Search

Purpose:Androgen deprivation regenerates the thymus in adults, expanding of T-cell receptor V β repertoire in blood and lymphoid organs and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in human prostate tumors. In melanoma murine models, androgen receptor promotes metastases and androgen blockade potentiates antitumor vaccine efficacy. This phase I study evaluated the safety, efficacy, and pharmocodynamics of androgen deprivation with the gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist triptorelin combined with nivolumab in male patients with melanoma resistant to anti–PD-1.Patients and Methods:Adult male patients with advanced melanoma who progressed under anti–PD-1 containing regimens received triptorelin 3.75 mg every 4 weeks, nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, and bicalutamide 50 mg once daily during the first 28 days. Tumor response was first assessed after 3 months; adverse events (AE) were monitored throughout the study. T-cell receptor excision circles (TREC), a biomarker of thymus activity, were explored throughout the study.Results:Of 14 patients, 4 were locally advanced and 10 had distant metastases. There were no grade 4 or 5 AEs. Five grade three AEs were reported in 4 patients. According to RECIST v1.1, best overall response was partial response (PR) in one patient with a pancreas metastasis, stable disease (SD) in 5 patients, and progressive disease in 8 patients. According to iRECIST, a second PR occurred after an initial pseudoprogression, TRECs increased in 2 patients, one with PR who also had an increase in TILs, and the second with SD.Conclusions:This combination was well tolerated. Disease control was obtained in 42.8% (RECIST) and 50% (iRECIST). The evidence for thymus rejuvenation was limited.

Background Several observational studies have reported a decreased response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) following antibiotic use. ICI activity has been hypothesized to be impaired by antibiotic-induced gut dysbiosis. Methods Patients with advanced melanoma receiving an anti-PD-1 antibody as a first-line therapy between 2015 and 2017 in France were selected using the French Health Insurance database. We compared overall survival and time-to-treatment discontinuation according to antibiotic exposure in the 3 months prior to the initiation of anti-PD-1 antibody. To disentangle a causal effect of antibiotics from a confounding bias, we balanced characteristics of patients exposed and nonexposed to antibiotics using an overlap weighting method based on a propensity score. We also evaluated a control cohort of patients with advanced melanoma receiving first-line targeted therapy, as there is no rationale for decreased efficacy of targeted therapy following antibiotic treatment. Results The anti-PD-1 antibody cohort comprised 2605 individuals. Antibiotic exposure in the 3 months prior to anti-PD-1 antibody initiation was not associated with shorter overall survival (weighted hazard ratio = 1.01, 95% confidence interval = 0.88 to 1.17) or time-to-treatment discontinuation (weighted hazard ratio = 1.00, 95% confidence interval = 0.89 to 1.11). Consistent results were observed when the time frame of antibiotics was narrowed to 1 month prior to anti-PD-1 initiation or when exposure was restricted to antibiotics leading to more profound gut dysbiosis. Similar results were observed in the targeted therapy cohort. Conclusions In a large cohort of advanced melanoma patients, we showed that antibiotic use preceding anti-PD-1 antibody was not associated with worse outcome. Physicians should not delay immunotherapy for patients who have recently received antibiotics.

Previous therapies and outcome

Age, localisation primary, stage, TNM

Washout, response to protocol therapy, AEs

Representativeness of Study Participants

Purpose:Androgen deprivation regenerates the thymus in adults, expanding of T-cell receptor V β repertoire in blood and lymphoid organs and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in human prostate tumors. In melanoma murine models, androgen receptor promotes metastases and androgen blockade potentiates antitumor vaccine efficacy. This phase I study evaluated the safety, efficacy, and pharmocodynamics of androgen deprivation with the gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist triptorelin combined with nivolumab in male patients with melanoma resistant to anti–PD-1.Patients and Methods:Adult male patients with advanced melanoma who progressed under anti–PD-1 containing regimens received triptorelin 3.75 mg every 4 weeks, nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, and bicalutamide 50 mg once daily during the first 28 days. Tumor response was first assessed after 3 months; adverse events (AE) were monitored throughout the study. T-cell receptor excision circles (TREC), a biomarker of thymus activity, were explored throughout the study.Results:Of 14 patients, 4 were locally advanced and 10 had distant metastases. There were no grade 4 or 5 AEs. Five grade three AEs were reported in 4 patients. According to RECIST v1.1, best overall response was partial response (PR) in one patient with a pancreas metastasis, stable disease (SD) in 5 patients, and progressive disease in 8 patients. According to iRECIST, a second PR occurred after an initial pseudoprogression, TRECs increased in 2 patients, one with PR who also had an increase in TILs, and the second with SD.Conclusions:This combination was well tolerated. Disease control was obtained in 42.8% (RECIST) and 50% (iRECIST). The evidence for thymus rejuvenation was limited.

Immunohistology: Response at time of biopsy, tissue, date biopsies, previous CPI and protocol CPI, elapse times, TILs and macrophages phenotypes.

Tables S1, S2, S3, S4

Figure S2. (A) Change in the tumor burden from baseline over time according to RECIST for all the included patients. The tumor burden was measured as the sum of the longest diameters of target lesions. Each line represents a patient. (B) Kaplan-Meier plot of the overall survival for all the included patients (N =18). (C) Kaplan-Meier plot of the progression-free survival for all the included patients (N =18).

Purpose:In BRAFV600MUT metastatic melanoma, cyclin D–CDK4/6–INK4–Rb pathway alterations are involved in resistance to MAPK inhibitors, suggesting a clinical benefit of cyclin-dependent kinase 4 (CDK4) inhibitors. In this phase I–II study, we aimed to establish the MTD of palbociclib when added to vemurafenib.Patients and Methods:Patients with BRAFV600E/KMUT metastatic melanoma harboring CDKN2A loss and RB1 expression were included and stratified into two groups according to previous BRAF inhibitor treatment (no:strata 1; yes:strata 2). Treatment comprised palbociclib once daily for 14 days followed by a 7-day break + continuous dosing of vemurafenib. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), and the secondary endpoints included the best response, survival, pharmacokinetics, and tumor molecular profiling.Results:Eighteen patients were enrolled, with 15 in strata 2. Characteristics at inclusion were American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IVM1c (N = 16; 88.9%), high lactate dehydrogenase (N = 9; 50.0%), and median number of previous treatments of 2. One and 5 patients experienced DLT in strata 1 and 2, respectively, defining the MTD at palbociclib 25 mg and vemurafenib 960 mg in strata 2. No significant evidence for drug–drug interactions was highlighted. The median progression-free survival was 2.8 months, and 5 (27.8%) patients showed a clinical response. The baseline differential mRNA expression analysis and in vitro data revealed the role of CHEK2 in the response to palbociclib.Conclusions:Although the combination of palbociclib + fixed-dose vemurafenib did not allow an increased palbociclib dosage above 25 mg, a significant clinical benefit was achieved in pretreated patients with melanoma. An association between the transcriptomic data and clinical response was highlighted.

Supplementary Materials and Methods

Supplementary Figures S1-S9; Supplementary Tables S1-S5.

