Search

Background Targeted therapy (TT) and immunotherapies (ITs) have dramatically improved survival in metastatic melanoma (MM). However, their efficacy on brain metastasis (BM) remains limited and poorly documented. Patients and methods Retrospective cohort of consecutive MM patients (pts) with BMs, all systematically upfront treated by Gamma-Knife (GK) at first BM and retreated in case of new BMs, from 2010 to 2015 at the time when ipilimumab BRAF ± MEK inhibitors and anti-PD1 were introduced in practice. Survival after 1st GK (OS GK1 ) according to prognostic factors and treatment. Results Among 179 consecutive pts treated by GK, 109 received IT and/or TT after the 1st GK. Median OS GK1 was 10.95 months and 1- and 2-year survival rates were 49.5% and 27.4%, respectively, versus a median overall survival (OS) of 2.29 months ( p < .001) in those who did not receive IT or TT. In pts who initially had a single BM, median OS and 1- and 2-year survival rates were 14.46 months, 66.7% and 43.4%, respectively; in pts with 2–3 BMs: 8.85 months, 46.4% and 31%, respectively; in pts with >3 BMs: 7.25 months, 37.2% and 11.9%, respectively. Multivariate analysis for OS GK1 confirmed that IT and TT were significantly and highly protective. Best OS GK1 was observed in BRAF–wild-type pts receiving anti-PD1 or in BRAF-mutated pts receiving BRAF-inhibitors and anti-PD1 (12.26 and 14.82 months, respectively). Conclusion In real-life MM pts with BMs, a strategy aiming at controlling BM with GK together with TT and/or TT seems to achieve unprecedented survival rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This retrospective series does not show immediate radiotoxicity nor radiation-recall, in melanoma patients with BRAF inhibitors (BRAF-I) whose brain metastases (BMs) are treated by Gamma-Knife radiosurgery. Interrupting BRAF-I for stereotactic radiosurgery of BM seems useless, although it is still advised for other radiation therapies. The potential benefit of combining stereotactic radiosurgery and BRAF-I can be safely tested.Background Both Gamma-Knife radiosurgery (GKRS) and BRAF inhibitors (BRAF-I) have been shown to be useful in melanoma patients with brain metastases (BMs), thus suggesting that it could be interesting to combine their respective advantages. However, cases of radiosensitization following conventional radiation therapy in BRAF-I treated patients have raised serious concerns about the real feasibility and risk/benefit ratio of this combination. Patients and methods Review by two independent observers of brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) follow-up pictures, and volume and edema quantifications, and survival assessment in all patients who had been treated by GKRS and BRAF-I at a single institution. Results Among 53 GKRS carried out in 30 patients who ever received BRAF-I and GKRS, 33 GKRS were carried out in 24 patients while under BRAF-I treatment, from which only 4 with an interruption of BRAF-I. The 20 other GKRS were carried out in 15 patients (including 9 of the 24) before initiation of BRAF-I treatment. No case of radiation-induced necrosis and no scalp radiation dermatitis occurred. A >20% increase in volume was observed in 35 of the 263 BM treated by GKRS (13.3%), but only 3 clear-cut edemas and 3 hemorrhages were detected within 2 months after GKRS, and 4 edemas and 7 hemorrhages later. Neither the MRI features nor the incidence of the volume changes, hemorrhage and edema were deemed unexpected for melanoma BM treated by GKRS. Median survival from first GKRS under BRAF-I and first dose of BRAF-I were 24.8 and 48.8 weeks, respectively. Conclusion This series does not show immediate radiotoxicity nor radiation recall, in melanoma patients with BRAF-I whose BMs are treated by GKRS. Interrupting BRAF-I for stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) of BM seems useless, although it is still advised for other radiation therapies. The potential benefit of combining SRS and BRAF-I can be safely tested. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pembrolizumab significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus ipilimumab for unresectable advanced melanoma in KEYNOTE-006 (NCT01866319); 10-year follow-up data are presented. Patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg i.v. every 2 weeks or every 3 weeks for ≤2 years (pooled), or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg i.v. every 3 weeks for four cycles. After KEYNOTE-006, patients could transition to KEYNOTE-587 (NCT03486873) for long-term follow-up. Eligible patients could receive second-course pembrolizumab. The primary endpoint was OS; modified progression-free survival (PFS; censored at date last known alive), modified PFS on second-course pembrolizumab, and melanoma-specific survival were exploratory. Of 834 patients randomly assigned in KEYNOTE-006 (pembrolizumab, n = 556; ipilimumab, n = 278), 333 (39.9%) were eligible for KEYNOTE-587; 211/333 patients (25.3%) transitioned to KEYNOTE-587 (pembrolizumab, n = 159; ipilimumab, n = 52) and 122 (14.6%) did not. For patients who transitioned to KEYNOTE-587 (n = 211), median time from randomization in KEYNOTE-006 to data cut-off for KEYNOTE-587 (1 May 2024) was 123.7 months (range, 122.0-127.3 months). Median OS was 32.