Analysis of BRAF and NRAS Mutation Status in Advanced Melanoma Patients Treated with Anti-CTLA-4 Antibodies: Association with Overall Survival?

Guadecitabine plus ipilimumab in unresectable melanoma: five-year follow-up and integrated multi-omic analysis in the phase 1b NIBIT-M4 trial

Association with hypomethylating agents is a promising strategy to improve the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors-based therapy. The NIBIT-M4 was a phase Ib, dose-escalation trial in patients with advanced melanoma of the hypomethylating agent guadecitabine combined with the anti-CTLA-4 antibody ipilimumab that followed a traditional 3 + 3 design (NCT02608437). Patients received guadecitabine 30, 45 or 60 mg/m2/day subcutaneously on days 1 to 5 every 3 weeks starting on week 0 for a total of four cycles, and ipilimumab 3 mg/kg intravenously starting on day 1 of week 1 every 3 weeks for a total of four cycles. Primary outcomes of safety, tolerability, and maximum tolerated dose of treatment were previously reported. Here we report the 5-year clinical outcome for the secondary endpoints of overall survival, progression free survival, and duration of response, and an exploratory integrated multi-omics analysis on pre- and on-treatment tumor biopsies. With a minimum follow-up of 45 months, the 5-year overall survival rate was 28.9% and the median duration of response was 20.6 months. Re-expression of immuno-modulatory endogenous retroviruses and of other repetitive elements, and a mechanistic signature of guadecitabine are associated with response. Integration of a genetic immunoediting index with an adaptive immunity signature stratifies patients/lesions into four distinct subsets and discriminates 5-year overall survival and progression free survival. These results suggest that coupling genetic immunoediting with activation of adaptive immunity is a relevant requisite for achieving long term clinical benefit by epigenetic immunomodulation in advanced melanoma patients.

A real-world study of adjuvant anti-PD -1 immunotherapy on stage III melanoma with BRAF, NRAS, and KIT mutations

BACKGROUND

Melanoma frequently harbors BRAF, NRAS, or KIT mutations which influence both tumor development and treatment strategies. For example, it is still controversial whether adjuvant anti-PD-1 monotherapy or BRAF/MEK inhibitors may better improve the survival for resected BRAF-mutant melanoma. Furthermore, outcomes for melanoma with NRAS and KIT mutation receiving adjuvant immunotherapy remain unclear.

METHODS

One hundred seventy-four stage III melanoma patients who underwent radical surgery in Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center (FUSCC) during January 2017 to December 2021 were included in this real-world study. Patients were followed up until death or May 30th, 2022. Pearson's chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test was performed for univariable analysis of the different category groups. Log-rank analysis was used to identify the prognostic factors for disease-free survival (DFS).

RESULTS

There were 41 (23.6%) patients with BRAF mutation, 31 (17.8%) with NRAS mutation, 17 (9.8%) with KIT mutation, and 85 (48.9%) wild-type patients without either genomic alteration of those three genes. Most ( n  = 118, 67.8%) of them were acral melanoma, while 45 (25.9%) were cutaneous subtype, and 11 were (6.3%) primary unknown. Among them, 115 (66.1%) patients received pembrolizumab or toripalimab monotherapy as adjuvant therapy; 22 (12.6%) patients received high-dose interferon (IFN), and 37 (21.3%) patients were just for observation. There was no statistical difference in clinicopathologic factors between anti-PD-1 group and IFN/OBS group. Of all the enrolled patients, anti-PD-1 group had a better DFS than IFN/OBS group ( p  = 0.039). In anti-PD-1 group, patients with BRAF or NRAS mutations had poorer DFS than wild-type group. No survival difference was found among patients harboring different gene mutations in IFN/OBS group. In wild-type patients, anti-PD-1 group had a better DFS than IFN/OBS group ( p  = 0.003), while no survival benefits were found for patients with BRAF, NRAS, or KIT mutations.