Purpose: In BRAFV600MUT metastatic melanoma, cyclin D–CDK4/6–INK4–Rb pathway alterations are involved in resistance to MAPK inhibitors, suggesting a clinical benefit of cyclin-dependent kinase 4 (CDK4) inhibitors. In this phase I–II study, we aimed to establish the MTD of palbociclib when added to vemurafenib. Patients and Methods: Patients with BRAFV600E/KMUT metastatic melanoma harboring CDKN2A loss and RB1 expression were included and stratified into two groups according to previous BRAF inhibitor treatment (no:strata 1; yes:strata 2). Treatment comprised palbociclib once daily for 14 days followed by a 7-day break + continuous dosing of vemurafenib. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), and the secondary endpoints included the best response, survival, pharmacokinetics, and tumor molecular profiling. Results: Eighteen patients were enrolled, with 15 in strata 2. Characteristics at inclusion were American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IVM1c (N = 16; 88.9%), high lactate dehydrogenase (N = 9; 50.0%), and median number of previous treatments of 2. One and 5 patients experienced DLT in strata 1 and 2, respectively, defining the MTD at palbociclib 25 mg and vemurafenib 960 mg in strata 2. No significant evidence for drug–drug interactions was highlighted. The median progression-free survival was 2.8 months, and 5 (27.8%) patients showed a clinical response. The baseline differential mRNA expression analysis and in vitro data revealed the role of CHEK2 in the response to palbociclib. Conclusions: Although the combination of palbociclib + fixed-dose vemurafenib did not allow an increased palbociclib dosage above 25 mg, a significant clinical benefit was achieved in pretreated patients with melanoma. An association between the transcriptomic data and clinical response was highlighted.

Background: First-degree relatives (FDRs, defined as parents, children, and siblings) of melanoma patients are at a two-to-fivefold increased risk of developing melanoma themselves. FDRs are advised to perform self-skin examination (SSE) and annual medical total cutaneous examination (TCE) performed either by a dermatologist or a general practitioner, and to change their sun-related behavior. This advice is given orally to melanoma patients who are asked to relay the information to their FDRs. Objective: Our aim was to determine the impact of providing a tip sheet to melanoma patients intended to their first-degree relatives (FDRs) on early detection and sun-related behaviors in this group at increased risk of melanoma. Methods: A superiority, cluster-randomized trial was conducted at nine hospital centers. In the intervention group, dermatologists were asked to deliver to melanoma patients (index cases) the tip sheet and oral advice intended to their FDRs. The control group were asked to deliver the usual oral advice alone. The primary outcome was early detection of melanoma in FDRs with a medical TCE performed within one year after the first visit of the index case. Secondary outcomes were SSE and sun-related behaviors in FDRs. Results: A total of 48 index cases and 114 FDRS in the control group, 60 index cases and 166 FDRS in the intervention group were recruited. In the intervention group, 36.1% of FDRs performed a medical TCE as compared to 39.5% of FDRs in the control group (OR 0.9 [95% CI 0.5 to 1.5], p = 0.63). We did not find a between-group difference in SSE and sun-related behaviors. Conclusion: A tip sheet added to the usual oral advice did not increase medical TCE among FDRs of melanoma patients. Overall, the rate of TCE among FDRs was low. Research on other strategies is needed to increase melanoma detection in this population.

International audience; Background: Significant progress was recently observed in the treatment of metastatic melanoma (MM). With >50% of patients now reaching a second line of treatment and a significant improvement in the survival rate, an assessment of quality of life (QoL) during the whole course of the disease becomes necessary. The objective of this study was to describe the QoL of patients with MM in France, from their diagnosis of advanced disease to their death, in real life. Methods: QoL data were collected through MelBase, a prospective, French, multicentric cohort dedicated to the follow-up of adults with MM. QoL was assessed using the EuroQoL-5D questionnaire and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Treatment (FACT)-Melanoma questionnaire at the time of study inclusion, every 3 months, and at the time of each treatment change until death. To assess longitudinal changes from baseline to death, mixed-effect models for repeated-measures analyses were used to control for baseline covariates. Results: QoL was assessed in 1435 patients who were included in the study between 2013 and 2018. The median follow-up was 9.4 months, and 47% of patients died during follow-up. During first-line treatment, the model-based, mean utility score was 0.830 (95% CI, 0.818-0.843), the mean FACT-General score was 77.22 (95% CI, 76.23-78.22), and the mean FACT-Melanoma score was 129.46 (95% CI, 128.02-130.90). At the time of a change in treatment line, there was a decrease of −0.027 (95% CI, −0.03, −0.02) in the utility score, −1.82 (95% CI, −1.88, −1.76) in the FACT-General score, and −2.98 (95% CI, −3.05, −2.91) in the FACT-Melanoma score compared with first-line treatment. Conclusions: In the MelBase cohort, the QoL among patients with MM seems to be fairly stable over the whole disease course, although a small but significant decrease at time therapy is changed is observed.

International audience; Background With the development of precision oncology, Molecular Tumor Boards (MTB) are developing in many institutions. However, the implementation of MTB in routine clinical practice has still not been thoroughly studied. Material and methods Since the first drugs approved for targeted therapies, patient tumor samples were centralized to genomic testing platforms. In our institution, all tumor samples have been analyzed since 2014 by Next Generation Sequencing (NGS). In 2015, we established a regional MTB to discuss patient cases with 1 or more alterations identified by NGS, in genes different from those related to drug approval. We conducted a retrospective comparative analysis to study whether our MTB increased the prescriptions of Molecular Targeted Therapies (MTT) and the inclusions of patients in clinical trials with MTT, in comparison with patients with available NGS data but no MTB discussion. Results In 2014, 86 patients had UGA, but the results were not available to clinicians and not discussed in MTB. During the years 2015 and 2016, 113 patients with an UGA (unreferenced genomic alteration) were discussed in MTB. No patients with an UGA were included in 2014 in a clinical trial, versus 2 (2%) in 2015-2016. 13 patients with an UGA (12%) were treated in 2015-2016 with a MTT whereas in 2014, no patient (p = 0.001). Conclusions In this retrospective analysis, we showed that the association of large-scale genomic testing and MTB was feasible, and could increase the prescription of MTT. However, in routine clinical practice, the majority of patients with UGA still do not have access to MTT.

Despite the poor prognosis associated with melanoma brain metastases (BM), data concerning these patients and their inclusion in clinical trials remains scarce. We report here the efficacy results of a subgroup analysis in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma and BM treated with BRAF and MEK inhibitors dabrafenib (D) and trametinib (T).This phase IIIb single-arm, open-label, multicenter, French study included patients with unresectable stage IIIc or IV BRAFV600-mutant melanoma with or without BM. The present analysis focuses on patients with BM. Response rates were determined clinically and/or radiologically as per standard clinical practice. Progression-free survival (PFS) was estimated using the Kaplan Meier analysis and modelled with multivariate Cox regression model. Risk subgroups were identified using an exponential regression tree analysis. Significance was set at plt; 0.05.Between March 2015 and November 2016, 856 patients were included and 275 (32%) patients had BM. Median PFS was 5.68 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.29-6.87). Significant independent factors associated with shorter PFS were ECOG ≥1, elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), ≥3 metastatic sites, and non-naïve status. The binary-split classification and regression tree modelling identified baseline LDH and ECOG status as major prognostic factors.This is to date the largest, close to real-world, study in advanced BRAFV600-mutant melanoma patients with BM treated with D+T. ECOGgt;1, ≥3 metastatic sites and elevated LDH were associated with shorter PFS, a finding previously demonstrated only in patients without BM. Further studies are warranted to determine the optimal treatment sequence in this population.

