potential to improve clinical outcomes across all disease stages, including neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and metastatic settings. Notably, there has been a groundbreaking development in the treatment of brain metastasis, historically associated with poor prognosis in oncology but showcasing impressive results in melanoma patients. This review article provides a comprehensive synthesis of the most recent knowledge on staging and prognostic factors while highlighting emerging therapeutic modalities, with a particular focus on neoadjuvant and adjuvant strategies, notably immunotherapy and targeted therapies, including the ongoing trials.

Estimating scenarios for survival time in patients with advanced melanoma receiving immunotherapy and targeted therapy

BACKGROUND

We aim to provide survival scenario estimates for patients with advanced melanoma starting targeted therapies and immunotherapies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We sought randomized trials of targeted therapies and immunotherapies for advanced melanoma and recorded the following percentiles (represented survival scenario) from each overall survival (OS) curve: 90th (worst-case), 75th (lower-typical), 50th (median), 25th (upper-typical), and 10th (best-case). We tested whether these scenarios can be estimated for each OS curve by multiplying its median by 4 multiples: 0.25 (worst-case), 0.5 (lower-typical), 2 (upper-typical), and 3 (best-case).

RESULTS

We identified 15 trials with 8025 patients. For first-line combination targeted therapy treatment groups, the median (interquartile range, IQR) in months for each percentile was: 90th, 6.2 (6.0-6.5); 75th, 11.3 (11.3-11.4); and median, 24.4 (23.5-25.3). For the first-line combination immunotherapy treatment group, the percentiles in months were: 90th, 3.9 (2.8-4.5); 75th, 13.4 (10.1-15.4), median 73 (not applicable). In targeted therapy groups, simple multiples of the median OS were accurate for estimating the 90th percentile in 80%; 75th percentile in 40%; 25th percentile in 100%. In immunotherapy groups, these multiples were accurate at 0% for the 90th percentile, and 43% for the 75th percentile. The 90th percentile (worst-case scenario) was better estimated as 1/6× median OS, and the 75th percentile (lower-typical) as 1/3× median OS.

CONCLUSIONS

Simple multiples of the median OS are a useful framework to estimate scenarios for survival for patients receiving targeted therapies, not immunotherapy. Longer follow-up is required to estimate upper-typical and best-case scenarios.

Targeting oncogenic kinases: Insights on FDA approved tyrosine kinase inhibitors

Protein kinases play pivotal roles in various biological functions, influencing cell differentiation, promoting survival, and regulating the cell cycle. The disruption of protein kinase activity is intricately linked to pathways in tumor development. This manuscript explores the transformative impact of protein kinase inhibitors on cancer therapy, particularly their efficacy in cases driven by targeted mutations. Focusing on key tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) like Bcr-Abl, Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR), and Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor (VEGFR), it targets critical kinase families in cancer progression. Clinical trial details of these TKIs offer insights into their therapeutic potentials. Learning from FDA-approved kinase inhibitors, the review dissects trends in kinase drug development since imatinib's paradigm-shifting approval in 2001. TKIs have evolved into pivotal drugs, extending beyond oncology. Ongoing clinical trials explore novel kinase targets, revealing the vast potential within the human kinome. The manuscript provides a detailed analysis of advancements until 2022, discussing the roles of specific oncogenic protein kinases in cancer development and carcinogenesis. Our exploration on PubMed for relevant and significant TKIs undergoing pre-FDA approval phase III clinical trials enriches the discussion with valuable findings. While kinase inhibitors exhibit lower toxicity than traditional chemotherapy in cancer treatment, challenges like resistance and side effects emphasize the necessity of understanding resistance mechanisms, prompting the development of novel inhibitors like osimertinib targeting specific mutant proteins. The review advocates thorough research on effective combination therapies, highlighting the future development of more selective RTKIs to optimize patient-specific cancer treatment and reduce adverse events.

Prognostic biomarkers in melanoma: a 2023 update from clinical trials in different therapeutic scenarios

INTRODUCTION

Over the past decade, significant advancements in the field of melanoma have included the introduction of a new staging system and the development of immunotherapy and targeted therapies, leading to changes in substage classification and impacting patient prognosis. Despite these strides, early detection remains paramount. The quest for dependable prognostic biomarkers is ongoing, given melanoma's unpredictable nature, especially in identifying patients at risk of relapse. Reliable biomarkers are critical for informed treatment decisions.

AREAS COVERED

This review offers a comprehensive review of prognostic biomarkers in the context of clinical trials for immunotherapy and targeted therapy. It explores different clinical scenarios, including adjuvant, metastatic, and neo-adjuvant settings. Key findings suggest that tumor mutational burden, PD-L1 expression, IFN-γ signature, and immune-related factors are promising biomarkers associated with improved treatment responses.

EXPERT OPINION

Identifying practical prognostic factors for melanoma therapy is challenging due to the tumor's heterogeneity. Promising biomarkers include tumor mutational burden (TMB), circulating tumor DNA, and those characterizing the tumor microenvironment, especially the immune component. Future research should prioritize large-scale, prospective studies to validate and standardize these biomarkers, emphasizing clinical relevance and real-world applicability. Easily accessible biomarkers have the potential to enhance the precision and effectiveness of melanoma management.

BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC: disease overview and treatment landscape

In this review, we cover the current understanding of BRAF mutations and associated clinical characteristics in patients with metastatic NSCLC, approved and emerging treatment options, BRAF sequencing approaches, and unmet needs. The BRAFV600E mutation confers constitutive activity of the MAPK pathway, leading to enhanced growth, proliferation, and survival of tumor cells. Testing for BRAF mutations enables patients to be treated with therapies that directly target BRAFV600E and the MAPK pathway, but BRAF testing lags behind other oncogene testing in metastatic NSCLC. Additional therapies targeting BRAFV600E mutations provide options for patients with metastatic NSCLC. Emerging therapies and combinations under investigation could potentially overcome issues of resistance and target non-V600E mutations. Therefore, because targeted therapies with enhanced efficacy are on the horizon, being able to identify BRAF mutations in metastatic NSCLC may become even more important.

The treatment of advanced melanoma: Current approaches and new challenges

In recent years, advances in melanoma treatment have renewed patient hope. This comprehensive review emphasizes the evolving treatment landscape, particularly highlighting first-line strategies and the interplay between immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and targeted therapies. Ipilimumab plus nivolumab has achieved the best median overall survival, exceeding 70 months. However, the introduction of new ICIs, like relatlimab, has added complexity to first-line therapy decisions. Our aim is to guide clinicians in making personalized treatment decisions. Various features, including brain metastases, PD-L1 expression, BRAF mutation, performance status, and prior adjuvant therapy, significantly impact the direction of advanced melanoma treatment. We also provide the latest insights into the treatment of rare melanoma subtypes, such as uveal melanoma, where tebentafusp has shown promising improvements in overall survival for metastatic uveal melanoma patients. This review provides invaluable insights for clinicians, enabling informed treatment choices and deepening our understanding of the multifaceted challenges associated with advanced melanoma management.

Precision Oncology in Melanoma and Skin Cancer Surgery

There has been perhaps no greater advance in the prognosis of solid tumors in the last decade than for patients with metastatic melanoma. This is due to significant improvements in treatment based on two key components of melanoma tumor biology (1) the identification of driver mutations with therapeutic potential and (2) the mechanistic understanding of a tumor-specific immune response. With breakthrough findings in such a relatively short period of time, the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma has become intensely personalized.