CONCLUSION

Although anti-PD-1 adjuvant therapy provides a better DFS in the general population and in wild-type patients, patients with BRAF, KIT or, especially, NRAS mutation may not benefit further from immunotherapy than conventional IFN treatment or observation.

OUP accepted manuscript

Background

The prognosis of patients with metastatic malignant melanoma is very poor and partly due to resistance to conventional chemotherapies. The study’s objectives were to assess the activity and tolerability of apatinib, an oral small molecule anti-angiogenesis inhibitor, in patients with recurrent advanced melanoma.

Methods

This was a single-arm, single-center phase II trial. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) and the secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and overall survival (OS). Eligible patients had received at least one first-line therapy for advanced melanoma and experienced recurrence. Apatinib (500 mg) was orally administered daily.

Results

Fifteen patients (V660E BRAF status: 2 mutation, 2 unknown, 11 wild type) were included in the analysis. The median PFS was 4.0 months. There were two major objective responses, for a 13.3% response rate. Eleven patients had stable disease, with a DCR of 86.7%. The median OS was 12.0 months. The most common treatment-related adverse events of any grade were hypertension (80.0%), mucositis oral (33.3%), hand-foot skin reaction (26.7%), and liver function abnormalities, hemorrhage, diarrhea (each 20%). The only grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse effects that occurred in 2 patients was hypertension (6.7%) and mucositis (6.7%). No treatment-related deaths occurred.

Conclusion

Apatinib showed antitumor activity as a second- or above-line therapy in patients with malignant melanoma. The toxicity was manageable.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier

NCT03383237

Melanoma Targeted Therapies beyond BRAF-Mutant Melanoma: Potential Druggable Mutations and Novel Treatment Approaches

Melanomas exhibit the highest rate of somatic mutations among all different types of cancers (with the exception of BCC and SCC). The accumulation of a multimode of mutations in the driver oncogenes are responsible for the proliferative, invasive, and aggressive nature of melanomas. High-resolution and high-throughput technology has led to the identification of distinct mutational signatures and their downstream alterations in several key pathways that contribute to melanomagenesis. This has enabled the development of individualized treatments by targeting specific molecular alterations that are vital for cancer cell survival, which has resulted in improved outcomes in several cancers, including melanomas. To date, BRAF and MEK inhibitors remain the only approved targeted therapy with a high level of evidence in BRAFV600E/K mutant melanomas. The lack of approved precision drugs in melanomas, relative to other cancers, despite harboring one of the highest rates of somatic mutations, advocates for further research to unveil effective therapeutics. In this review, we will discuss potential druggable mutations and the ongoing research of novel individualized treatment approaches targeting non-BRAF mutations in melanomas.

Association of NRAS Mutation With Clinical Outcomes of Anti-PD-1 Monotherapy in Advanced Melanoma: A Pooled Analysis of Four Asian Clinical Trials

Background

Anti-PD-1 monotherapy is the standard therapy for advanced melanoma patients, including those with NRAS mutations. The influence of NRAS mutation on immunotherapy, especially in noncutaneous melanoma, is largely uncharacterized.

Materials and Methods

We analyzed clinical data of four clinical trials for advanced melanoma patients treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy between 2016 and 2019. The impact of NRAS mutation on efficacy and outcome of immunotherapy were analyzed in cutaneous and noncutaneous groups separately.

Results

A total of 206 patients were assessed, including 92 cutaneous melanoma patients with 12 NRAS mutations and 114 noncutaneous melanoma patients with 21 NRAS mutations. In cutaneous melanoma, the response rates of NRAS mutant patients were lower than patients without NRAS mutations (9.5% vs. 23.9%), the median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) were shorter for patients with NRAS mutations, although without significant difference for OS (P=0.081). In noncutaneous melanoma, the response rates were 0 and 13.7% for NRAS mutant and wild-type patients, the median PFS were 3.6 months (95% CI: 0.9-6.3) and 4.3 months (95%CI: 2.9-5.7) (P=0.015), and the median OS were 10.8 months (95% CI: 1.5-20.1) and 15.3 months (95% CI: 13.2-17.4) (P=0.025), respectively. In multivariate analysis, NRAS mutation, along with ECOG performance score and LDH level, was negatively associated with both PFS (HR 1.912, P=0.044) and OS (HR 2.210, P=0.025) in noncutaneous melanoma.

