Search

Purpose: About half of patients with metastatic uveal melanoma present with isolated liver metastasis, in whom the median survival is 6-12 months. The few systemic treatment options available only moderately prolong survival. Isolated hepatic perfusion (IHP) with melphalan is a regional treatment option, but prospective efficacy and safety data are lacking., Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase III trial, patients with previously untreated isolated liver metastases from uveal melanoma were randomly assigned to receive a one-time treatment with IHP with melphalan or best alternative care (control group). The primary end point was overall survival at 24 months. Here, we report the secondary outcomes of response according to RECIST 1.1 criteria, progression-free survival (PFS), hepatic PFS (hPFS), and safety., Results: Ninety-three patients were randomly assigned, and 87 patients were assigned to either IHP (n = 43) or a control group receiving the investigator's choice of treatment (n = 44). In the control group, 49% received chemotherapy, 39% immune checkpoint inhibitors, and 9% locoregional treatment other than IHP. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the overall response rates (ORRs) were 40% versus 4.5% in the IHP and control groups, respectively ( P < .0001). The median PFS was 7.4 months versus 3.3 months ( P < .0001), with a hazard ratio of 0.21 (95% CI, 0.12 to 0.36), and the median hPFS was 9.1 months versus 3.3 months ( P < .0001), both favoring the IHP arm. There were 11 treatment-related serious adverse events in the IHP group compared with seven in the control group. There was one treatment-related death in the IHP group., Conclusion: IHP treatment resulted in superior ORR, hPFS, and PFS compared with best alternative care in previously untreated patients with isolated liver metastases from primary uveal melanoma.

Purpose: Limited prospective data are available on sequential immunotherapy and BRAF/MEK inhibition for BRAFV600 -mutant metastatic melanoma., Methods: SECOMBIT is a randomized, three-arm, noncomparative phase II trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02631447). Patients with untreated, metastatic BRAFV600 -mutant melanoma from 37 sites in nine countries were randomly assigned to arm A (encorafenib [450 mg orally once daily] plus binimetinib [45 mg orally twice daily] until progressive disease [PD] -> ipilimumab plus nivolumab [ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks and nivolumab 1 mg/kg once every 3 weeks × four cycles -> nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks]), arm B [ipilimumab plus nivolumab until PD -> encorafenib plus binimetinib], or arm C (encorafenib plus binimetinib for 8 weeks -> ipilimumab plus nivolumab until PD -> encorafenib plus binimetinib). The primary end point was overall survival (OS) at 2 years. Secondary end points included total progression-free survival, 3-year OS, best overall response rate, duration of response, and biomarkers in the intent-to-treat population. Safety was analyzed throughout sequential treatment in all participants who received at least one dose of study medication., Results: A total of 209 patients were randomly assigned (69 in arm A, 71 in arm B, and 69 in arm C). At a median follow-up of 32.2 (interquartile range, 27.9-41.6) months, median OS was not reached in any arm and more than 30 patients were alive in all arms. Assuming a null hypothesis of median OS of ≤ 15 months, the OS end point was met for all arms. The 2-year and 3-year OS rates were 65% (95% CI, 54 to 76) and 54% (95% CI, 41 to 67) in arm A, 73% (95% CI, 62 to 84) and 62% (95% CI, 48 to 76) in arm B, and 69% (95% CI, 59 to 80) and 60% (95% CI, 58 to 72) in arm C. No new safety signals emerged., Conclusion: Sequential immunotherapy and targeted therapy provide clinically meaningful survival benefits for patients with BRAFV600 -mutant melanoma.

Purpose: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a component of familial melanoma due to germline pathogenic variants (GPVs) in CDKN2A . However, it is unclear what role this gene or other genes play in its etiology., Materials and Methods: We analyzed 189 cancer predisposition genes using parametric rare-variant association (RVA) tests and nonparametric permutation tests to identify gene-level associations in PDAC for patients with ( CDKN2A + ) and without ( CDKN2A- ) GPV. Exome sequencing was performed on 84 patients with PDAC, 47 CDKN2A+ and 37 CDKN2A- . After variant filtering, various RVA tests and permutation tests were run separately by CDKN2A status. Genes with the strongest nominal associations were evaluated in patients with PDAC from The Cancer Genome Atlas and the UK Biobank (UKB). A secondary analysis including only GPV from UKB was also performed., Results: In RVA tests, ERCC4 and RET showed the most compelling evidence as plausible PDAC candidate genes for CDKN2A+ patients. In contrast, the findings in CDKN2A- patients provided evidence for HMBS , EPCAM , and MRE11 as potential new candidate genes and confirmed ATM, BRCA2 , and PALB2 as PDAC genes, consistent with findings in The Cancer Genome Atlas and the UKB. As expected, CDKN2A- patients were more likely to harbor GPVs from the 189 genes investigated. When including only GPVs from UKB, significant associations with PDAC were seen for ATM, BRCA2, and CDKN2A ., Conclusion: These results suggest that variants in other genes likely play a role in PDAC in all patients and that PDAC in CDKN2A+ patients has a distinct etiology from PDAC in CDKN2A- patients.

Recognizing the increase in cancer incidence globally and the need for effective cancer control interventions, several organizations, professional bodies, and international institutions have proposed strategies to improve treatment options and reduce mortality along with minimizing overall incidence. Despite these efforts, an estimated 9.6 million deaths in 2018 was attributed to this noncommunicable disease, making it the second leading cause of death worldwide. Left unchecked, this will further increase in scale, with an estimated 29.5 million new cases and 16.3 million deaths occurring worldwide in 2040. Although it is known and generally accepted that cancer services must include radiotherapy, such access is still very limited in many parts of the world, especially in low- and middle-income countries. After thorough review of the current status of radiotherapy including programs worldwide, as well as achievements and challenges at the global level, the International Atomic Energy Agency convened an international group of experts representing various radiation oncology societies to take a closer look into the current status of radiotherapy and provide a road map for future directions in this field. It was concluded that the plethora of global and regional initiatives would benefit further from the existence of a central framework, including an easily accessible repository through which better coordination can be done. Supporting this framework, a practical inventory of competencies needs to be made available on a global level emphasizing the knowledge, skills, and behavior required for a safe, sustainable, and professional practice for various settings. This white paper presents the current status of global radiotherapy and future directions for the community. It forms the basis for an action plan to be developed with professional societies worldwide., Competing Interests: Arthur Accioly RosaEmployment: Grupo OncoclinicasHonoraria: RocheConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZenecaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche Yolande LievensConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZenecaSpeakers' Bureau: RaySearch Laboratories Stephen HahnEmployment: BlackfynnLeadership: BlackfynnStock and Other Ownership Interests: BlackfynnConsulting or Advisory Role: BlackfynnPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Biolytech—patent in underlying technology; co-holder of patent until one year ago. Now held by my non-dependent adult children Mary GospodarowiczHonoraria: IBANo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.