Review of recent advances in managing periocular skin malignancies

Management of cutaneous malignancies can be particularly challenging when they are located in the periocular region. The standard of care for localized disease is complete surgical excision, but this may not be possible without significant disruption to visual structures and facial appearance. Definitive radiation may be an option for some patients who cannot or do not wish to undergo surgery. Advances in systemic treatment options for locally advanced and metastatic skin cancers in the past 10 years have prompted investigation into neoadjuvant treatment of periocular cancers. The use of chemotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and targeted therapies have all been reported with varying degrees of success. For many patients, targeted therapies or immune checkpoint inhibitors should be considered depending on the cancer type, symptoms, and goals with the input of a multidisciplinary cancer care team. In this article, we systematically review the latest updates in surgical, radiotherapeutic, and medical management of periocular malignancies.

Molecular Frontiers in Melanoma: Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, and Therapeutic Advances

Melanoma, a highly aggressive skin cancer, is characterized by rapid progression and high mortality. Recent advances in molecular pathogenesis have shed light on genetic and epigenetic changes that drive melanoma development. This review provides an overview of these developments, focusing on molecular mechanisms in melanoma genesis. It highlights how mutations, particularly in the BRAF, NRAS, c-KIT, and GNAQ/GNA11 genes, affect critical signaling pathways. The evolution of diagnostic techniques, such as genomics, transcriptomics, liquid biopsies, and molecular biomarkers for early detection and prognosis, is also discussed. The therapeutic landscape has transformed with targeted therapies and immunotherapies, improving patient outcomes. This paper examines the efficacy, challenges, and prospects of these treatments, including recent clinical trials and emerging strategies. The potential of novel treatment strategies, including neoantigen vaccines, adoptive cell transfer, microbiome interactions, and nanoparticle-based combination therapy, is explored. These advances emphasize the challenges of therapy resistance and the importance of personalized medicine. This review underlines the necessity for evidence-based therapy selection in managing the increasing global incidence of melanoma.

The outcome in patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma treated with anti-programmed death receptor-1 monotherapy or targeted therapy in the real-world setting

BACKGROUND

Immunotherapy and targeted therapy are currently two alternative backbones in the therapy of BRAF-mutated malignant melanoma. However, predictive biomarkers that would help with treatment selection are lacking.

METHODS

This retrospective study investigated outcomes of anti-programmed death receptor-1 monotherapy and targeted therapy in the first-line setting in patients with metastatic BRAF-mutated melanoma, focusing on clinical and laboratory parameters associated with treatment outcome.

RESULTS

Data from 174 patients were analysed. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 17.0 months (95% CI; 8-39) and 12.5 months (95% CI; 9-14.2) for immunotherapy and targeted therapy, respectively. The 3-year PFS rate was 39% for immunotherapy and 25% for targeted therapy. The objective response rate was 72% and 51% for targeted therapy and immunotherapy. The median overall (OS) survival for immunotherapy has not been reached and was 23.6 months (95% CI; 16.1-38.2) for targeted therapy, with a 3-year survival rate of 63% and 40%, respectively. In a univariate analysis, age < 70 years, a higher number of metastatic sites, elevated serum LDH and a neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio above the cut-off value were associated with inferior PFS regardless of the therapy received, but only serum LDH level and the presence of lung metastases remained significant predictors of PFS in a multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Present real-world data document the high effectiveness of immunotherapy and targeted therapy. Although targeted therapy had higher response rates, immunotherapy improved PFS and OS. While the prognostic value of LDH was confirmed, the potential use of blood cell count-derived parameters to predict outcomes needs further investigation.

Optimal strategy in managing advanced melanoma

The advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors and combination therapy with BRAF inhibitors and MEK inhibitors has dramatically improved the prognosis of advanced melanoma. However, since acral melanoma and mucosal melanoma, which are rare in Western countries but are major subtypes of melanoma in East Asia, including Japan, have a low frequency of BRAF mutations, there are currently no treatment options other than immune checkpoint inhibitors in most such cases. Furthermore, owing to a lower tumor mutation burden, immune checkpoint inhibitors are less effective in acral and mucosal melanoma than in cutaneous melanoma. The aim of this review was to summarize the current status and future prospects for the treatment of advanced melanoma, comparing cutaneous melanoma, acral melanoma, and mucosal melanoma.

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.

Multidisciplinary approach and treatment of acral and mucosal melanoma

Acral and mucosal melanoma are uncommon variants of melanoma. Acral melanoma has an age-adjusted incidence of approximately 1.8 cases per million individuals per year, accounting for about 2% to 3% of all melanoma cases. On the other hand, mucosal melanoma, with an incidence of 2.2 cases per million per year, makes up around 1.3% of all melanoma cases. These melanomas, in addition to being biologically and clinically distinct from cutaneous melanoma, share certain clinical and pathologic characteristics. These include a more aggressive nature and a less favorable prognosis. Furthermore, they exhibit a different mutational pattern, with KIT mutations being more prevalent in acral and mucosal melanomas. This divergence in mutational patterns may partially account for the relatively poorer prognosis, particularly to immune checkpoint inhibitors. This review explores various aspects of acral and mucosal melanoma, including their clinical presentation, pathologic features, mutational profiles, current therapeutic approaches, outcomes associated with systemic therapy, and potential strategies to address resistance to existing treatments.

Real-World Data on Clinical Outcomes and Treatment Management of Advanced Melanoma Patients: Single-Center Study of a Tertiary Cancer Center in Switzerland

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and BRAF/MEK inhibitors (BRAF/MEKi) have drastically changed the outcomes of advanced melanoma patients in both the resectable/adjuvant and unresectable/metastatic setting. In this follow-up analysis of real-world data, we aimed to investigate the clinical management and outcomes of advanced melanoma patients in a tertiary referral center in Switzerland approximately a decade after the introduction of ICIs and BRAF/MEKi into clinical use. Moreover, we aimed to compare the results with seminal phase 3 trials and to identify areas of high unmet clinical need.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective cohort study analyzed the melanoma registry of the University Hospital Zurich, a tertiary cancer center in Switzerland, and included patients treated in the resectable/adjuvant (n = 331) or unresectable/metastatic setting (n = 375).

RESULTS

In the resectable setting, adjuvant anti-PD1 or BRAF/MEKi showed a 3-year relapse-free survival (RFS) of 53% and 67.6%, respectively, and the overall median RFS was 50 months. Patients with lymph node plus in-transit metastases or with distant metastases prior to commencing adjuvant treatment had a significantly reduced overall survival (OS). In 10.9% of patients, the treatment was stopped due to toxicity, which did not affect RFS/OS, unless the duration of the treatment was <3 months. Following a relapse of the disease during the first adjuvant treatment, the median progression-free survival (PFS2) was only 6.6 months; outcomes were particularly poor for relapses that were unresectable (median PFS2 3.9 months) or occurred within the first 2 months (median PFS2 2.7 months). A second adjuvant treatment for patients with resectable relapses still showed efficacy (median RFS2 43.7 months). Elevated LDH levels in patients with an unresectable relapse was correlated with a strong reduction in OS2 (HR 9.84, p = 0.018). In the unresectable setting, first-line anti-PD1, anti-CTLA4/PD1 combination, or BRAF/MEKi showed a 5-year OS of 46.5%, 52.4%, and 49.2%, respectively. In a multivariate analysis, elevated LDH levels or the presence of brain metastases substantially shortened OS (HR > 1.78, p < 0.035). There was a non-significant trend for the improved survival of patients treated with anti-CTLA4/PD1 compared to anti-PD1 (HR 0.64, p = 0.15). After a progression on first-line therapy, the median OS2 was reduced to below two years. Elevated LDH (HR 4.65, p < 0.001) levels and widespread disease with at least three metastatic sites, particularly bone metastases (HR 2.62, p = 0.026), affected OS2.