Conclusion

In advanced Asian melanoma treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy, NRAS mutant patients had lower response rates and poorer prognoses compared to wild-type patients, especially in noncutaneous subtypes.

Defining and Targeting BRAF Mutations in Solid Tumors

OPINION STATEMENT

BRAF mutations are present in up to 8% of human cancers, and comprise a viable therapeutic target in many patients harboring these mutations. Specific BRAF-targeted therapies, such as vemurafenib, dabrafenib, and encorafenib, have transformed treatment of many BRAF-mutated cancers, producing meaningful clinical benefit with more tolerable safety profiles compared to prior standard-of-care treatments. BRAF inhibitors were first approved for use in metastatic melanoma, although resistance almost always limited their long-term effectiveness. Combination therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors has proven effective in delaying the onset of resistance, and produces additional clinical benefit across cancers. Although not promising initially in treatment of BRAF-mutated colorectal carcinoma, BRAF inhibitors in colorectal cancer were successfully combined with EGFR inhibitors, resulting in significant treatment response. Refining the use of BRAF and MEK inhibitors in less common tumor types (and for non-V600 mutations) and delaying the development of resistance remain pertinent future considerations in treating BRAF-mutated cancers. In this review, we will discuss the prevalence of BRAF mutations across human cancers and evidence on the efficacy and safety of current management strategies for various BRAF-mutant solid tumors.

No Impact of NRAS Mutation on Features of Primary and Metastatic Melanoma or on Outcomes of Checkpoint Inhibitor Immunotherapy: An Italian Melanoma Intergroup (IMI) Study

AIMS

It is debated whether the NRAS-mutant melanoma is more aggressive than NRAS wildtype. It is equally controversial whether NRAS-mutant metastatic melanoma (MM) is more responsive to checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy (CII). 331 patients treated with CII as first-line were retrospectively recruited: 162 NRAS-mutant/BRAF wild-type (mut/wt) and 169 wt/wt. We compared the two cohorts regarding the characteristics of primary and metastatic disease, disease-free interval (DFI) and outcome to CII. No substantial differences were observed between the two groups at melanoma onset, except for a more frequent ulceration in the wt/wt group (p = 0.03). Also, the DFI was very similar in the two cohorts. In advanced disease, we only found lung and brain progression more frequent in the wt/wt group. Regarding the outcomes to CII, no significant differences were reported in overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) (42% versus 37%, 60% versus 59%, 12 (95% CI, 7-18) versus 9 months (95% CI, 6-16) and 32 (95% CI, 23-49) versus 27 months (95% CI, 16-35), respectively). Irrespectively of mutational status, a longer OS was significantly associated with normal LDH, <3 metastatic sites, lower white blood cell and platelet count, lower neutrophil-to-lymphocyte (N/L) ratio. Our data do not show increased aggressiveness and higher responsiveness to CII in NRAS-mutant MM.

Novel insights into the pathogenesis and treatment of NRAS mutant melanoma

INTRODUCTION

NRAS was the first mutated oncogene identified in melanoma and is currently the second most common driver mutation in this malignancy. For patients with NRAS^mutant advanced stage melanoma refractory to immunotherapy or with contraindications to immune-based regimens, there are few therapeutic options including low-efficacy chemotherapy regimens and binimetinib monotherapy. Here, we review recent advances in preclinical studies of molecular targets for NRAS mutant melanoma as well as the failures and successes of early-phase clinical trials. While there are no targeted therapies for NRAS-driven melanoma, there is great promise in approaches combining MEK inhibition with inhibitors of the focal adhesion kinase (FAK), inhibitors of autophagy pathways, and pan-RAF inhibitors.