Summary Background In the phase 3 COMBI-AD study, patients with resected, stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or BRAF V600K mutations received adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib or placebo. The primary analysis showed that dabrafenib plus trametinib significantly improved relapse-free survival at 3 years. These results led to US Food and Drug Administration approval of dabrafenib plus trametinib as adjuvant treatment for patients with resected stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or BRAF V600K mutations. Here, we report the patient-reported outcomes from COMBI-AD. Methods COMBI-AD was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study done at 169 sites in 25 countries. Study participants were aged 18 years or older and had complete resection of stage IIIA (lymph node metastases >1 mm), IIIB, or IIIC cutaneous melanoma as per American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th edition criteria, with BRAF V600E or BRAF V600K mutations, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice response system, stratified by mutation type and disease stage, to receive oral dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) plus oral trametinib (2 mg once daily) or matching placebos for 12 months. Patients, physicians, and the investigators who analysed the data were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival, reported elsewhere. Health-related quality of life, reported here, was a prespecified exploratory endpoint, and was assessed with the European Quality of Life 5-Dimensions 3-Levels (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire in the intention-to-treat population. We used a mixed-model repeated-measures analysis to assess differences in health-related quality of life between groups. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01682083. The trial is ongoing, but is no longer recruiting participants. Findings Between Jan 31, 2013, and Dec 11, 2014, 870 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive dabrafenib plus trametinib (n=438) or matching placebos (n=432). Data were collected until the data cutoff for analyses of the primary endpoint (June 30, 2017). The median follow-up was 34 months (IQR 28–39) in the dabrafenib plus trametinib group and 33 months (20·5–39) in the placebo group. During the 12-month treatment phase, there were no significant or clinically meaningful changes from baseline between groups in EQ-5D-3L visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) or utility scores. During treatment, there were no clinically meaningful differences in VAS scores or utility scores in the dabrafenib plus trametinib group between patients who did and did not experience the most common adverse events. During long-term follow-up (range 15–48 months), VAS and utility scores were similar between groups and did not differ from baseline scores. At recurrence, there were significant decreases in VAS scores in both the dabrafenib plus trametinib group (mean change −6·02, SD 20·57; p=0·0032) and the placebo group (−6·84, 20·86; p Interpretation These findings show that dabrafenib plus trametinib did not affect patient-reported outcome scores during or after adjuvant treatment, and suggest that preventing or delaying relapse with adjuvant therapy could be beneficial in this setting. Funding Novartis.

Background: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 1325/KEYNOTE-054 trial assessed pembrolizumab versus placebo in patients with resected high-risk stage III melanoma. At 15-month median follow-up, pembrolizumab improved recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·57 [98·4% CI 0·43–0·74], p1 mm), IIIB, or IIIC (without in-transit metastasis), and with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a central interactive voice response system to receive intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 18 doses or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was stratified according to disease stage and region, using a minimisation technique, and clinical investigators, patients, and those collecting or analysing the data were masked to treatment assignment. The two coprimary endpoints were recurrence-free survival in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and in patients with PD-L1-positive tumours. The secondary endpoint reported here was distant metastasis-free survival in the ITT and PD-L1-positive populations. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02362594, and EudraCT, 2014-004944-37. Findings: Between Aug 26, 2015, and Nov 14, 2016, 1019 patients were assigned to receive either pembrolizumab (n=514) or placebo (n=505). At an overall median follow-up of 42·3 months (IQR 40·5–45·9), 3·5-year distant metastasis-free survival was higher in the pembrolizumab group than in the placebo group in the ITT population (65·3% [95% CI 60·9–69·5] in the pembrolizumab group vs 49·4% [44·8–53·8] in the placebo group; HR 0·60 [95% CI 0·49–0·73]; p

Somatic mutations in the isocitrate dehydrogenase genes IDH1 and IDH2 occur at high frequency in several tumour types. Even though these mutations are confined to distinct hotspots, we show that gliomas are the only tumour type with an exceptionally high percentage of IDH1R132H mutations. Patients harbouring IDH1R132H mutated tumours have lower levels of genome-wide DNA-methylation, and an associated increased gene expression, compared to tumours with other IDH1/2 mutations (“non-R132H IDH1/2 mutations”). This reduced methylation is seen in multiple tumour types and thus appears independent of the site of origin. For 1p/19q non-codeleted glioma (astrocytoma) patients, we show that this difference is clinically relevant: in samples of the randomised phase III CATNON trial, patients harbouring tumours with IDH mutations other than IDH1R132H have a better outcome (hazard ratio 0.41, 95% CI [0.24, 0.71], p = 0.0013). Such non-R132H IDH1/2-mutated tumours also had a significantly lower proportion of tumours assigned to prognostically poor DNA-methylation classes (p R132H mutated counterpart indicates that not all IDH-mutations are identical. This difference is clinically relevant and should be taken into account for patient prognostication.

International audience; Background: BRAF and MEK inhibitors combination, including dabrafenib (D) and trametinib (T) have transformed the treatment of BRAF V600-mutant advanced melanoma patients, including patients with brain metastasis (BM). In a large phase IIIb, single-arm, open-label, multicenter French study, we assessed safety, response to treatment, progression-free survival (PFS) and factors associated with progression, and stratified the population into risk groups. Methods: Patients with unresectable, advanced, BRAF V600-mutant melanoma were included, including those with the presence of BM, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) ≤2, elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) or previous melanoma treatments. Responses were determined locally, without central review. PFS was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier analysis and modelled with multivariate Cox model. Risk subgroups were identified using a regression tree analysis. Results: Between March 2015 and November 2016, 856 patients received at least one D + T dose. Overall, 92% had stage IV melanoma, 38% ECOG PS ≥1, 32% BM and 37.5% elevated LDH. Median PFS was 8.02 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.33–8.77). Significant factors associated with lower PFS were ECOG PS ≥1, elevated LDH, ≥3 metastatic sites and presence of BM. Patients with

