Search

Purpose: Ipilimumab and nivolumab have each shown treatment benefit for high-risk resected melanoma. The phase III CheckMate 915 trial evaluated adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab alone in patients with resected stage IIIB-D or IV melanoma., Patients and Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, phase III trial, 1,833 patients received nivolumab 240 mg once every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg once every 6 weeks (916 patients) or nivolumab 480 mg once every 4 weeks (917 patients) for ≤ 1 year. After random assignment, patients were stratified by tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and stage. Dual primary end points were recurrence-free survival (RFS) in randomly assigned patients and in the tumor PD-L1 expression-level < 1% subgroup., Results: At a minimum follow-up of approximately 23.7 months, there was no significant difference between treatment groups for RFS in the all-randomly assigned patient population (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.09; P = .269) or in patients with PD-L1 expression < 1% (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.14). In all patients, 24-month RFS rates were 64.6% (combination) and 63.2% (nivolumab). Treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported in 32.6% of patients in the combination group and 12.8% in the nivolumab group. Treatment-related deaths were reported in 0.4% of patients in the combination group and in no nivolumab-treated patients., Conclusion: Nivolumab 240 mg once every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg once every 6 weeks did not improve RFS versus nivolumab 480 mg once every 4 weeks in patients with stage IIIB-D or stage IV melanoma. Nivolumab showed efficacy consistent with previous adjuvant studies in a population resembling current practice using American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition, reaffirming nivolumab as a standard of care for melanoma adjuvant treatment.

Background: The IMMUNED trial previously showed significant improvements in recurrence-free survival for adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab as well as for adjuvant nivolumab alone in patients with stage IV melanoma with no evidence of disease after resection or radiotherapy. Here, we report the final analysis, including overall survival data., Methods: IMMUNED was an investigator-sponsored, double-blind, placebo-controlled, three-arm, phase 2 trial conducted in 20 academic medical centres in Germany. Eligible patients were aged 18-80 years with stage IV melanoma with no evidence of disease after surgery or radiotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to either nivolumab plus ipilimumab (nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks), nivolumab monotherapy (nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks), or matching placebo, for up to 1 year. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary endpoints were time-to-recurrence, overall survival, progression-free survival or recurrence-free survival 2 (in patients in the placebo group who crossed over to nivolumab monotherapy after experiencing disease recurrence), and safety endpoints. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02523313), and is complete., Findings: Between Sept 2, 2015, and Nov 20, 2018, 175 patients were enrolled in the study, and 167 were randomly assigned to receive either nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n=56), nivolumab plus ipilimumab-matching placebo (n=59), or double placebo control (n=52). At a median follow-up of 49·2 months (IQR 34·9-58·1), 4-year recurrence-free survival was 64·2% (95% CI 49·2-75·9) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, 31·4% (19·7-43·8) in the nivolumab alone group, and 15·0% (6·7-26·6) in the placebo group. The hazard ratio (HR) for recurrence for the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group versus placebo was 0·25 (97·5% CI 0·13-0·48; p<0·0001), and for the nivolumab group versus placebo was 0·60 (0·36-1·00; p=0·024). Median overall survival was not reached in any treatment group. The HR for overall survival was significantly in favour of the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group versus placebo (HR 0·41; 95% CI 0·17-0·99; p=0·040), but not for the nivolumab group versus placebo (HR 0·75; 0·36-1·56; p=0·44). 4-year overall survival was 83·8% (95% CI 68·8-91·9) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, 72·6% (57·4-83·2) in the nivolumab alone group, and 63·1% (46·9-75·6) in the placebo group. The median progression-free survival or recurrence-free survival 2 of patients in the placebo group who crossed over to nivolumab monotherapy after experiencing disease recurrence was not reached (95% CI 21·2 months to not reached). Rates of grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events remained largely unchanged compared with our previous report, occurring in 71% (95% CI 57-82) of the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, and 29% (95% CI 17-42) of patients receiving nivolumab alone. There were no treatment-related deaths., Interpretation: Both active regimens continued to show significantly improved recurrence-free survival compared with placebo in patients with stage IV melanoma with no evidence of disease who were at high risk of recurrence. Overall survival was significantly improved for patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab compared with placebo. Use of subsequent anti-PD-1-based therapy was high in patients in the placebo group after recurrence and most likely impacted the overall survival comparison of nivolumab alone versus placebo. The recurrence-free and overall survival benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over placebo reinforces the change of practice already initiated for the treatment of patients with stage IV melanoma with no evidence of disease., Funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests EL reports personal fees, honoraria, and other (support for attending meetings and/or travel grants) from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Medac, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and Pierre Fabre; EL participated on a drug safety monitoring or advisory board for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi, and Sun Pharma. LZ reports personal fees, honoraria, and other (support for attending meetings and/or travel grants) from Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Sanofi, and Sun Pharma; LZ participated on drug safety monitoring or advisory boards for Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, and Sun Pharma. JCH reports personal fees, honoraria, and other (support for attending meetings and/or travel grants) from Almirall Hermal, Amgen, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, and Sun Pharma; medical writing support from Bristol-Myers Squibb outside the submitted work; and unpaid leadership or fiduciary roles for the Deutsche Krebshilfe charity and the German dermato-oncology working group. MF reports personal fees, honoraria, and other (support for attending meetings and/or travel grants), as well as participation on drug safety monitoring or advisory boards for Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Novarts, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Sanofi. TKE reports consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Almirall Hermal, Immunocore, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi outside the submitted work, and an unpaid leadership or fiduciary role for DeCOG. CL reports personal fees, honoraria, and other (support for attending meetings and/or travel grants) from Almirall Hermal, Biontech, BMS, Immunocore, Kyowa Kirin, MSD, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, and Sun Pharma outside the submitted work. SH reports personal fees and honoraria as well as participation on a drug safety monitoring or advisory board from/for Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, and Pierre Fabre, all outside the submitted work. RG reports consulting fees, personal fees, and other (support for attending meetings and/or travel grants) from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Sun Pharma; consulting and personal fees from Almirall Hermal, Amgen, MSD, Novartis, and Sanofi; consulting fees from 4SC and Immuncore (all outside the submitted work); and participation on a drug safety monitoring or advisory board for Almirall Hermal, Amgen, Immunocore, 4SC, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, and Sun Pharma, in addition to an unpaid leadership role (ie, chair) for the German dermato-oncology working group. FM reports personal fees and honoraria as well as participation on a drug safety monitoring or advisory board from/for Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi. PM reports personal fees, honoraria, and other (support for attending meetings and/or travel grants) from MSD, Novartis, and Pierre Fabre; personal fees and honoraria from Almirall Hermal, Amgen, Beiersdorf, Roche, and Sanofi; and travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb. AH reports honoraria and personal fees as well as participation on a drug safety monitoring or advisory board from/for Eisai, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Amgen, BMS, and MerckSerono; and additional participation on drug safety monitoring or advisory boards for Immunocore, Replimune, and Seagen. BS reports consulting fees from Almirall Hermal, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Immunocore, MSD and Sanofi; honoraria and personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, and Pierre Fabre; and support for attending meetings from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pierre Fabre. CM reports grants and contracts from the German Research Fund (DFG, ME 5482/1-1) and the Society of MSK (June, 2018), as well as honoraria and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Recordati Rare Diseases. FK reports honoraria, consulting, and personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, and Sanofi; and honoraria from Pierre Fabre. AR reports honoraria, personal fees, and travel support from Novartis and honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb. MZ reports honoraria, personal fees, and travel support from Novartis; honoraria from MSD and Pierre Fabre; and participation on a data safety monitoring or advisory board for Bristol-Myers Squibb and MSD. CG reports participation on drug safety monitoring or advisory boards for Bristol-Myers Squibb, CeCeVa, MSD, NeraCare, Novartis, Philogen, and Sanofi, and has a leadership role (ie, chair) for the European Association of Dermato-Oncology (EADO). JCB reports consulting fees from Almirall Hermal, Boehringer