AREAS COVERED

This review surveys new developments in all aspects of disease pathogenesis and potential treatment - including those that have failed, stalled, or progressed through various phases of preclinical and clinical development.

EXPERT OPINION

There are no currently approved targeted therapies for BRAF wild-type melanoma patients harboring NRAS driver mutations though an array of agents are in early phase clinical trials. The diverse strategies taken exploit combined MAP kinase signaling blockade with inhibition of cell cycle mediators, inhibition of the autophagy pathway, and alteration of kinases involved in actin cytoskeleton signaling. Future advances of developmental therapeutics into late stage trials may yield new options beyond immunotherapy for patients with advanced stage disease and NRAS mutation status.

Management of V600E and V600K BRAF-Mutant Melanoma

OPINION STATEMENT

The optimal management of advanced stage BRAF-mutated melanoma is widely debated and complicated by the availability of several different regimens that significantly improve outcomes but have not been directly compared. While there are many unanswered questions relevant to this patient population, the major uncertainty in current practice is the choice between BRAF/MEK inhibitors or immunotherapy for those with previously untreated metastatic or high-risk disease. Decisions regarding first line therapy should include consideration of patient preference as well as the presence of symptomatic metastatic disease and degree of comorbidity, particularly secondary to any history of severe auto-immune disorder.BRAF/MEK inhibitors have a high response rate and rapid onset and thus can be quickly introduced when patients are symptomatic. They have also produced long-term responses in a subset of patients with more favorable prognostic indicators. In addition, impressive survival benefits have also been observed in patients with resected stage 3 disease at high risk of recurrence. On the other hand, anti-PD-1 monotherapy is associated with high rates of clinical benefit (~45% response rate in the metastatic setting) and low rates of severe toxicity. In many patients with adverse prognostic features, we use combined anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 for metastatic disease. While associated with high rates of toxicity, adverse events are largely manageable with corticosteroids and treatment cessation, in which case patients may continue to benefit even after a limited duration of treatment.Multiple treatment options exist for patients with BRAF V600 mutant melanoma. Herein, we review the clinical data for safety and efficacy of these options.

Neuroblastoma rat sarcoma mutated melanoma: That's what we got so far

Neuroblastoma rat sarcoma (NRAS) mutation, occurring in about 20%-30% of cutaneous melanomas, leads to activation of RAS-RAF-MAPK cascade and represents a clear distinct clinicopathological entity in melanoma. In contrast with BRAF mutant melanoma, no specific target therapies are available outside the setting of clinical trials. In the field of immunoncology, the predictive role of NRAS mutation with respect to checkpoint inhibitors treatment has not clearly established and deserves further investigation. At present, the standard treatment is the same as for BRAF wild type melanoma. Ongoing trials are exploring novel combination strategies among patients with advanced NRAS mutant melanoma.

Role of tumor gene mutations in treatment response to immune checkpoint blockades

Early studies shed light on the immune suppression of immune checkpoint molecules in the cancer microenvironment, with later studies applying immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) in treatment of various malignancies. Despite the encouraging efficacy of ICBs in a substantial subset of cancer patients, the treatment response varies. Gene mutations of both tumor cells and immune cells in the tumor microenvironment have recently been identified as potential predictors of the ICB response. Recent developments in gene expression profiling of tumors have allowed identification of a panel of mutated genes that may affect tumor cell response to ICB treatment. In this review, we discuss the association of the ICB response with gene expression and mutation profiles in tumor cells, which it is hoped will help to optimize the clinical application of ICBs in cancer patients.

Biomarkers for Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Melanoma

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have now become a standard therapy for malignant melanoma. However, as immunotherapies are effective in only a limited number of patients, biomarker development remains one of the most important clinical challenges. Biomarkers predicting clinical benefit facilitate appropriate selection of individualized treatments for patients and maximize clinical benefits. Many biomarkers derived from tumors and peripheral blood components have recently been reported, mainly in retrospective settings. This review summarizes the recent findings of biomarker studies for predicting the clinical benefits of immunotherapies in melanoma patients. Taking into account the complex interactions between the immune system and various cancers, it would be difficult for only one biomarker to predict clinical benefits in all patients. Many efforts to discover candidate biomarkers are currently ongoing. In the future, verification, by means of a prospective study, may allow some of these candidates to be combined into a scoring system based on bioinformatics technology.