Background: The CATNON trial investigated the addition of concurrent, adjuvant, and both current and adjuvant temozolomide to radiotherapy in adults with newly diagnosed 1p/19q non-co-deleted anaplastic gliomas. The benefit of concurrent temozolomide chemotherapy and relevance of mutations in the IDH1 and IDH2 genes remain unclear.Methods: This randomised, open-label, phase 3 study done in 137 institutions across Australia, Europe, and North America included patients aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed 1p/19q non-co-deleted anaplastic gliomas and a WHO performance status of 0–2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) centrally using a minimisation technique to radiotherapy alone (59·4 Gy in 33 fractions; three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy or intensity-modulated radiotherapy), radiotherapy with concurrent oral temozolomide (75 mg/m2 per day), radiotherapy with adjuvant oral temozolomide (12 4-week cycles of 150–200 mg/m2 temozolomide given on days 1–5), or radiotherapy with both concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide. Patients were stratified by institution, WHO performance status score, age, 1p loss of heterozygosity, the presence of oligodendroglial elements on microscopy, and MGMT promoter methylation status. The primary endpoint was overall survival adjusted by stratification factors at randomisation in the intention-to-treat population. A second interim analysis requested by the independent data monitoring committee was planned when two-thirds of total required events were observed to test superiority or futility of concurrent temozolomide. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00626990.Findings: Between Dec 4, 2007, and Sept 11, 2015, 751 patients were randomly assigned (189 to radiotherapy alone, 188 to radiotherapy with concurrent temozolomide, 186 to radiotherapy and adjuvant temozolomide, and 188 to radiotherapy with concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide). Median follow-up was 55·7 months (IQR 41·0–77·3). The second interim analysis declared futility of concurrent temozolomide (median overall survival was 66·9 months [95% CI 45·7–82·3] with concurrent temozolomide vs 60·4 months [45·7–71·5] without concurrent temozolomide; hazard ratio [HR] 0·97 [99·1% CI 0·73–1·28], p=0·76). By contrast, adjuvant temozolomide improved overall survival compared with no adjuvant temozolomide (median overall survival 82·3 months [95% CI 67·2–116·6] vs 46·9 months [37·9–56·9]; HR 0·64 [95% CI 0·52–0·79], pInterpretation: Adjuvant temozolomide chemotherapy, but not concurrent temozolomide chemotherapy, was associated with a survival benefit in patients with 1p/19q non-co-deleted anaplastic glioma. Clinical benefit was dependent on IDH1 and IDH2 mutational status.Funding: Merck Sharpe & Dohme.

International audience; Background: The 'obesity paradox' suggests that higher body mass index (BMI) is associated with better survival values in metastatic melanoma patients, especially those receiving targeted and immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Higher BMI is also associated with higher incidences of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). This study assesses whether BMI is associated with survival outcomes and adverse events in metastatic melanoma patients with systemic therapy.Patients and methods: This multicentric retrospective study, conducted from 1 March 2013 to 29 April 2019, enrolled adults with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma from the French multicentric prospective cohort-MelBase (NCT02828202). Patients with first-line chemotherapy and targeted and immune therapy were included. Underweight people and those with metastatic mucosal or ocular melanoma were excluded. BMI was categorized using the World Health Organization criteria. Co-primary outcomes included the association between BMI and progression-free survival and overall survival, stratified by treatment type, sex, and age. Secondary endpoints were the association of BMI with overall response and TRAEs. Multivariate analyses were carried out.Results: A total of 1214 patients were analyzed. Their median age was 66.0 years (range, 53-75). Male predominance was observed [n = 738 (61%)]. Most patients received immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy (63%), followed by targeted therapy (32%), and had stage M1c disease (60.5%). Obese patients represented 22% of the cohort. The median follow-up duration was 13.5 months (range, 6.0-27.5). In the pooled analysis, no positive or negative association between BMI and progression-free survival (P = 0.88)/overall survival (P = 0.25) was observed, regardless of treatment type, sex, and age. These results were nonsignificant in the univariate and multivariate analyses. The objective response rate, according to BMI category, did not differ significantly regardless of age. TRAEs were not associated with BMI.Conclusion: The observed lack of an association between BMI and survival demonstrates that BMI is not a valuable marker of systemic treatment-related outcomes in metastatic melanoma. Future approaches might focus on the whole-body distribution.

Introduction Mucosal melanomas (MM) of the female genital tract are rare a. We aimed to study the prognostic factors of vulvar and vaginal locations of MM. Material and method A multicenter, retrospective cohort study conducted between 01/01/2000 and 01/06/2019. Result Of the 33 patients included 25 (75.8 %) had vulvar (VuM) and eight (24.2 %) vaginal melanomas (VaM). VaMs were deeper: median Breslow index: 17.5 mm [3.5−22] versus 4.3 mm [0.35−18] (p = 0.013). Average follow-up was 24.0 ± 59.8 months. Twenty-six patients (78.8 %) experienced recurrence. Disease-free survival was 52.9 % at 1 year (64.7 % for VuM and 14.3 % for VaM) and 8.4 % at 3 years (11 % for VuM and 0% for VaM) (p = 0.002). Median time to the first recurrence was 9.01 months [CI95 %: 2.07–56.71]. VaM recurred earlier than VuM (3.12 months [CI95 %: 2.07–12.49] versus 17.72 [CI95 %: 3.58–56.71], p = 0.011). VaM had a higher risk of recurrence (HR = 5.64 [CI95 %: 2.01–15.82], p = 0.001) in multivariate analysis. Overall survival was 88.5 % at 1 year (100 % for VuM and 50 % for VaM), and 59.4 % at 3 years (69.3 % for VuM and 25 % for VaM). Women with VaM died earlier: median specific death occurrence of 8.76 months [CI95 %: 6.54–24.72] versus 39.61 [CI95 %: 21.89–209.21], p = 0.013 (HR = 5.08 [CI95 %: 1.39–18.60], p = 0.014). A lesion size ≥3 cm was associated with an increased risk of mortality (HR = 8.45 [CI95 %: 1.60–44.52], p = 0.012). In multivariate analysis, vaginal location remained an independent and predictive variable of a higher risk of specific death (HR = 8.56 [CI95 %: 1.95–37.64], p = 0.005). Conclusion A vaginal location of MM is associated with a poorer prognosis than a vulvar location.

InPatients withEighteen patients were enrolled, with 15 in strata 2. Characteristics at inclusion were American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IVM1c (Although the combination of palbociclib + fixed-dose vemurafenib did not allow an increased palbociclib dosage above 25 mg, a significant clinical benefit was achieved in pretreated patients with melanoma. An association between the transcriptomic data and clinical response was highlighted.

Importance Since 2011, many patients with metastatic melanoma have been treated with ipilimumab therapy and have developed severe immune-related adverse events (AEs). Because several immune therapies are now available to treat metastatic melanoma, a better knowledge of mechanisms and recurrence risks of immune-related AEs is needed before reintroduction of immunotherapies. Objectives To evaluate the risk of a recurrence of immune toxic effects associated with anti–programmed cell death 1 antibody (anti–PD-1) therapy after discontinuation of ipilimumab monotherapy because of severe AEs. Design, Settings, and Participants This cohort study conducted at 19 French melanoma referral centers included patients with metastatic melanoma who experienced severe immune-related AEs after ipilimumab therapy and then were treated with anti–PD-1 therapy between February 1, 2013, and December 31, 2016. The study cutoff was June 1, 2017. Statistical analysis was performed from June 1, 2016, to August 31, 2017. Exposures Monotherapy with at least 1 cycle of ipilimumab that was associated with a grade 3 or 4 immune-related AE and subsequent treatment with at least 1 cycle of an anti–PD-1 (nivolumab or pembrolizumab) therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was the rate of immune-related AEs associated with anti–PD-1 therapy. Secondary outcomes were characteristics of ipilimumab-related and anti–PD-1 immune–related AEs and overall response rate and overall survival associated with anti–PD-1 therapy. Results Of 56 patients with metastatic melanoma included in the study, all of whom experienced severe immune-related AEs after ipilimumab therapy (31 [55%] male; mean [SD] age, 64 [14.9] years), 20 (36%) experienced at least 1 immune-related AE associated with pembrolizumab (6 of 20 [30%]) or nivolumab (14 of 20 [70%]) therapy. A total of 12 patients (21%) experienced grade 3 or 4 immune-related AEs, and among these patients, 4 (33%) presented with the same immune-related AE as with ipilimumab therapy. Severe immune-related AEs were resolved with use of systemic corticosteroids (7 [58%]) and/or anti–tumor necrosis factor (1 [8%]), and no grade 5 toxic effects were reported. Five patients discontinued anti–PD-1 therapy because of immune-related AEs. The overall response rate was 43%, with a median overall survival of 21 months (interquartile range, 18 to ongoing). Conclusions and Relevance The findings suggest that anti–PD-1 therapy may be associated with reduced risk of toxic effects and improved survival among patients who have experienced severe toxic effects after ipilimumab therapy.