CONCLUSION

Our study offers real-world insights into the clinical management, treatment patterns, and outcomes of advanced melanoma patients in both the adjuvant and unresectable setting. Early relapses in patients undergoing adjuvant treatment pose a particular challenge but these patients are generally excluded from first-line trials. The approved first-line metastatic treatments are highly effective in the real-world setting with 5-year OS rates around 50%. However, outcomes remain poor for patients with brain metastases or who fail first-line treatment.

Single-cell RNA sequencing in melanoma: what have we learned so far?

Over the past decade, there have been remarkable improvements in the treatment and survival rates of melanoma patients. Treatment resistance remains a persistent challenge, however, and is partly attributable to intratumoural heterogeneity. Melanoma cells can transition through a series of phenotypic and transcriptional cell states that vary in invasiveness and treatment responsiveness. The diverse stromal and immune contexture of the tumour microenvironment also contributes to intratumoural heterogeneity and disparities in treatment response in melanoma patients. Recent advances in single-cell sequencing technologies have enabled a more detailed understanding of melanoma heterogeneity and the underlying transcriptional programs that regulate melanoma cell diversity and behaviour. In this review, we examine the concept of intratumoural heterogeneity and the challenges it poses to achieving long-lasting treatment responses. We focus on the significance of next generation single-cell sequencing in advancing our understanding of melanoma diversity and the unique insights gained from single-cell studies.

Molecular Targeting of the BRAF Proto-Oncogene/Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase (MAPK) Pathway across Cancers

The mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway is essential for cellular proliferation, growth, and survival. Constitutive activation of this pathway by BRAF mutations can cause downstream activation of kinases, leading to uncontrolled cellular growth and carcinogenesis. Therefore, inhibition of BRAF and the downstream substrate MEK has been shown to be effective in controlling tumor growth and proliferation. Over the last decade, several BRAF and MEK inhibitors have been investigated, ranging from primarily melanoma to various cancer types with BRAF alterations. This subsequently led to several Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for BRAF/MEK inhibitors for melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, anaplastic thyroid cancer, colorectal cancer, histiocytosis neoplasms, and finally, tumor-agnostic indications. Here, this comprehensive review will cover the developments of BRAF and MEK inhibitors from melanomas to tumor-agnostic indications, novel drugs, challenges, future directions, and the importance of those drugs in personalized medicine.

Oral Adverse Events Associated with BRAF and MEK Inhibitors in Melanoma Treatment: A Narrative Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Melanoma cancer represents the most lethal type of skin cancer originating from the malignant transformation of melanocyte cells. Almost 50% of melanomas show the activation of BRAF mutations. The identification and characterization of BRAF mutations led to the development of specific drugs that radically changed the therapeutic approach to melanoma.

METHODS

We conducted a narrative review of the literature according to a written protocol before conducting the study. This article is based on previously conducted studies. We identified articles by searching electronic databases (Medline, Google Scholar and PubMed). We used a combination of "melanoma", "Braf-Mek inhibitors", " targeted therapy" and "oral side effects".

RESULTS

Eighteen studies were reported in this article showing the relationship between the use of targeted therapy in melanoma cancer and the development of oral side effects, such as mucositis, hyperkeratosis and cellular proliferation.

CONCLUSION

Targeted therapy plays an important role in the treatment of melanoma cancer, showing a notable increase in response rate, prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival in BRAF-mutated melanoma patients. Oral side effects represent a common finding over the course of treatment. However, these adverse effects can be easily managed in a multidisciplinary approach involving collaboration between medical oncologists and dental doctors.

A randomised phase 2 study of intermittent versus continuous dosing of dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAFV600 mutant advanced melanoma (INTERIM)

BACKGROUND

BRAF+MEK inhibitors extend life expectancy of patients with BRAFV600 mutant advanced melanoma. Acquired resistance limits duration of benefit, but preclinical and case studies suggest intermittent dosing could overcome this limitation. INTERIM was a phase 2 trial evaluating an intermittent dosing regimen.

METHODS

Patients with BRAFV600 mutant advanced melanoma due to start dabrafenib+trametinib were randomised to receive either continuous (CONT), or intermittent (INT; dabrafenib d1-21, trametinib d1-14 every 28 days) dosing. A composite primary endpoint included progression-free survival (PFS) and quality of life (QoL). Secondary endpoints included response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs). Mutant BRAFV600E ctDNA was measured by droplet digital PCR (ddPCR), using mutant allele frequency of > 1 % as the detection threshold.

RESULTS

79 patients (39 INT, 40 CONT) were recruited; median age 67 years, 65 % AJCC (7th ed) stage IV M1c, 29 % had brain metastases. With 19 months median follow-up, INT was inferior in all efficacy measures: median PFS 8.5 vs 10.7mo (HR 1.39, 95 %CI 0.79-2.45, p = 0.255); median OS 18.1mo vs not reached (HR 1.69, 95 %CI 0.87-3.28, p = 0.121), ORR 57 % vs 77 %. INT patients experienced fewer treatment-related AEs (76 % vs 88 %), but more grade > 3 AEs (53 % vs 42 %). QoL favoured CONT. Detection of BRAFV600E ctDNA prior to treatment correlated with worse OS (HR 2.55, 95 %CI 1.25-5.21, p = 0.01) in both arms. A change to undetected during treatment did not significantly predict better OS.

CONCLUSION

INTERIM findings are consistent with other recent clinical trials reporting that intermittent dosing does not improve efficacy of BRAF+MEK inhibitors.

POLARIS: A phase 2 trial of encorafenib plus binimetinib evaluating high-dose and standard-dose regimens in patients with BRAF V600-mutant melanoma with brain metastasis

Background

POLARIS (phase 2 [ph2]; NCT03911869) evaluated encorafenib (BRAF inhibitor) in combination with binimetinib (MEK1/2 inhibitor) in BRAF/MEK inhibitor-naïve patients with BRAF V600-mutant melanoma with asymptomatic brain metastases.

Methods

The safety lead-in (SLI) assessed tolerability for high-dose encorafenib 300 mg twice daily (BID) plus binimetinib 45 mg BID. If the high dose was tolerable in ph2, patients would be randomized to receive high or standard dose (encorafenib 450 mg once daily [QD] plus binimetinib 45 mg BID). Otherwise, standard dose was evaluated as the recommended ph2 dose (RP2D). Patients who tolerated standard dosing during Cycle 1 could be dose escalated to encorafenib 600 mg QD plus binimetinib 45 mg BID in Cycle 2. Safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics were examined.