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 24.5-41.6 months] for pembrolizumab and 15.9 months (95% CI 13.3-22.0 months) for ipilimumab [hazard ratio (HR), 0.71 (95% CI 0.60-0.85)]; 10-year OS was 34.0% and 23.6%, respectively. Among patients who completed ≥94 weeks of pembrolizumab, median OS from week 94 was not reached (NR; 95% CI NR-NR); 8-year OS rate was 80.8%. Median modified PFS was 9.4 months (95% CI 6.7-11.6 months) for pembrolizumab and 3.8 months (2.9-4.3 months) for ipilimumab [HR, 0.64 (95% CI 0.54-0.75)]. Among patients who received second-course pembrolizumab, median modified PFS from start of second course was 51.8 months (95% CI 11.0 months-NR); 6-year modified PFS was 49.2%. Median melanoma-specific survival was 51.9 months (95% CI 30.0-114.7 months) for pembrolizumab and 17.2 months (13.9-25.9 months) for ipilimumab [HR, 0.66 (95% CI 0.55-0.81)]. These results confirm that pembrolizumab provides long-term survival benefits in advanced melanoma, supporting it as a standard of care in this setting. • The 10-year follow-up of KEYNOTE-006 confirms that pembrolizumab provides long-term survival benefit in advanced melanoma. • The 10-year OS rate was 34.0% in the combined pembrolizumab arm versus 23.6% in the ipilimumab arm. • OS favored pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab across subgroups, including in patients with poor prognostic features. • Median MSS was also improved with pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab [51.9 versus 17.2 months; HR, 0.66 (95% CI 0.55-0.81)]. • For patients who received second-course pembrolizumab (n = 16), the 6-year modified PFS from start of second course was 49.2%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) held a consensus conference on melanoma on 5–7 September 2019 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The conference included a multidisciplinary panel of 32 leading experts in the management of melanoma. The aim of the conference was to develop recommendations on topics that are not covered in detail in the current ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline and where available evidence is either limited or conflicting. The main topics identified for discussion were: (i) the management of locoregional disease; (ii) targeted versus immunotherapies in the adjuvant setting; (iii) targeted versus immunotherapies for the first-line treatment of metastatic melanoma; (iv) when to stop immunotherapy or targeted therapy in the metastatic setting; and (v) systemic versus local treatment of brain metastases. The expert panel was divided into five working groups in order to each address questions relating to one of the five topics outlined above. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the working groups and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This manuscript presents the results relating to the management of locoregional melanoma, including findings from the expert panel discussions, consensus recommendations and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation. All participants approved the final manuscript. • A melanoma consensus conference, organised by the ESMO Guidelines Committee, was attended by 32 experts from 14 countries • The experts compiled recommendations (with supporting evidence) on controversial topics in melanoma management • Recommendations for locoregional melanoma in this manuscript include: ○ indications for sentinel lymph node biopsy and radical lymph node dissection ○ adjuvant targeted versus immunotherapy ○ adjuvant therapy in specific situations (after node dissection, stage IIIA, resected stage IV, in-transit metastasis) ○ adjuvant therapy toxicity management • A separate manuscript presenting results relating to the management of metastatic melanoma is also available [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) held a consensus conference on melanoma on 5–7 September 2019 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The conference included a multidisciplinary panel of 32 leading experts in the management of melanoma. The aim of the conference was to develop recommendations on topics that are not covered in detail in the current ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline and where available evidence is either limited or conflicting. The main topics identified for discussion were (i) the management of locoregional disease; (ii) targeted versus immunotherapies in the adjuvant setting; (iii) targeted versus immunotherapies for the first-line treatment of metastatic melanoma; (iv) when to stop immunotherapy or targeted therapy in the metastatic setting; and (v) systemic versus local treatment for brain metastases. The expert panel was divided into five working groups to each address questions relating to one of the five topics outlined above. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the working groups and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This manuscript presents the results relating to the management of metastatic melanoma, including findings from the expert panel discussions, consensus recommendations and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation. All participants approved the final manuscript. • A melanoma consensus conference, organised by the ESMO Guidelines Committee, was attended by 32 experts from 14 countries • The experts compiled recommendations (with supporting evidence) on controversial topics in melanoma management • Recommendations for metastatic melanoma in this manuscript include the following: ○ targeted versus immunotherapy ○ treatment sequencing and duration ○ management of brain metastases • A separate manuscript presenting results relating to the management of locoregional melanoma is also available [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]