Background: BET proteins are epigenetic readers and activators of oncogenic pathways in cancer. CC-95775 is a novel oral small molecule bromodomain inhibitor. It is a non-specific inhibitor with potent activity against all 4 BET family members (BRD2, BRD3, BRD4, BRDT), and shows additional activity towards several non-BET bromodomain proteins. Methods: CC-95775-ST-001 is a phase 1 dose-escalation study of CC-95775 in patients with advanced STs. Primary objectives were to determine safety and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). Secondary and exploratory objectives were pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD) and antitumor activity. Four dose levels (DLs), from 400 to 1200 mg, administered on 4 consecutive days (Day 1 to Day 4) followed by 24 days off, every four weeks (Q4W), were evaluated. Results: As of 16 Apr 2021, 24 evaluable patients were enrolled and treated. The RP2D was 1200 mg (300 mg on days 1-4 and 24 days off, Q4W). One patient treated at 800 mg and two at 1200 mg had dose-limiting toxicities: QT prolongation, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) decreased and abnormal T wave. The most common treatment-related adverse event (TRAE) was thrombocytopenia in 11 patients (45.8%), 2 of them grade 3 (8.3%) and 1 grade 4 (4.2%). Safety profile consisted mainly of gastrointestinal and general disorders. Five patients (20.8%) had transient serious TRAEs: nausea, QT prolongation, abnormal T wave, posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome and acute kidney injury. Eleven patients 11 (45.8) had disease stabilization, 9 of them with a duration of ≥ 16 weeks and 4 of them ≥ 24 weeks: melanoma, chondrosarcoma, adenoid cystic carcinoma and chordoma. Plasma exposures increased in a dose-proportional manner across DLs. Across all dose groups, median Tmax was between ~ 2-4 h post-dose, indicating rapid absorption. The terminal half-life was approximately 30 h and repeated dosing leads to drug accumulation, as expected: ~2 - 3 fold for AUC and Cmax. CC-95775 induced ≥50% decrease of the PD biomarker CCR1 at the 4-hour timepoint in the 1200 mg cohort. Conclusions: CC-95775 was well tolerated and showed preliminary antitumor activity in heavily pretreated patients with advanced malignancies. The RP2D was 1200 mg Q4W. The favorable PD profile improved tolerability and enabled less frequent dosing. Further evaluation of CC-95775 alone or in combination in STs is warranted. Citation Format: Thierry Lesimple, María José de Miguel, Cristophe Le Tourneau, Mariano Ponz-Sarvise, Marie Paule Sablin, Diego Salas Benito, Bishoy Hanna, Henry Chang, Xin Wei, Marta Ocejo Garcia, Pilar Lardelli, Tania Sánchez, Josep Lluís Parra Palau, Zariana Nikolova, Emiliano Calvo. CC-95775, a reversible, oral bromodomain and extra-terminal (BET) inhibitor in patients with advanced solid tumors (STs): Results of a phase 1 study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC Virtual International Conference on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; 2021 Oct 7-10. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2021;20(12 Suppl):Abstract nr P033.