Cutaneous melanoma: From pathogenesis to therapy (Review)

In less than 10 years, melanoma treatment has been revolutionized with the approval of tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, which have been shown to have a significant impact on the prognosis of patients with melanoma. The early steps of this transformation have taken place in research laboratories. The mitogen‑activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway, phosphoinositol‑3‑kinase (PI3K) pathway promote the development of melanoma through numerous genomic alterations on different components of these pathways. Moreover, melanoma cells deeply interact with the tumor microenvironment and the immune system. This knowledge has led to the identification of novel therapeutic targets and treatment strategies. In this review, the epidemiological features of cutaneous melanoma along with the biological mechanisms involved in its development and progression are summarized. The current state‑of‑the‑art of advanced stage melanoma treatment strategies and the currently available evidence of the use of predictive and prognostic biomarkers are also discussed.

Epigallocatechin-3-gallate(EGCG) suppresses melanoma cell growth and metastasis by targeting TRAF6 activity

TRAF6 (TNF Receptor-Associated Factor 6) is an E3 ubiquitin ligase that contains a Ring domain, induces K63-linked polyubiquitination, and plays a critical role in signaling transduction. Our previous results demonstrated that TRAF6 is overexpressed in melanoma and that TRAF6 knockdown dramatically attenuates tumor cell growth and metastasis. In this study, we found that EGCG can directly bind to TRAF6, and a computational model of the interaction between EGCG and TRAF6 revealed that EGCG probably interacts with TRAF6 at the residues of Gln54, Gly55, Asp57 ILe72, Cys73 and Lys96. Among these amino acids, mutation of Gln54, Asp57, ILe72 in TRAF6 could destroy EGCG bound to TRAF6, furthermore, our results demonstrated that EGCG significantly attenuates interaction between TRAF6 and UBC13(E2) and suppresses TRAF6 E3 ubiquitin ligase activity in vivo and in vitro. Additionally, the phosphorylation of IκBα, p-TAK1 expression are decreased and the nuclear translocation of p65 and p50 is blocked by treatment with EGCG, leading to inactivation of the NF-κB pathway. Moreover, EGCG significantly inhibits cell growth as well as the migration and invasion of melanoma cells. Taken together, these findings show that EGCG is a novel E3 ubiquitin ligase inhibitor that could be used to target TRAF6 for chemotherapy or the prevention of melanoma.

Metastatic melanoma patients' sensitivity to ipilimumab cannot be predicted by tumor characteristics

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have dramatically changed the prognosis for patients with metastatic melanoma. However, not all patients respond to therapy and toxicities can be severe leaving need for reliable clinical predictive markers.

Biomarkers for Response of Melanoma Patients to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review

Background

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), targeting CTLA-4 or PD-1 molecules, have shown impressive therapeutic results. However, only 20–40% of advanced melanoma patients have durable responses to ICI, and these positive effects must be balanced against severe off-target immune toxicity and high costs. This urges the development of predictive biomarkers for ICI response to select patients with likely clinical benefit from treatment. Although many candidate biomarkers exist, a systematic overview of biomarkers and their usefulness is lacking.

Objectives

Here, we systematically review the current literature of clinical data of ICI treatment to provide an overview of candidate predictive biomarkers for ICI in melanoma patients.

Methods

To identify studies on biomarkers for clinical response or survival to ICI therapy in melanoma patients, we performed a systematic search in OVID MEDLINE and retrieved 429 publications, of which 67 met the eligibility criteria.