Results

RP2D was standard encorafenib dosing, as >33% of evaluable SLI patients (3/9) had dose-limiting toxicities. Overall, of 13 safety-evaluable patients (10 SLI, 3 ph2), 9 had prior immunotherapy. There were 9 treatment-related adverse events in the SLI and 3 in ph2. Of the SLI efficacy-evaluable patients (n = 10), 1 achieved complete response and 5 achieved partial responses (PR); the brain metastasis response rate (BMRR) was 60% (95% CI: 26.2, 87.8). In ph2, 2 of 3 patients achieved PR (BMRR, 67% [95% CI: 9.4, 99.2]). Repeated encorafenib 300 mg BID dosing did not increase steady-state exposure compared with historical 450 mg QD data.

Conclusions

Despite small patient numbers due to early trial termination, BMRR appeared similar between the SLI and ph2, and the ph2 safety profile appeared consistent with previous reports of standard-dose encorafenib in combination with binimetinib.

Combining Biomarkers for the Diagnosis of Metastatic Melanoma

The early detection of melanoma relapse can improve patient survival; thus, there is a great need for easily accessible biomarkers that facilitate the diagnosis of metastatic disease. We investigated the diagnostic effect of blood biomarkers such as lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), S100B, and osteopontin in the detection of metastases. Clinical data and peripheral blood samples of 206 melanoma patients were collected (no metastasis, N = 120; metastasis, N = 86). The discriminative power of blood biomarkers, patient demographics, and clinicopathological parameters of primary melanomas were evaluated using univariate and multivariate logistic regression models and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to determine the area under the curve (AUC). Plasma osteopontin levels showed a significant and independent effect on the probability of metastasis, similar to serum S100B levels. In addition, the location of the primary tumor on the lower extremities and the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) categories pT2b-3a, pT3b-4a, and pT4b were associated with the diagnosis of metastasis. Importantly, the combination of the three blood biomarkers and primary tumor localization and AJCC pT category yielded excellent discrimination (AUC: training set: 0.803; validation set: 0.822). In conclusion, plasma osteopontin can be classified as a melanoma biomarker; moreover, by combining clinicopathological prognostic variables, the diagnostic effect of blood biomarkers in the detection of metastatic melanoma can be improved.

Demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy during dabrafenib and trametinib treatment for metastatic melanoma: A case report

BACKGROUND

Melanoma is an aggressive malignancy, historically characterized with a poor prognosis and few treatment options. The advent of target therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors, as well as immunotherapy, changed this scenario and improved the prognosis of patients with BRAF V600E mutation. These therapies are generally well tolerated. Neurological toxicities, especially polyradiculopathy, are very rare with BRAF inhibitors and MEK inhibitors although some cases have been described in recent years, regardless of the type of target therapies combination used.

CASE REPORT

We report the case of a patient with BRAF V600E-mutated metastatic melanoma treated with dabrafenib and trametinib who has developed a demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy.

CONCLUSION

This case, once more, should draw our attention to the possibility of rare, but potentially serious side effects, even in the case of generally well-tolerated treatments. Especially in the presence of side effects, it is important a close relationship between clinicians and patients for the management of adverse events and the choice of the best treatment strategy.

Anorectal mucosal melanoma

Anorectal mucosal melanoma accounts for less than 1 % of all anorectal malignant tumors and a tendency for delayed diagnosis leads to advanced disease at presentation.1,2 Due to the rarity of the disease, there are limited prospective trials exploring the optimal treatment strategies. Generally, tumors are surgically excised, with a preference for conservative management with wide local excision. In the past decade, there have been advances with immunotherapy and other targeted therapies. Multiple clinical trials continue exploring neoadjuvant/adjuvant combination treatments in the setting of advanced or unresectable disease.

Phase II Trial of Dabrafenib Plus Trametinib in Relapsed/Refractory BRAF V600-Mutant Pediatric High-Grade Glioma

PURPOSE

BRAF V600 mutation is detected in 5%-10% of pediatric high-grade gliomas (pHGGs), and effective treatments are limited. In previous trials, dabrafenib as monotherapy or in combination with trametinib demonstrated activity in children and adults with relapsed/refractory BRAF V600-mutant HGG.

METHODS

This phase II study evaluated dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with relapsed/refractory BRAF V600-mutant pHGG. The primary objective was overall response rate (ORR) by independent review by Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology criteria. Secondary objectives included ORR by investigator determination, duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival, overall survival (OS), and safety.

RESULTS

A total of 41 pediatric patients with previously treated BRAF V600-mutant HGG were enrolled. At primary analysis, median follow-up was 25.1 months, and 51% of patients remained on treatment. Sixteen of 20 discontinuations were due to progressive disease in this relapsed/refractory pHGG population. Independently assessed ORR was 56% (95% CI, 40 to 72). Median DOR was 22.2 months (95% CI, 7.6 months to not reached [NR]). Fourteen deaths were reported. Median OS was 32.8 months (95% CI, 19.2 months to NR). The most common all-cause adverse events (AEs) were pyrexia (51%), headache (34%), and dry skin (32%). Two patients (5%) had AEs (both rash) leading to discontinuation.

CONCLUSION

In relapsed/refractory BRAF V600-mutant pHGG, dabrafenib plus trametinib improved ORR versus previous trials of chemotherapy in molecularly unselected patients with pHGG and was associated with durable responses and encouraging survival. These findings suggest that dabrafenib plus trametinib is a promising targeted therapy option for children and adolescents with relapsed/refractory BRAF V600-mutant HGG.

Die Prognose des Melanoms im Kopf-Hals-Bereich im Stadium II hängt vom histologischen Subtyp ab

Hintergrund und Ziele

Die Melanom‐Leitlinie basiert hauptsächlich auf dem AJCC‐Stadium. Hierbei wird nicht zwischen den histologischen Subtypen wie dem superfiziell spreitenden Melanom (SSM), dem Lentigo‐maligna‐Melanom (LMM) oder dem nodulären malignen Melanom (NM) unterschieden. Ziel der Studie war es zu untersuchen, ob sich Patienten mit LMM im klinischen Verlauf von Patienten mit SSM/NM unterscheiden. Dies ist aktuell besonders wichtig, da die adjuvante Anti‐PD‐1‐Therapie für Melanome im Stadium IIB und IIC zugelassen wurde.

Patienten und Methodik

Die Daten wurden aus dem Zentralregister „malignes Melanom“ entnommen. Es wurden nur Patienten mit LMM, SSM oder NM des Kopf‐Hals‐Bereichs und Primärdiagnose zwischen dem 01.01.2000 und dem 31.12.2019 eingeschlossen. Das progressionsfreie Überleben (PFÜ), das melanomspezifische Überleben (MSÜ) und das Metastasierungsmuster wurden für die Gruppe der LMM im Vergleich zur Gruppe der SSM/NM analysiert.

Ergebnisse

Die LMM‐Kohorte (n = 902) hatte ein signifikant besseres MSÜ als die SSM/NM‐Kohorte (n = 604). Beim PFÜ gab es keinen Unterschied. Das 5‐Jahres‐MSÜ der LMM‐Kohorte im Stadium II betrug 88,5 % (95 % KI 81,4–95,6), im Vergleich dazu das der SSM/NM‐Kohorte im Stadium II 79,7 % (95 % KI 72,8–86,6).