Background: Combining anti-VEGF/Ang2 and anti-PD-1 therapy promotes an immunopermissive state, supportive of T-cell-mediated tumour cell destruction. This phase Ib study is assessing BI 836880 plus ezabenlimab in patients (pts) with advanced solid tumours. In Part 1 (dose escalation in pts with advanced NSCLC), the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) was determined as BI 836880 720 mg + ezabenlimab 240 mg IV q3w. Here, we report updated results, including data from Part 2 (expansion cohorts). Methods: Part 2 has 7 cohorts: metastatic (m) NSCLC after checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) monotherapy (Cohort A);mNSCLC after chemotherapy (CT) + CPI (Cohort B);mSCLC after CT ± CPI (Cohort C);recurrent GBM (1st and 2nd recurrence;Cohort D);immunotherapy-resistant m-melanoma (Cohort E);HCC after prior sorafenib or lenvatinib (Cohort F);and previously untreated unresectable HCC (Cohort G). Primary endpoint is objective response rate (complete response [CR] + partial response [PR]). Results: As of March 2021, 215 pts have been treated (Part 1: 14, Part 2: 201 [Cohort A, 35;B, 32;C, 19;D, 31;E, 32;F, 29;G, 23];70% male, median age 62 yrs). Any and ≥G3 AEs (any-cause) were reported in 183 (85%) and 72 (33%) pts. 118 (55%) pts had drug-related AEs, most commonly asthenia (13%) and hypertension (12%). 7 pts had G4 AEs (non-related hyperkalaemia + cardiac arrest, laryngospasm, gastrointestinal perforation;drug-related anaphylactic reaction, cholestatic hepatitis, acute pancreatitis, increased transaminases);9 pts had G5 AEs (non-related COVID-19 pneumonia, epilepsy, intracranial haemorrhage, cardio-respiratory arrest, haemoptysis, hepatic failure, general physical health deterioration, Glasgow coma scale abnormal + shortness of breath;drug-related tracheal haemorrhage). 35 (16%) pts had immune-related AEs and 15 (7%) had AEs leading to discontinuation. 179 pts were evaluable for response: 1 had confirmed CR (Cohort F), 22 had PR (Part 1: 2;Part 2: 20 [Cohort A, 4;C, 5;D, 4;E, 3;F, 3;G, 1]) and 110 had stable disease. 106 pts remain on treatment. Conclusions: BI 836880 plus ezabenlimab had a manageable safety profile, with preliminary activity in a range of tumour types. Clinical trial identification: NCT03468426. Editorial acknowledgement: Medical writing support for the development of this manuscript, under the direction of the authors, was provided by Hannah Simmons MSc, of Ashfield MedComms, an Ashfield Health company, and funded by Boehringer Ingelheim. Legal entity responsible for the study: Boehringer Ingelheim. Funding: Boehringer Ingelheim. Disclosure: N. Girard: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: Roche, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, BMS, MSD, Takeda, GSK, AbbVie, Pharmamar, Janssen, Sanofi;Financial Interests, Personal, Funding, Travel/accommodation/expenses: Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS MSD Oncology;Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: Roche, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim. M. Wermke: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: MSD, Novartis, Kite, Heidelberg Pharma, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim;Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Honoraria: BMS, Merck, Roche, Novartis, Kite, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca;Financial Interests, Personal, Funding, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Glenmark, BMS, AstraZeneca. E. Ledin: Financial Interests, Personal and Institutional, Research Grant: Boehringer Ingelheim. D. Kim: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service, Korea;Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker: Korean Association for Lung Cancer, Korean Cancer Association, Korean Society of Medical Oncology, Taiwan Lung Cancer Society;Financial Interests, Institutional, Principal Investigator, Clinical Trial Funding: Alpha Biopharma, Amgen, AstraZeneca/Medimmune, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bridge BioTherapeutics, Chong Keun Dang, Daiich-Sankyo, GSK, Hanmi, Janssen, Merus, MIrati Therapeutics, MSD, Novartis, ONO Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Takeda, TP Therapeuti;Non-Financial Interests, Person l, Advisory Role: Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS / ONO Pharmaceuticals, Daiich-Sankyo, GSK, Janssen, Pfizer, SK Biopharm, Takeda, Yuhan;Non-Financial Interests, Personal, Member of the Board of Directors: Asian Thoracic Oncology Research Group, Korean Association for Lung Cancer, Korean Cancer Association, Korean Society of Medical Oncology;Other, Personal, Funding, Travel support for advisory board meeting attendance: Amgen, Daiichi-Sankyo. J. Bennouna: Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Honoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, AstraZeneca, Roche, Servier, Bayer, AMGEN;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, AstraZeneca, Roche;Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: AstraZeneca. T. Lesimple: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: MSD, Novartis, BMS, Pierre Fabre;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: MSD, Novartis;Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: Roche. E. Felip: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Amgen;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: AstraZeneca;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: BAYER;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Beigene;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Boehringer-Ingelheim;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Bristol-Myers Squibb;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Eli Lilly;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: F. Hoffman-La Roche;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Glaxo Smith Kline;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Janssen;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Medical Trends;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Merck Sharp & Dohme;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Merck Serono;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Peptomyc;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Pfizer;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Puma;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Regeneron;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Sanofi;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Syneos Health;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Takeda;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Amgen;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: AstraZeneca;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Bristol-Myers Squibb;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Eli Lilly;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: F. Hoffmann-La Roche;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Janssen;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Medscape;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Merck Sharp & Dohme;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Merck Serono;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Peervoice;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Pfizer;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Springer;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Touch Medical;Financial Interests, Personal, Member, Independent Member of the Board: Grifols. D. Berz: Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Honoraria: Oncocyte;Other, Personal, Other, Honoraria: Sun Pharma;Other, Personal, Other, Honoraria: Caris;Other, Personal, Other, Honoraria: Takeda;Other, Personal, Other, Honoraria: Natera;Other, Personal, Other, Honoraria: Jazz Pharma;Other, Personal, Other, Honoraria: Genentech;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: Oncocyte;Other, Personal, Advisory Role: Sun Pharma;Other, Personal, Advisory Role: Biocept;Other, Personal, Advisory Role: Prelude;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Oncocyte;Other, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Caris;Other, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Sun Pharma;Other, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: AstraZeneca;Other, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Takeda;Other, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Merck;Other, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Natera;Other, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Jazz Pharma. C. Mascaux: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: Roche;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: Astr Zeneca;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: Kephren;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: MSD;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: Pfizer;Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Honoraria: Roche;Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Honoraria: AstraZeneca;Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Honoraria: Kephren;Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Honoraria: Bristol-Myers Squibb;Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Honoraria: MSD;Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Honoraria: Pfizer;Financial Interests, Personal, Other, travel, accommodations, expenses: Roche;Financial Interests, Personal, Other, travel, accommodations, expenses: AstraZeneca;Financial Interests, Personal, Other, travel, accommodations, expenses: Boehringer Ingelheim;Financial Interests, Personal, Other, travel, accommodations, expenses: Takeda. M. Voskoboynik: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: AstraZeneca. H.T. Landsteiner: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment: Boehringer Ingelheim. V. Chen: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment: Boehringer Ingelheim. G. Jayadeva: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment: Boehringer Ingelheim. J. Alt: Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Honoraria: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Roche;Financial Interests, Personal, Funding, Travel/accommodation/expenses: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS. B. Hackanson: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, AstraZeneca, BMS. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Combination therapy with the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib plus the MEK inhibitor trametinib improved survival in patients with advanced melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations. We sought to determine whether adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib would improve outcomes in patients with resected, stage III melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations.In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 870 patients with completely resected, stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations to receive oral dabrafenib at a dose of 150 mg twice daily plus trametinib at a dose of 2 mg once daily (combination therapy, 438 patients) or two matched placebo tablets (432 patients) for 12 months. The primary end point was relapse-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, distant metastasis-free survival, freedom from relapse, and safety.At a median follow-up of 2.8 years, the estimated 3-year rate of relapse-free survival was 58% in the combination-therapy group and 39% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for relapse or death, 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39 to 0.58; P0.001). The 3-year overall survival rate was 86% in the combination-therapy group and 77% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.79; P=0.0006), but this level of improvement did not cross the prespecified interim analysis boundary of P=0.000019. Rates of distant metastasis-free survival and freedom from relapse were also higher in the combination-therapy group than in the placebo group. The safety profile of dabrafenib plus trametinib was consistent with that observed with the combination in patients with metastatic melanoma.Adjuvant use of combination therapy with dabrafenib plus trametinib resulted in a significantly lower risk of recurrence in patients with stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations than the adjuvant use of placebo and was not associated with new toxic effects. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; COMBI-AD ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01682083 ; EudraCT number, 2012-001266-15 .).

Item does not contain fulltext BACKGROUND: The role of temozolomide chemotherapy in newly diagnosed 1p/19q non-co-deleted anaplastic gliomas, which are associated with lower sensitivity to chemotherapy and worse prognosis than 1p/19q co-deleted tumours, is unclear. We assessed the use of radiotherapy with concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide in adults with non-co-deleted anaplastic gliomas. METHODS: This was a phase 3, randomised, open-label study with a 2 x 2 factorial design. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had newly diagnosed non-co-deleted anaplastic glioma with WHO performance status scores of 0-2. The randomisation schedule was generated with the electronic EORTC web-based ORTA system. Patients were assigned in equal numbers (1:1:1:1), using the minimisation technique, to receive radiotherapy (59.4 Gy in 33 fractions of 1.8 Gy) alone or with adjuvant temozolomide (12 4-week cycles of 150-200 mg/m(2) temozolomide given on days 1-5); or to receive radiotherapy with concurrent temozolomide 75 mg/m(2) per day, with or without adjuvant temozolomide. The primary endpoint was overall survival adjusted for performance status score, age, 1p loss of heterozygosity, presence of oligodendroglial elements, and MGMT promoter methylation status, analysed by intention to treat. We did a planned interim analysis after 219 (41%) deaths had occurred to test the null hypothesis of no efficacy (threshold for rejection p