Results

Blood and genomic biomarkers were mainly studied for CTLA-4 ICI, while tumor tissue markers were analyzed for both CTLA-4 and PD-1 ICI. Blood cytology and soluble factors correlated more frequently to overall survival (OS) than to response, indicating their prognostic rather than predictive nature. Systemic T-cell response and regulation markers correlated to response, but progression-free survival or OS were not analyzed. Tumor tissue analyses revealed response correlations with mutational load, neoantigen load, immune-related gene expression, and CD8+ T-cell infiltration at the invasive margin. The predictive value of PD-L1 varied, possibly due to the influence of T-cell infiltration on tumor PD-L1 expression. Genomic biomarker studies addressed CTLA-4 and other immune-related genes.

Conclusion

This review outlines all published biomarkers for ICI therapy and highlights potential candidate markers for future research. To date, PD-L1 is the best studied biomarker for PD-1 ICI response. The most promising candidate predictive biomarkers for ICI response have not yet been identified. Variations in outcome parameters, statistical power, and analyses hampered summary of the results. Further investigation of biomarkers in larger patient cohorts using standardized objectives and outcome measures is recommended.

Binimetinib for the treatment of NRAS-mutant melanoma

INTRODUCTION

Activating NRAS mutations occur in approximately 15-20% of melanomas and are the second most common oncogenic driver mutation in this disease, after BRAF mutations. There is an unmet medical need for new targeted therapy opportunities in metastatic patients whose tumors harbor an NRAS mutation. Binimetinib, a mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEK) inhibitor, has shown clinical activity in this group of patients. Areas covered: The purpose of this paper was to review the safety, activity and efficacy of the MEK inhibitor binimetinib for the treatment of NRAS-mutant melanoma, as well as to discuss future therapeutic perspectives such as multiple pathways, targeted therapy, and combinations with immunotherapy. Expert commentary: Only a modest progression-free survival (PFS) benefit was observed in NRAS-mutated patients who received binimetinib compared with dacarbazine in a randomized phase 3 clinical trial, with no improvement in overall survival. Nevertheless, binimetinib represents another promising treatment option for advanced melanoma and the first molecularly targeted therapy for the NRAS-mutant population. Binimetinib may also have a role in treating NRAS-mutated melanoma patients after failure of immunotherapy.

A review of binimetinib for the treatment of mutant cutaneous melanoma

Although significant progress has been made in the treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma, at least half of all advanced melanoma patients eventually progress and pass away due to their disease. In particular, patients with NRAS-mutated melanoma still face limited therapeutic options, with immunotherapy being the current treatment type of choice. Binimetinib is a selective inhibitor of MEK, a central kinase in the tumor-promoting MAPK pathway. The results of a recent Phase III trial rendered binimetinib the first targeted therapy agent to significantly improve progression-free survival in NRAS-mutated melanoma. This review will summarize the development and clinical data of binimetinib in melanoma in general and also explore the potential future role of this substance as single agent or combination therapy.

Treatment of NRAS-mutated advanced or metastatic melanoma: rationale, current trials and evidence to date

The disease course of BRAF (v-raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1)-mutant melanoma has been drastically improved by the arrival of targeted therapies. NRAS (neuroblastoma RAS viral oncogene homolog)-mutated melanoma represents 15–25% of all metastatic melanoma patients. It currently does not have an approved targeted therapy. Metastatic patients receive immune-based therapies as first-line treatments, then cytotoxic chemotherapy like carboplatin/paclitaxel (C/P), dacarbazine (DTIC) or temozolomide (TMZ) as a second-line treatment. We will review current preclinical and clinical developments in NRAS-mutated melanoma, and analyze ongoing clinical trials that are evaluating the benefit of different targeted and immune-based therapies, either tested as single agents or in combination, in NRAS-mutant melanoma.