Schlussfolgerung

Es scheint nicht angebracht zu sein, eine adjuvante Therapie bei LMM‐Patienten im Stadium II im gleichen Umfang durchzuführen, wie bei Patienten mit SSM/NM.

Prognosis in stage II melanoma of the head and neck depends on the histological subtype

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The melanoma guideline is mainly based on the AJCC stage. There is no difference according to histological subtypes such as superficial spreading melanoma (SSM), lentigo maligna melanoma (LMM) or nodular malignant melanoma (NM). We aimed to evaluate whether patients with LMM have a different clinical course from patients with SSM/NM. This is particularly important as adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy is approved for stage IIB and IIC melanoma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data were extracted from the Central Registry of Malignant Melanoma. Only patients with LMM, SSM, and NM of the head and neck with primary diagnosis between 01/01/2000 and 12/31/2019 were included. Progression-free survival (PFS), melanoma-specific survival (MSS), and pattern of metastases were analyzed for the LMM group compared to SSM/NM.

RESULTS

The LMM cohort (n = 902) had significantly better MSS than the SSM/NM cohort (n = 604). There was no difference in PFS. The 5-year MSS of the stage II LMM cohort was 88.5% (95% CI 81.4-95.6) compared to 79.7% (95% CI 72.8-86.6) in the stage II SSM/NM cohort.

CONCLUSION

It does not appear appropriate to use adjuvant therapy in stage II LMM patients to the same extent as in patients with SSM/NM.

PAK1 and Therapy Resistance in Melanoma

Malignant melanoma claims more lives than any other skin malignancy. While primary melanomas are usually cured via surgical excision, the metastatic form of the disease portents a poor prognosis. Decades of intense research has yielded an extensive armamentarium of anti-melanoma therapies, ranging from genotoxic chemo- and radiotherapies to targeted interventions in specific signaling pathways and immune functions. Unfortunately, even the most up-to-date embodiments of these therapies are not curative for the majority of metastatic melanoma patients, and the need to improve their efficacy is widely recognized. Here, we review the reports that implicate p21-regulated kinase 1 (PAK1) and PAK1-related pathways in the response of melanoma to various therapeutic modalities. Ample data suggest that PAK1 may decrease cell sensitivity to programmed cell death, provide additional stimulation to growth-promoting molecular pathways, and contribute to the creation of an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. Accordingly, there is mounting evidence that the concomitant inhibition of PAK1 enhances the potency of various anti-melanoma regimens. Overall, the available information suggests that a safe and effective inhibition of PAK1-dependent molecular processes would enhance the potency of the currently available anti-melanoma treatments, although considerable challenges in implementing such strategies still exist.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of combination therapy versus monotherapy in malignant melanoma

BACKGROUND

Until 2010, stage III or IV malignant melanoma (MM) had a poor prognosis. The discovery of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in 2011 changed the treatment landscape. Promising results in patient survival with a checkpoint inhibitor prompted research into combination therapies. In 2016, the first combination therapy has been approved as first-line therapy for advanced MM.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this work is to investigate to what extent combination therapy is (cost-)effective compared to monotherapy in stage III or IV MM.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed (Web of Science, PubMed, PubPharm, EconLit, and Cochrane Library); searching for publications published over the past decade that examine the cost-effectiveness in terms of cost/QALY and the effectiveness in terms of survival and response of combination therapy in comparison to monotherapy in stage III or IV MM patients.

RESULTS

A total of 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five cost-utility analyses met our inclusion criteria. Nine clinical trials demonstrated superiority of combination therapy over monotherapy. The combination of B-rapidly accelerated fibrosarcoma (BRAF) protein and mitogen-activated kinase (MEK) protein inhibitors is not cost-effective in any country. Three analyses demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of combination therapy with ICI compared to monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Combination therapy is more effective compared to monotherapy. While combined ICIs are cost-effective compared to monotherapy, this is not the case for the combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors.

COMBI-r: A Prospective, Non-Interventional Study of Dabrafenib Plus Trametinib in Unselected Patients with Unresectable or Metastatic BRAF V600-Mutant Melanoma

Combined BRAF/MEK-inhibition constitutes a relevant treatment option for BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma. The prospective, non-interventional COMBI-r study assessed the effectiveness and tolerability of the BRAF-inhibitor dabrafenib combined with the MEK-inhibitor trametinib in patients with advanced melanoma under routine clinical conditions. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary objective, and secondary objectives included overall survival (OS), disease control rate, duration of therapy, and the frequency and severity of adverse events. This study enrolled 472 patients at 55 German sites. The median PFS was 8.3 months (95%CI 7.1-9.3) and the median OS was 18.3 months (14.9-21.3), both tending to be longer in pre-treated patients. In the 147 patients with CNS metastases, PFS was similar in those requiring corticosteroids (probably representing symptomatic patients, 5.6 months (3.9-7.2)) compared with those not requiring corticosteroids (5.9 months (4.8-6.9)); however, OS was shorter in patients with brain metastases who received corticosteroids (7.8 (6.3-11.6)) compared to those who did not (11.9 months (9.6-19.5)). The integrated subjective assessment of tumor growth dynamics proved helpful to predict outcome: investigators' upfront categorization correlated well with time-to-event outcomes. Taken together, COMBI-r mirrored PFS outcomes from other prospective, observational studies and confirmed efficacy and safety findings from the pivotal phase III COMBI-d/-v and COMBI-mb trials.

Predictive Impact of RNF43 Mutations in Patients With Proficient Mismatch Repair/Microsatellite Stable BRAFV600E-Mutated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated With Target Therapy or Chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Target therapy (TT) with encorafenib plus cetuximab is a standard option in patients with BRAFV600E-mutated (mut) pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Recently, mutations in RNF43, encoding a negative regulator of the WNT pathway, were associated with longer progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with proficient mismatch repair/microsatellite stable (pMMR/MSS) BRAFV600E-mut mCRC treated with TT. Here, we explored the effect of RNF43 mutations on the efficacy of second-line TT versus standard chemotherapy (CT).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of patients with pMMR/MSS BRAFV600E-mut tumors, available RNF43 mutational status, and treated with second-line TT or oxaliplatin- and/or irinotecan-based CT was analyzed.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-two patients with pMMR/MSS BRAFV600E-mut mCRC were included. RNF43 was found mut in 34 (26%) cases. Among RNF43 mutants, TT was associated with longer PFS (7.7 v 3.0 months; P = .002) and higher overall response rate (ORR; 45% v 0%; P = .009) compared with CT. Conversely, among RNF43 wild-type (wt) patients, only a trend for longer PFS (4.5 v 3.7 months; P = .064) favoring TT, with no differences in ORR (P = .14), was observed. After excluding 36 patients receiving TT in third line or beyond, a longer OS (19.4 v 10.1 months; P = .022) and a numerically OS advantage (10.6 v 6.6 months; P = .068) were reported for TT both in the RNF43-mut and in the RNF43 wt groups. However, no interaction effect was reported between RNF43 mutational status and treatment in ORR (Pinteraction = .96), PFS (Pinteraction = .13), and OS (Pinteraction = .44).

CONCLUSION

Patients with pMMR/MSS BRAFV600E-mut mCRC achieve benefit from TT versus CT independently of RNF43 mutational status, although a higher magnitude of benefit from TT is observed in RNF43-mut tumors. These findings deserve confirmation in concluded and ongoing randomized trials.