BACKGROUND In the previously reported primary analysis of this phase 3 trial, 12 months of adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib resulted in significantly longer relapse-free survival than placebo in patients with resected stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations. To confirm the stability of the relapse-free survival benefit, longer-term data were needed. METHODS We randomly assigned 870 patients who had resected stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations to receive 12 months of oral dabrafenib (at a dose of 150 mg twice daily) plus trametinib (2 mg once daily) or two matched placebos. The primary end point was relapse-free survival. Here, we report 5-year results for relapse-free survival and survival without distant metastasis as the site of the first relapse. Overall survival was not analyzed, since the required number of events to trigger the final overall survival analysis had not been reached. RESULTS The minimum duration of follow-up was 59 months (median patient follow-up, 60 months for dabrafenib plus trametinib and 58 months for placebo). At 5 years, the percentage of patients who were alive without relapse was 52% (95% confidence interval [CI], 48 to 58) with dabrafenib plus trametinib and 36% (95% CI, 32 to 41) with placebo (hazard ratio for relapse or death, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.61). The percentage of patients who were alive without distant metastasis was 65% (95% CI, 61 to 71) with dabrafenib plus trametinib and 54% (95% CI, 49 to 60) with placebo (hazard ratio for distant metastasis or death, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.70). No clinically meaningful between-group difference in the incidence or severity of serious adverse events was reported during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS In the 5-year follow-up of a phase 3 trial involving patients who had resected stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations, 12 months of adjuvant therapy with dabrafenib plus trametinib resulted in a longer duration of survival without relapse or distant metastasis than placebo with no apparent long-term toxic effects. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; COMBI-AD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01682083; EudraCT number, 2012-001266-15.).

This study investigated the efficacy and safety of pimasertib (MEK1/MEK2 inhibitor) versus dacarbazine (DTIC) in patients with untreated NRAS-mutated melanoma. Phase II, multicenter, open-label trial. Patients with unresectable, stage IIIc/IVM1 NRAS-mutated cutaneous melanoma were randomized 2:1 to pimasertib (60 mg, oral twice-daily) or DTIC (1000 mg/m2, intravenously) on Day 1 of each 21-day cycle. Patients progressing on DTIC could crossover to pimasertib. Primary endpoint: investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), secondary endpoints: overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), quality of life (QoL), and safety. Overall, 194 patients were randomized (pimasertib n = 130, DTIC n = 64), and 191 received treatment (pimasertib n = 130, DTIC n = 61). PFS was significantly improved with pimasertib versus DTIC (median 13 versus 7 weeks, respectively, hazard ratio (HR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42&ndash, 0.83, p = 0.0022). ORR was improved with pimasertib (odds ratio 2.24, 95% CI 1.00&ndash, 4.98, p = 0.0453). OS was similar between treatments (median 9 versus 11 months, respectively, HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61&ndash, 1.30), 64% of patients receiving DTIC crossed over to pimasertib. Serious adverse events (AEs) were more frequent for pimasertib (57%) than DTIC (20%). The most common treatment-emergent AEs were diarrhea (82%) and blood creatine phosphokinase (CPK) increase (68%) for pimasertib, and nausea (41%) and fatigue (38%) for DTIC. Most frequent grade &ge, 3 AEs were CPK increase (34%) for pimasertib and neutropenia (15%) for DTIC. Mean QoL scores (baseline and last assessment) were similar between treatments. Pimasertib has activity in NRAS-mutated cutaneous melanoma and a safety profile consistent with known toxicities of MEK inhibitors. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01693068

International audience; Purpose To determine performances of 2-deoxy-2-(18F)fluoro-d-glucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) to detect the development of permanent thyroid dysfunction (PTD), and to evaluate the prognostic value of early increased thyroid uptake in stage IV melanoma patients treated with anti-programmed death 1 (anti-PD-1) antibodies. Methods Twenty-nine patients were retrospectively enrolled. PTD was defined as symptomatic thyroid disorder requiring long-term specific treatment. On the first PET performed during follow-up, maximal standardized uptake value of the thyroid (SUVmax-Th) and SUVmax-Th/SUVmax-blood-pool ratio (Th/B) were measured. Areas under ROC curves (AUC) of these parameters for the diagnostic of PTD were compared. Cutoff values were defined to maximize the Youden's index. Survival analyses were performed according to the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank method between patients with and without enhanced thyroid uptake according to cutoff values defined with the Hothorn and Lausen method. Results Four patients presented PTD. Median SUVmax-Th and Th/B were, respectively, 2.11 and 1.00. The median followup period was 21.7 months. AUC were 1.0 (CI 95% 0.88-1.0) for both parameters. Optimal cutoff values were, respectively, SUVmax-Th > 4.1 and Th/B > 2.0, both conferring sensitivities of 100% (CI 95% 40-100%) and specificities of 100% (CI 95% 86-100%). The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 11.3 months and 33.5 months, respectively. Using optimized cutoffs, there was no statistically significant difference of survival. Conclusion SUVmax-Th > 4.1 and Th/B > 2.0 provided perfect diagnostic performances to detect patients that developed PTD. No significant survival difference was found between patients with and without increased thyroid uptake.

Objective Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for cancer therapy frequently induce immune-related adverse effects (IRAEs). Therefore, most patients with preexisting autoimmune diseases have been excluded from clinical trials of ICIs. This study was undertaken to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ICIs in patients with preexisting autoimmune disease and cancer. Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted from January 2017 to January 2018 via 3 French national networks of experts in oncology and autoimmunity. Adults with preexisting autoimmune disease who were receiving ICIs were assessed for the occurrence of flare of preexisting autoimmune disease, other IRAEs, and cancer response. Results The study included 112 patients who were followed up for a median of 8 months. The most frequent preexisting autoimmune diseases were psoriasis (n = 31), rheumatoid arthritis (n = 20), and inflammatory bowel disease (n = 14). Twenty-four patients (22%) were receiving immunosuppressive therapy at ICI initiation. Autoimmune disease flare and/or other IRAE(s) occurred in 79 patients (71%), including flare of preexisting autoimmune disease in 53 patients (47%) and/or other IRAE(s) in 47 patients (42%), with a need for immunosuppressive therapy in 48 patients (43%) and permanent discontinuation of ICI in 24 patients (21%). The median progression-free survival was shorter in patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy at ICI initiation (3.8 months versus 12 months; P = 0.006), confirmed by multivariable analysis. The median progression-free survival was shorter in patients who experienced a flare of preexisting autoimmune disease or other IRAE, with a trend toward better survival in the subgroup without immunosuppressant use or ICI discontinuation. Conclusion Our findings indicate that flares or IRAEs occur frequently but are mostly manageable without ICI discontinuation in patients with a preexisting autoimmune disease. Immunosuppressive therapy at baseline is associated with poorer outcomes.