Targeted agents and immunotherapies: optimizing outcomes in melanoma

Treatment options for patients with metastatic melanoma, and especially BRAF-mutant melanoma, have changed dramatically in the past 5 years, with the FDA approval of eight new therapeutic agents. During this period, the treatment paradigm for BRAF-mutant disease has evolved rapidly: the standard-of-care BRAF-targeted approach has shifted from single-agent BRAF inhibition to combination therapy with a BRAF and a MEK inhibitor. Concurrently, immunotherapy has transitioned from cytokine-based treatment to antibody-mediated blockade of the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4) and, now, the programmed cell-death protein 1 (PD-1) immune checkpoints. These changes in the treatment landscape have dramatically improved patient outcomes, with the median overall survival of patients with advanced-stage melanoma increasing from approximately 9 months before 2011 to at least 2 years - and probably longer for those with BRAF-V600-mutant disease. Herein, we review the clinical trial data that established the standard-of-care treatment approaches for advanced-stage melanoma. Mechanisms of resistance and biomarkers of response to BRAF-targeted treatments and immunotherapies are discussed, and the contrasting clinical benefits and limitations of these therapies are explored. We summarize the state of the field and outline a rational approach to frontline-treatment selection for each individual patient with BRAF-mutant melanoma.

Binimetinib versus dacarbazine in patients with advanced NRAS-mutant melanoma (NEMO): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

There are no established therapies specific for NRAS-mutant melanoma despite the emergence of immunotherapy. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the MEK inhibitor binimetinib versus that of dacarbazine in patients with advanced NRAS-mutant melanoma.

METHODS

NEMO is an ongoing, randomised, open-label phase 3 study done at 118 hospitals in 26 countries. Patients with advanced, unresectable, American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IIIC or stage IV NRAS-mutant melanoma who were previously untreated or had progressed on or after previous immunotherapy were randomised (2:1) to receive either binimetinib 45 mg orally twice daily or dacarbazine 1000 mg/m² intravenously every 3 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by stage, performance status, and previous immunotherapy. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by blinded central review in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the safety population, consisting of all patients who received at least one study drug dose and one post-baseline safety assessment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01763164 and with EudraCT, number 2012-003593-51.

FINDINGS

Between Aug 19, 2013, and April 28, 2015, 402 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 269 to binimetinib and 133 to dacarbazine. Median follow-up was 1·7 months (IQR 1·4-4·1). Median progression-free survival was 2·8 months (95% CI 2·8-3·6) in the binimetinib group and 1·5 months (1·5-1·7) in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio 0·62 [95% CI 0·47-0·80]; one-sided p<0·001). Grade 3-4 adverse events seen in at least 5% of patients the safety population in either group were increased creatine phosphokinase (52 [19%] of 269 patients in the binimetinib group vs none of 114 in the dacarbazine group), hypertension (20 [7%] vs two [2%]), anaemia (five [2%] vs six [5%]), and neutropenia (two [1%] vs ten [9%]). Serious adverse events (all grades) occurred in 91 (34%) patients in the binimetinib group and 25 (22%) patients in the dacarbazine group.

INTERPRETATION

Binimetinib improved progression-free survival compared with dacarbazine and was tolerable. Binimetinib might represent a new treatment option for patients with NRAS-mutant melanoma after failure of immunotherapy.

FUNDING

Array BioPharma and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

An exploratory study investigating the metabolic activity and local cytokine profile in patients with melanoma treated with pazopanib and paclitaxel

BACKGROUND

There is a medical need for new drugs in patients with BRAF wild-type metastatic melanoma. Pazopanib is a multitarget tyrosine kinase inhibitor with antitumour and antiangiogenic activity.

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim was to investigate the metabolic response to pazopanib monotherapy and pazopanib plus paclitaxel in patients with BRAF wild-type melanoma. Secondary end points were the early cytokine and chemokine profiles and histological findings.

METHODS

Pazopanib (400 mg twice daily) was administered orally from days 1 to 10 and from days 14 to 70. An intravenous infusion with paclitaxel (150 mg m^-2 body surface) was administered on days 14, 35 and 56. Metabolic response evaluation was performed before treatment, after treatment with pazopanib (day 10) and after treatment with pazopanib and paclitaxel (day 70). Skin biopsy of metastatic tissue for chemokine and cytokine expression analysis and histology and immunohistochemistry (CD68, CD163) evaluation, and blood samples were taken at the same time points.