Advances in targeted therapy and immunotherapy for melanoma (Review)

Melanoma is the most aggressive and deadly type of skin cancer and is known for its poor prognosis as soon as metastasis occurs. Since 2011, new and effective therapies for metastatic melanoma have emerged, with US Food and Drug Administration approval of multiple targeted agents, such as V-Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1/mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase inhibitors and multiple immunotherapy agents, such as cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4 and anti-programmed cell death protein 1/ligand 1 blockade. Based on insight into the respective advantages of the above two strategies, the present article provided a review of clinical trials of the application of targeted therapy and immunotherapy, as well as novel approaches of their combinations for the treatment of metastatic melanoma in recent years, with a focus on upcoming initiatives to improve the efficacy of these treatment approaches for metastatic melanoma.

Cutaneous melanoma

Cutaneous melanoma is a malignancy arising from melanocytes of the skin. Incidence rates are rising, particularly in White populations. Cutaneous melanoma is typically driven by exposure to ultraviolet radiation from natural sunlight and indoor tanning, although there are several subtypes that are not related to ultraviolet radiation exposure. Primary melanomas are often darkly pigmented, but can be amelanotic, with diagnosis based on a combination of clinical and histopathological findings. Primary melanoma is treated with wide excision, with margins determined by tumour thickness. Further treatment depends on the disease stage (following histopathological examination and, where appropriate, sentinel lymph node biopsy) and can include surgery, checkpoint immunotherapy, targeted therapy, or radiotherapy. Systemic drug therapies are recommended as an adjunct to surgery in patients with resectable locoregional metastases and are the mainstay of treatment in advanced melanoma. Management of advanced melanoma is complex, particularly in those with cerebral metastasis. Multidisciplinary care is essential. Systemic drug therapies, particularly immune checkpoint inhibitors, have substantially increased melanoma survival following a series of landmark approvals from 2011 onward.

Phase II, Open-Label Study of Encorafenib Plus Binimetinib in Patients With BRAFV600-Mutant Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE

The combination of encorafenib (BRAF inhibitor) plus binimetinib (MEK inhibitor) has demonstrated clinical efficacy with an acceptable safety profile in patients with BRAFV600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of encorafenib plus binimetinib in patients with BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

In this ongoing, open-label, single-arm, phase II study, patients with BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC received oral encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily in 28-day cycles. The primary end point was confirmed objective response rate (ORR) by independent radiology review (IRR). Secondary end points included duration of response (DOR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, time to response, and safety.

RESULTS

At data cutoff, 98 patients (59 treatment-naïve and 39 previously treated) with BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC received encorafenib plus binimetinib. Median duration of treatment was 9.2 months with encorafenib and 8.4 months with binimetinib. ORR by IRR was 75% (95% CI, 62 to 85) in treatment-naïve and 46% (95% CI, 30 to 63) in previously treated patients; median DOR was not estimable (NE; 95% CI, 23.1 to NE) and 16.7 months (95% CI, 7.4 to NE), respectively. DCR after 24 weeks was 64% in treatment-naïve and 41% in previously treated patients. Median PFS was NE (95% CI, 15.7 to NE) in treatment-naïve and 9.3 months (95% CI, 6.2 to NE) in previously treated patients. The most frequent treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were nausea (50%), diarrhea (43%), and fatigue (32%). TRAEs led to dose reductions in 24 (24%) and permanent discontinuation of encorafenib plus binimetinib in 15 (15%) patients. One grade 5 TRAE of intracranial hemorrhage was reported. Interactive visualization of the data presented in this article is available at the PHAROS dashboard (https://clinical-trials.dimensions.ai/pharos/).

CONCLUSION

For patients with treatment-naïve and previously treated BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC, encorafenib plus binimetinib showed a meaningful clinical benefit with a safety profile consistent with that observed in the approved indication in melanoma.

Activity and safety of first-line treatments for advanced melanoma: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Treatment options for advanced melanoma have increased with the US Food and Drug Administration approval of the anti-LAG3 plus anti-PD-1 relatlimab/nivolumab combination. To date, ipilimumab/nivolumab is the benchmark of overall survival, despite a high toxicity profile. Furthermore, in BRAF-mutant patients, BRAF/MEK inhibitors and the atezolizumab/vemurafenib/cobimetinib triplet are also available treatments, making the first-line therapy selection more complex. To address this issue, we conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of the available first-line treatment options in advanced melanoma.

METHODS

Randomised clinical trials of previously untreated, advanced melanoma were included if at least one intervention arm contained a BRAF/MEK or an immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI). The aim was to indirectly compare the ICIs combinations ipilimumab/nivolumab and relatlimab/nivolumab, and these combinations with all the other first-line treatment options for advanced melanoma (irrespective of BRAF status) in terms of activity and safety. The coprimary end-points were progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (≥ G3 TRAEs) rate, defined according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events.

RESULTS

A total of 9070 metastatic melanoma patients treated in 18 randomised clinical trials were included in the network meta-analysis. No difference in PFS and ORR was observed between ipilimumab/nivolumab and relatlimab/nivolumab (HR = 0.99 [95% CI 0.75-1.31] and RR = 0.99 [95% CI 0.78-1.27], respectively). The PD-(L)1/BRAF/MEK inhibitors triplet combinations were superior to ipilimumab/nivolumab in terms of both PFS (HR = 0.56 [95% CI 0.37-0.84]) and ORR (RR = 3.07 [95% CI 1.61-5.85]). Ipilimumab/nivolumab showed the highest risk of developing ≥ G3 TRAEs. Relatlimab/nivolumab trended to a lower risk of ≥ G3 TRAEs (RR = 0.71 [95% CI 0.30-1.67]) versus ipilimumab/nivolumab.

CONCLUSION

Relatlimab/nivolumab showed similar PFS and ORR compared to ipilimumab/nivolumab, with a trend for a better safety profile.

Pathology and Molecular Biology of Melanoma

Almost every death in young patients with an advanced skin tumor is caused by melanoma. Today, with the help of modern treatments, these patients survive longer or can even achieve a cure. Advanced stage melanoma is frequently related with poor prognosis and physicians still find this disease difficult to manage due to the absence of a lasting response to initial treatment regimens and the lack of randomized clinical trials in post immunotherapy/targeted molecular therapy settings. New therapeutic targets are emerging from preclinical data on the genetic profile of melanocytes and from the identification of molecular factors involved in the pathogenesis of malignant transformation. In the current paper, we present the diagnostic challenges, molecular biology and genetics of malignant melanoma, as well as the current therapeutic options for patients with this diagnosis.

Antigen presentation by clonally diverse CXCR5+ B cells to CD4 and CD8 T cells is associated with durable response to immune checkpoint inhibitors

Introduction

Increased T cell infiltration and interferon gamma (IFNγ) pathway activation are seen in tumors of melanoma patients who respond to ICI (immune checkpoint inhibitor) or MAPK pathway inhibitor (MAPKi) therapies. Yet, the rate of durable tumor control after ICI is almost twice that of MAPKi, suggesting that additional mechanisms may be present in patients responding to ICI therapy that are beneficial for anti-tumor immunity.

Methods

We used transcriptional analysis and clinical outcomes from patients treated with ICI or MAPKi therapies to delineate immune mechanisms driving tumor response.