Korrespondenz zu 10.1200/JCO.18.01768 (Hess) und 10.1200/JCO.18.02075 (Hindié)

International audience; The prognosis of advanced melanoma has been greatly improved by new therapeutic agents and clinicians rely on dynamic signals to drive their therapeutic choices. Although the kinetics of metastatic disease seem to be correlated with survival, progression of the localized disease is not predictable.Objective: To assess whether progression of metastatic disease is associated with the time to the first distant recurrence of melanoma.Design, Setting, and Participants: This study was conducted from March 1, 2013, to September 1, 2017, among 638 adults with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma within the French multicentric prospective cohort MelBase. Patients treated with first-line immunotherapies, targeted therapies, or chemotherapy were included. Patients with unknown primary or de novo metastatic melanoma were not included. Data were analyzed from March 1, 2013, to December 1, 2017.Main Outcomes and Measures: The date of primary excision and time to first distant recurrence, progression-free survival, and overall survival were collected. Cox proportional hazards regression models were planned to assess the association between time to first distant recurrence and progression-free survival or overall survival, which was evaluated in terms of hazard ratio (HR). Time to recurrence was analyzed both as a continuous and categorical variable (24 months).Results: A total of 638 patients (272 women and 366 men; median age, 64 years [interquartile range, 52-73 years]) were included in the study. The median time from primary excision to first distant recurrence was 25 months (interquartile range, 12-55 months). There was no evidence of association of the time to recurrence with progression-free survival, both when analyzed as a continuous variable (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.99-1.01) or after categorization (12-24 months: HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.56-1.02; >24 months: HR, 0.62; 95% CI; 0.47-1.01). There was no evidence of association of the time to recurrence with overall survival, both when analyzed as a continuous variable (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-1.02) or after categorization (12-24 months: HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.54-1.07; >24 months: HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.54-1.03). Those results remained nonsignificant after stratification by treatment.Conclusions and Relevance: In the MelBase cohort, time to recurrence of metastatic melanoma appears not to be associated with progression-free survival or overall survival.

International audience; Background: Melanoma brain metastases (MBMs) are historically associated with poor prognosis. Radiation therapy is conventionally associated with a high local control rate. Development of targeted therapy and immunotherapy has improved overall survival (OS) and intracranial response rate, but about 50% of patients failed to respond to these novel therapies. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of combined radiotherapy (cRT) on overall survival in a large multicenter real-life prospective cohort of patients with MBM treated with immunotherapy or targeted therapy.Patients and methods: Clinical data from 262 patients with MBM were collected via MelBase, a French multicentric biobank prospectively enrolling unresectable stage III or IV melanoma. Two groups were defined: patients receiving cRT (cRT group) or not receiving cRT (no-cRT group). Primary end-point was OS. Propensity score weighting was used to correct for indication bias.Results: Among the 262 patients, 93 (35%) received cRT (cRT group). The patients were treated with immunotherapy in 69% and 60% and with targeted therapy in 31% and 40% of the cRT and no-cRT groups, respectively. With a median follow-up of 6.9 months, median OS was 16.8 months and 6.9 months in the cRT and no-cRT groups, respectively. After propensity score weighting, cRT was associated with longer OS (hazard ratio = 0.6, 95% confidence interval: 0.4-0.8; p=0.007). Median OS after ponderation was 15.3 months and 6.2 months in the cRT and no-cRT groups, respectively.Conclusion: This study shows that cRT may be associated with a significant decrease of 40% in the risk of death in patients with MBM treated with systemic therapy.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies have profoundly altered the management of several cancers over the past decade. Metastatic melanoma has been at the forefront of these changes. We provide here a nationwide overview and an assessment of changes in survival in France. We included 10,936 patients receiving a systemic treatment for metastatic cutaneous melanoma between 2010 and 2017 using the French National Health Insurance database (Système National des Données de Santé). Over the study period, there was a doubling of the number of new patients receiving a systemic treatment. Cytotoxic chemotherapy was progressively replaced by targeted therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors. Patients having initiated a first-line treatment since June 2015 gained 46% overall survival compared with those initiating treatment before 2012. Overall survival at 24 months rose from 21% to 44%. We provide real-world evidence for the improvement of overall survival in the past decade among patients with metastatic melanoma. Although the characteristics of the patients treated can vary across periods, this type of exhaustive real-world data provides evidence from broader populations than those included in clinical trials.

Background Sentinel lymph-node (LN) biopsy (SLNB) is a valuable tool to assess the regional LN status in Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC). However, its prognostic value is still debated. This study was undertaken to assess SLNB usefulness for MCC management and to determine the impact of SLNB status on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) by comparing SLNB-positive versus -negative patients according to demographic, clinical and treatment characteristics. Patients and methods In this retrospective, multicenter observational study, SLNB was proposed to all patients referred for clinically N0 MCC. Treatment schedule consisted of wide-margin surgical resection of primary MCC followed by adjuvant radiation therapy (aRT) to the primary site and, for SLNB-positive patients, radical LN dissection followed by regional aRT. Univariate and multivariate analyses determined factors associated with DFS and OS. Results Among 87 patients with successful SLNB, 21 (24.1%) were SLNB-positive. Median follow-up for the entire series was 39 months; respective 3-year DFS and OS rates were 73% and 81.4%, respectively. Univariate analysis (all patients) identified SLNB-negativity as being associated with prolonged OS (P = 0.013) and aRT (all sites considered) was associated with longer DFS (P = 0.004) and OS (P = 0.018). Multivariate analysis (all patients) retained SLNB status and aRT (all sites considered) as being associated with improved DFS (P = 0.014 and 0.0008) and OS (P = 0.0020 and 0.0019). Moreover, for SLNB-negative patients, tumor-bed irradiation was also significantly associated with prolonged DFS (P = 0.006) and OS (P = 0.014). Conclusion(s) The present study demonstrates that SLNB-negativity is a strong predictor of longer DFS and OS in stage I and II MCC patients. The similar benefit for aRT on tumor bed observed in this study has to be confirmed by a prospective study. The results advocate for SLNB being considered to all MCC patients.

Purpose Dabrafenib plus trametinib improved relapse-free survival (RFS) versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.47; P < .001) in patients with resected BRAF V600–mutant stage III melanoma (BRF115532; COMBI-AD; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01682083). We present an updated RFS analysis on the basis of extended study follow-up and a cure-rate model analysis to estimate the fraction of patients expected to remain relapse free long term. Methods In this phase III trial, patients with resected BRAF V600–mutant stage III melanoma were randomly assigned to 12 months of adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib versus placebo. We report updated RFS (primary end point) and distant metastasis–free survival. RFS was also analyzed by subgroups defined by baseline disease stage (American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th and 8th editions), nodal metastatic burden, and ulceration status. The fraction of patients who remained relapse free long term was estimated using a Weibull mixture cure-rate model. Results At median follow-up of 44 months (dabrafenib plus trametinib) and 42 months (placebo), 3- and 4-year RFS rates were 59% (95% CI, 55% to 64%) and 54% (95% CI, 49% to 59%) in the dabrafenib plus trametinib arm and 40% (95% CI, 35% to 45%) and 38% (95% CI, 34% to 44%) in the placebo arm, respectively (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.59). Distant metastasis–free survival also favored dabrafenib plus trametinib (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.67). The estimated cure rate was 54% (95% CI, 49% to 59%) in the dabrafenib plus trametinib arm compared with 37% (95% CI, 32% to 42%) in the placebo arm. Subgroup analysis of RFS demonstrated similar treatment benefit regardless of baseline factors, including disease stage, nodal metastatic burden, and ulceration. Conclusion Longer follow-up confirmed RFS benefit with dabrafenib plus trametinib. Subgroup analysis suggested that dabrafenib plus trametinib benefited patients regardless of baseline factors.