RESULTS

Two patients failed screening and 17 were dosed. Of 67 adverse events, nine (13%) were grade 3 or 4. Five of 14 evaluable patients had a partial metabolic response at day 10 under pazopanib monotherapy. The response rate at day 70 under combined pazopanib-paclitaxel treatment was 0%. Immunohistochemistry revealed an increase of M2-like macrophages in nonresponders compared with responders. We observed a significant upregulation of five cytokines (CXCL1, CXCL2, CXCL13, CCL22 and SPP1) in responding vs. nonresponding lesions. Overall, the median progression-free survival was 70 days (range 5-331), which did not differ significantly between responders (148 days) and nonresponders (70 days, P = 0·17).

CONCLUSIONS

In this patient population pazopanib efficacy was limited. Response is associated with low M2-like macrophage density and increased expression of several chemokines.

Ipilimumab in melanoma

INTRODUCTION

The treatment of melanoma is evolving rapidly over the past few years. Patients with BRAFv600 mutations can be treated with a combination of a BRAF-inhibitor and an MEK-inhibitor. Patients with BRAF wild-type tumors and BRAFv600 mutated tumors can be treated with immunotherapy i.e. check point inhibitors.

AREAS COVERED

We conducted a comprehensive review of the literature on the efficacy and predictive markers, safety, and pharmacoeconomics of ipilimumab in melanoma Expert commentary: Ipilimumab was the first check point inhibitor reaching the clinic, gaining FDA and EMA approval for metastatic melanoma in 2011. Ipilimumab was also approved by FDA in the adjuvant setting for patients with high risk, stage III melanoma. The anti-PD1 directed antibodies pembrolizumab and nivolumab are superior to single agent ipilimumab, which is no longer considered the standard first line treatment in metastatic melanoma. The addition ipilimumab to nivolumab is associated with a higher response rate and a better PFS, particularly in patients with PD-L1 negative tumors, albeit at the cost of a steep increase in grade 3-4 adverse event rate. Definitive survival data on this combination are pending and the selection of patients potentially requiring the combination and its pharmacoeconomic implications are to be elucidated.

Genetic mutations in accordance with a low malignant potential tumour are not demonstrated in clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma

Clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma (CCPRCC) cases were evaluated for mutations on the following genes: KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, PIK3CA, ALK, ERBB2, DDR2, MAP2K1, RET and EGFR. Four male and three female patients of age 42-74 years were evaluated. All cases were incidentally detected by ultrasound and ranged 1.8-3.5 cm. Microscopic examination showed variably tubulopapillary, tubular acinar, cystic architecture and the characteristic linear arrangement of nuclei. The cells were reactive with CK7 (strong), CA IX (cup-shape) and 34 β E12. CD10, AMACR/RACEMASE and GATA3 were negative. There were no mutations on any of the investigated genes. This preliminary observation supports the concept that CCPRCC might be indeed an indolent tumour worth it to be named as clear cell papillary neoplasm of low potential.

What have we learned from cancer immunotherapy in the last 3 years?

Until recently, most immunotherapeutic approaches used to fight cancer were ineffective, counteracted by the tumour's ability to evade immune attack. However, extensive research has improved our understanding of tumour immunology and enabled the development of novel treatments that can harness the patient's immune system and prevent immune escape. Over the last few years, through numerous clinical trials and real-world experience, we have accumulated a large amount of evidence regarding the potential for long-term survival with immunotherapy agents in various types of malignancy. The results of these studies have also highlighted a number of recurring observations with immuno-oncology agents, including their potential for clinical application across a broad patient population and for both conventional and unconventional response patterns. Furthermore, given the numerous immune checkpoints that exist and the multiple mechanisms used by tumours to escape the immune system, targeting distinct checkpoint pathways using combination approaches is an attractive therapeutic strategy with the potential to further enhance the antitumour immune response.