Results

We discovered response to ICI is associated with CXCL13-driven recruitment of CXCR5+ B cells with significantly higher clonal diversity than MAPKi. Our in vitro data indicate that CXCL13 production was increased in human peripheral blood mononuclear cells by anti-PD1, but not MAPKi, treatment. Higher B cell infiltration and B cell receptor (BCR) diversity allows presentation of diverse tumor antigens by B cells, resulting in activation of follicular helper CD4 T cells (Tfh) and tumor reactive CD8 T cells after ICI therapy. Higher BCR diversity and IFNγ pathway score post-ICI are associated with significantly longer patient survival compared to those with either one or none.

Conclusions

Response to ICI, but not to MAPKi, depends on the recruitment of CXCR5+ B cells into the tumor microenvironment and their productive tumor antigen presentation to follicular helper and cytotoxic, tumor reactive T cells. Our study highlights the potential of CXCL13 and B cell based strategies to enhance the rate of durable response in melanoma patients treated with ICI.

Early switch from run-in treatment with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib to atezolizumab after 3 months leads to rapid loss of tumour control in patients with advanced BRAFV600-positive melanoma: The ImmunoCobiVem phase 2 randomised trial

AIM

ImmunoCobiVem investigated whether a planned switch to atezolizumab after achieving tumour control during run-in with vemurafenib + cobimetinib improves progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to continuous targeted therapy (TT) in patients with previously untreated advanced BRAF^V600-mutated melanoma.

METHODS

In this multicenter phase 2 study, patients received vemurafenib plus cobimetinib. After 3months, patients without progressive disease (PD) were randomly assigned (1:1) to continue vemurafenib + cobimetinib (Arm A) or switch to atezolizumab (Arm B) until first documented PD (PD1). Primary outcome was PFS1 (time from start of run-in until PD1 or death). OS and safety were also assessed.

RESULTS

Of 185 patients enroled between November 2016 and December 2019, 135 were randomly assigned after the run-in period (Arm A, n = 69; Arm B, n = 66). Median PFS1 was significantly longer in Arm A versus Arm B (13.9 versus 5.9months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.84; P_Stratified=0.001). Median OS was not reached in either arm (HR 1.22; 95%CI, 0.69-2.16; P_Stratified=0.389); 2-year OS was higher in Arm B versus Arm A (67%; 95%CI, 53-78 versus 58%; 95%CI, 45-70). Grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 55% of patients in Arm A and 64% in Arm B; treatment-related AEs led to discontinuation of any drug in 7% and 9% of patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In patients with BRAF^V600-mutated advanced melanoma who achieve tumour control with TT, early switch at 3months to atezolizumab led to rapid loss of tumour control but provided a numerical OS benefit at 2years compared with continued TT.

Tebentafusp in combination with durvalumab and/or tremelimumab in patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma: a phase 1 study

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have significantly improved outcomes in first line cutaneous melanoma. However, there is a high unmet need for patients who progress on these therapies and combination therapies are being explored to improve outcomes. Tebentafusp is a first-in-class gp100×CD3 ImmTAC bispecific that demonstrated overall survival (OS) benefit (HR 0.51) in metastatic uveal melanoma despite a modest overall response rate of 9%. This phase 1b trial evaluated the safety and initial efficacy of tebentafusp in combination with durvalumab (anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PDL1)) and/or tremelimumab (anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4) in patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma (mCM), the majority of whom progressed on prior checkpoint inhibitors.

METHODS

In this open-label, multicenter, phase 1b, dose-escalation trial, HLA-A*02:01-positive patients with mCM received weekly intravenous tebentafusp with increasing monthly doses of durvalumab and/or tremelimumab starting day 15 of each cycle. The primary objective was to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or recommended phase 2 dose for each combination. Efficacy analyses were performed in all tebentafusp with durvalumab±tremelimumab treated patients with a sensitivity analysis in those who progressed on prior anti-PD(L)1 therapy.

RESULTS

85 patients were assigned to receive tebentafusp in combination with durvalumab (n=43), tremelimumab (n=13), or durvalumab and tremelimumab (n=29). Patients were heavily pretreated with a median of 3 prior lines of therapy, including 76 (89%) who received prior anti-PD(L)1. Maximum target doses of tebentafusp (68 mcg) alone or in combination with durvalumab (20 mg/kg) and tremelimumab (1 mg/kg) were tolerated; MTD was not formally identified for any arm. Adverse event profile was consistent with each individual therapy and there were no new safety signals nor treatment-related deaths. In the efficacy subset (n=72), the response rate was 14%, tumor shrinkage rate was 41% and 1-year OS rate was 76% (95% CI: 70% to 81%). The 1-year OS for triplet combination (79%; 95% CI: 71% to 86%) was similar to tebentafusp plus durvalumab (74%; 95% CI: 67% to 80%).

CONCLUSION

At maximum target doses, the safety of tebentafusp with checkpoint inhibitors was consistent with safety of each individual therapy. Tebentafusp with durvalumab demonstrated promising efficacy in heavily pretreated patients with mCM, including those who progressed on prior anti-PD(L)1.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02535078.

BRAF V600-Mutated Metastatic Melanoma and Targeted Therapy Resistance: An Update of the Current Knowledge

Melanoma is the most common cause of death in skin cancer due to its high metastatic potential. While targeted therapies have improved the care of patients with metastatic melanoma harboring the BRAFV600E mutation, these treatments are associated with a high frequency of resistance. Resistance factors are related to cellular adaptation as well as to changes in the tumor microenvironment. At the cellular level, resistance involves mutations, overexpression, activation, or inhibition of effectors involved in cell signaling pathways such as MAPK, PI3K/AKT, MITF, and epigenetic factors (miRNAs). In addition, several components of the melanoma microenvironment, such as soluble factors, collagen, and stromal cells also play a crucial role in this resistance. In fact, extracellular matrix remodeling impacts the physical and chemical properties with changes in the stiffness and acidity, respectively of the microenvironment. The cellular and immune components of the stroma are also affected, including immune cells and CAF. The aim of this manuscript is to review the mechanisms responsible for resistance to targeted therapies in BRAFV600E-mutated metastatic melanoma.

Expanding the Benefit: Dabrafenib/Trametinib as Tissue-Agnostic Therapy for BRAF V600E-Positive Adult and Pediatric Solid Tumors

The recent US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the dabrafenib/trametinib combination as a tissue-agnostic treatment for solid tumors with BRAF V600E mutation is the result of more than 20 years of extensive research into BRAF mutations in human cancer, the underlying biological mechanisms that drive BRAF-mediated tumor growth, and the clinical testing and refinement of selective RAF and MEK kinase inhibitors. Such approval marks a significant achievement in the field of oncology and represents a major step forward in our ability to treat cancer. Early evidence supported the use of dabrafenib/trametinib combination in melanoma, non-small-cell lung cancer, and anaplastic thyroid cancer. Furthermore, data from basket trials have demonstrated consistently good response rates in various tumors, including biliary tract cancer, low-grade glioma, high-grade glioma, hairy cell leukemia, and multiple other malignancies, which has been the basis for FDA approval of a tissue-agnostic indication in adult and pediatric patients with BRAF V600E-positive solid tumors. From a clinical standpoint, our review delves into the efficacy of the dabrafenib/trametinib combination for BRAF V600E-positive tumors: examining the underlying rationale for its use, evaluating the latest evidence on its potential benefits, and discussing the possible associated adverse effects and strategies to minimize their impact. Additionally, we explore potential resistance mechanisms and future landscape of BRAF-targeted therapies.

Neoadjuvant Checkpoint Immunotherapy and Melanoma: The Time Is Now

The role of neoadjuvant therapy is undergoing an historic shift in oncology. The emergence of potent immunostimulatory anticancer agents has transformed neoadjuvant therapy from a useful tool in minimizing surgical morbidity to a life-saving treatment with curative promise, led by research in the field of melanoma. Health practitioners have witnessed remarkable improvements in melanoma survival outcomes over the past decade, beginning with checkpoint immunotherapies and BRAF-targeted therapies in the advanced setting that were successfully adopted into the postsurgical adjuvant setting for high-risk resectable disease. Despite substantial reductions in postsurgical recurrence, high-risk resectable melanoma has remained a life-altering and potentially fatal disease. In recent years, data from preclinical models and early-phase clinical trials have pointed to the potential for greater clinical efficacy when checkpoint inhibitors are administered in the neoadjuvant rather than adjuvant setting. Early feasibility studies showed impressive pathologic response rates to neoadjuvant immunotherapy, which were associated with recurrence-free survival rates of over 90%. Recently, the randomized phase II SWOG S1801 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03698019) reported a 42% reduction in 2-year event-free survival risk with neoadjuvant versus adjuvant pembrolizumab in resectable stage IIIB-D/IV melanoma (72% v 49%; hazard ratio, 0.58; P = .004), establishing neoadjuvant single-agent immunotherapy as a new standard of care. A randomized phase III trial of neoadjuvant immunotherapy in resectable stage IIIB-D melanoma, NADINA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04949113), is ongoing, as are feasibility studies in high-risk stage II disease. With a swathe of clinical, quality-of-life, and economic benefits, neoadjuvant immunotherapy has the potential to redefine the contemporary management of resectable tumors.

Characterisation and outcome of RAC1 mutated melanoma

BACKGROUND

Activating hot spot R29S mutations in RAC1, a small GTPase influencing several cellular processes including cell proliferation and cytoskeleton rearrangement, have been reported in up to 9% of sun-exposed melanomas. Clinical characteristics and treatment implications of RAC1 mutations in melanoma remain unclear.

METHODS

We investigated the largest set (n = 64) of RAC1 mutated melanoma patients reported to date, including a retrospective single institution cohort (n = 34) from the University Hospital Essen and a prospective multicentre cohort (n = 30) from the translational study Tissue Registry in Melanoma (TRIM; CA209-578), for patient and tumour characteristics as well as therapy outcomes.

RESULTS

From 3037 sequenced melanoma samples screened RAC1 mutations occurred in ^∼2% of samples (64/3037). The most common RAC1 mutation was P29S (95%, 61/64). The majority of tumours had co-occuring MAP kinase mutations (88%, 56/64); mostly activating NRAS (47%, 30/64) mutations, followed by activating BRAF (28%, 18/64) and NF1 (25%, 16/64) mutations. RAC1 mutated melanomas were almost exclusively of cutaneous origin (84%, 54/64) or of unknown primary (MUP, 14%, 9/64). C > T alterations were the most frequent mutation type identified demonstrating a UV-signature for RAC1 mutated melanoma. Most patients with unresectable disease (39) received immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) (77%, 30/39). Objective response rate of first-line treatment in patients with stage III/IV disease was 21%; median overall survival was 47.8 months.

CONCLUSIONS

RAC1 mutated melanomas are rare, mostly of cutaneous origin and frequently harbour concomitant MAP kinase mutations, particularly in NRAS. Patients with advanced disease benefit from systemic treatment with ICI.

Sequencing Targeted and Immune Therapy in BRAF-Mutant Melanoma: Lessons Learned

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The treatment strategy for BRAF-mutated melanoma remains unsatisfactory, although the advent of immune checkpoint inhibition has improved the prognosis of advanced melanoma. This article reports current evidence on the efficacy and safety of sequential immunotherapy with targeted therapy in patients with BRAF-mutated melanoma. It discusses criteria for the use of available options in clinical practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

Targeted therapy provides rapid disease control in a relatively high proportion of patients, although the development of secondary resistance limits the duration of responses; in contrast, immunotherapy may induce slow but more durable responses in a subset of patients. Therefore, the identification of a combination strategy for the use of these therapies seems a promising perspective. Currently, inconsistent data have been obtained, but most studies indicate that the administration of BRAFi/MEKi prior to immune checkpoint inhibitors appears to reduce the efficacy of immunotherapy. On the contrary, several clinical and real-life studies suggest that frontline immunotherapy with subsequent targeted therapy may be associated with better tumor control than immunotherapy alone. Larger clinical studies are ongoing to confirm the efficacy and safety of this sequencing strategy for treating BRAF-mutated melanoma with immunotherapy followed by targeted therapy.

Chemotherapy in Cutaneous Melanoma: Is There Still a Role?

Purpose of Review

In the preceding decade, the management of metastatic cutaneous melanoma has been revolutionised with the development of highly effective therapies including immune checkpoint inhibitors (specifically CTLA-4 and PD-1 inhibitors) and targeted therapies (BRAF and MEK inhibitors). The role of chemotherapy in the contemporary management of melanoma is undefined.

Recent Findings

Extended analyses highlight substantially improved 5-year survival rates of approximately 50% in patients with metastatic melanoma treated with first-line therapies. However, most patients will progress on these first-line treatments. Sequencing of chemotherapy following failure of targeted and immunotherapies is associated with low objective response rates and short progression-free survival, and thus, meaningful benefits to patients are minimal.

Summary

Chemotherapy has limited utility in the contemporary management of cutaneous melanoma (with a few exceptions, discussed herein) and should not be the standard treatment sequence following failure of first-line therapies. Instead, enrolment onto clinical trials should be standard-of-care in these patients.

Addressing the unmet needs of patients with BRAF-mutated melanoma in Latin America: Expert perspective

Melanoma represents an increasing public health burden with extensive unmet needs in Latin America (LA). A mutation in the BRAF gene is present in approximately 50% of all melanomas in White populations and is a target of precision medicine, with the potential to dramatically improve patient outcomes. Thus, increased access to BRAF testing and therapy is LA must be explored. At a multi-day conference, a panel of Latin American experts in oncology and dermatology were provided with questions to address the barriers limiting access to testing for BRAF mutation in patients with melanoma in LA, who may be eligible for targeted therapy to improve their prognosis. During the conference, responses were discussed and edited until a consensus on addressing the barriers was achieved. Identified challenges included ignorance of BRAF-status implications, limited human and infrastructural resources, affordability and reimbursement, fragmented care delivery, pitfalls in the sample journey, and lack of local data. Despite the clear benefits of targeted therapies for BRAF-mutated melanoma in other regions, there is no clear path to prepare LA for a sustainable personalized medicine approach to this disease. Due to melanoma’s time-sensitive nature, LA must aim to provide early access to BRAF testing and consider mutational status within treatment decision making. To this end, recommendations are provided and include establishing multidisciplinary teams and melanoma referral centers and improving access to diagnosis and treatment.