Ingelheim, InProTher, ICON Clinical Research, Merck Serono, Pfizer, Sanofi/Regeneron, and 4SC; and honoraria from Pfizer, Recordati, and Sanofi. DS reports partial financial support from Bristol Myers Squibb for the conduct of this study and drug supply (nivolumab and ipilimumab) support; grants (or contracts) from Amgen, Array/Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, and Roche; consulting fees from 4SC, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Haystick, Immunocore, InFlarX, Innocent, LabCorp, Merck Serono, MSD, Nektar, NeraCare, Novartis, OncoSec, Pfizer, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Replimune, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi/Regeneron, and Sun Pharma; honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD/Merck, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Sun Pharma; support for attending meetings or travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi; participation on drug safety monitoring or advisory boards for 4SC, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Immunocore, InFlarX, Merck Serono, MSD, Nektar, NeraCare, Novartis, OncoSec, Pfizer, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Replimune, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi/Regeneron, and SunPharma; and leadership roles for DeCOG, German Cancer Society, Hiege-Stiftung, Deutsche Hautkrebsstiftung, Nationale Versorgungskonferenz Hautkrebs, and EuMelaReg. CW-K and LS are employees of Alcedis. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The CheckMate 066 trial investigated nivolumab monotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with previously untreated BRAF wild-type advanced melanoma. Five-year results are presented herein., Patients and Methods: In this multicenter, double-blind, phase III study, 418 patients with previously untreated, unresectable, stage III/IV, wild-type BRAF melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or dacarbazine 1,000 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), and secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety., Results: Patients were followed for a minimum of 60 months from the last patient randomly assigned (median follow-up, 32.0 months for nivolumab and 10.9 months for dacarbazine). Five-year OS rates were 39% with nivolumab and 17% with dacarbazine; PFS rates were 28% and 3%, respectively. Five-year OS was 38% in patients randomly assigned to dacarbazine who had subsequent therapy, including nivolumab (n = 37). ORR was 42% with nivolumab and 14% with dacarbazine; among patients alive at 5 years, ORR was 81% and 39%, respectively. Of 42 patients treated with nivolumab who had a complete response (20%), 88% (37 of 42) were alive as of the 5-year analysis. Among 75 nivolumab-treated patients alive and evaluable at the 5-year analysis, 83% had not received subsequent therapy; 23% were still on study treatment, and 60% were treatment free. Safety analyses were similar to the 3-year report., Conclusion: Results from this 5-year analysis confirm the significant benefit of nivolumab over dacarbazine for all end points and add to the growing body of evidence supporting long-term survival with nivolumab mono-therapy. Survival is strongly associated with achieving a durable response, which can be maintained after treatment discontinuation, even without subsequent systemic therapies.

Background: Nivolumab and ipilimumab, alone or in combination, are widely used immunotherapeutic treatment options for patients with advanced-ie, unresectable or metastatic-melanoma. This criterion, however, excludes patients with stage IV melanoma with no evidence of disease. We therefore aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab monotherapy versus a placebo in this patient population., Methods: We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial in 20 German academic medical centres. Eligible patients were aged 18-80 years with stage IV melanoma with no evidence of disease after surgery or radiotherapy. Key exclusion criteria included uveal or mucosal melanoma, previous therapy with checkpoint inhibitors, and any previous immunosuppressive therapy within the 30 days before study drug administration. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1), using a central, interactive, online system, to the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group (1 mg/kg of intravenous nivolumab every 3 weeks plus 3 mg/kg of intravenous ipilimumab every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by 3 mg/kg of nivolumab every 2 weeks), nivolumab monotherapy group (3 mg/kg of intravenous nivolumab every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab-matching placebo during weeks 1-12), or double-matching placebo group. The primary endpoint was the recurrence-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. The results presented in this report reflect the prespecified interim analysis of recurrence-free survival after 90 events had been reported. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02523313, and is ongoing., Findings: Between Sept 2, 2015, and Nov 20, 2018, 167 patients were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n=56), nivolumab (n=59), or placebo (n=52). As of July 2, 2019, at a median follow-up of 28·4 months (IQR 17·7-36·8), median recurrence-free survival was not reached in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, whereas median recurrence-free survival was 12·4 months (95% CI 5·3-33·3) in the nivolumab group and 6·4 months (3·3-9·6) in the placebo group. The hazard ratio for recurrence for the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group versus placebo group was 0·23 (97·5% CI 0·12-0·45; p<0·0001), and for the nivolumab group versus placebo group was 0·56 (0·33-0·94; p=0·011). In the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, recurrence-free survival at 1 year was 75% (95% CI 61·0-84·9) and at 2 years was 70% (55·1-81·0); in the nivolumab group, 1-year recurrence-free survival was 52% (38·1-63·9) and at 2 years was 42% (28·6-54·5); and in the placebo group, this rate was 32% (19·8-45·3) at 1 year and 14% (5·9-25·7) at 2 years. Treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were reported in 71% (95% CI 57-82) of patients in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and in 27% (16-40) of those in the nivolumab group. Treatment-related adverse events of any grade led to treatment discontinuation in 34 (62%) of 55 patients in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and seven (13%) of 56 in the nivolumab group. Three deaths from adverse events were reported but were considered unrelated to the study treatment., Interpretation: Adjuvant therapy with nivolumab alone or in combination with ipilimumab increased recurrence-free survival significantly compared with placebo in patients with stage IV melanoma with no evidence of disease. The rates of grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in both active treatment groups were higher than the rates reported in previous pivotal trials done in advanced melanoma with measurable disease., Funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Inhibition of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway as well as programmed death 1 receptor (PD-1) blockade was shown to prolong overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced B-Raf proto-oncogene (BRAF)-mutant melanoma. However, due to the lack of head-to-head trials, it remains unclear if one of these therapeutic approaches should be preferred in first-line therapy. Here, we present a retrospective analysis comparing anti-PD-1 monotherapy with BRAF/MAPK/ERK kinase (MEK) combined inhibition used as first-line agents in a real-world clinical setting., Patients and Methods: Clinical data, routine blood counts and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels of 301 patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma harboring an activating mutation in BRAF (V600E/K) were included. Of these, 106 received anti-PD-1 antibodies, while 195 patients were treated with a selective BRAF inhibitor combined with an MEK inhibitor as palliative first-line therapy. Patients were sub-grouped according to previously described predictive and prognostic markers., Results: OS was significantly longer in patients receiving anti-PD-1 monotherapy compared to patients receiving combined MAPK inhibitors. Subsequent therapies were comparable among these groups. The difference in OS was less pronounced in patients with high LDH levels and visceral metastatic spread., Conclusion: First-line treatment with a PD-1 blocking antibody might be associated with longer OS than first-line inhibition of the MAPK pathway in patients with advanced melanoma harboring mutant BRAF. These hypothesis-generating data need to be confirmed or rejected in prospective, randomized trials.

Importance: This analysis provides long-term follow-up in patients with BRAF wild-type advanced melanoma receiving first-line therapy based on anti-programmed cell death 1 receptor inhibitors., Objective: To compare the 3-year survival with nivolumab vs that with dacarbazine in patients with previously untreated BRAF wild-type advanced melanoma., Design, Setting, and Participants: This follow-up of a randomized phase 3 trial analyzed 3-year overall survival data from the randomized, controlled, double-blind CheckMate 066 phase 3 clinical trial. For this ongoing, multicenter academic institution trial, patients were enrolled from January 2013 through February 2014. Eligible patients were 18 years or older with confirmed unresectable previously untreated stage III or IV melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 but without a BRAF mutation., Interventions: Patients were treated until progression or unacceptable toxic events with nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus dacarbazine-matched placebo every 3 weeks) or dacarbazine (1000 mg/m2 every 3 weeks plus nivolumab-matched placebo every 2 weeks)., Main Outcome and Measure: Overall survival., Results: At minimum follow-ups of 38.4 months among 210 participants in the nivolumab group (median age, 64 years [range, 18-86 years]; 57.6% male) and 38.5 months among 208 participants in the dacarbazine group (median age, 66 years [range, 25-87 years]; 60.1% male), 3-year overall survival rates were 51.2% (95% CI, 44.1%-57.9%) and 21.6% (95% CI, 16.1%-27.6%), respectively. The median overall survival was 37.5 months (95% CI, 25.5 months-not reached) in the nivolumab group and 11.2 months (95% CI, 9.6-13.0 months) in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.36-0.59; P < .001). Complete and partial responses, respectively, were reported for 19.0% (40 of 210) and 23.8% (50 of 210) of patients in the nivolumab group compared with 1.4% (3 of 208) and 13.0% (27 of 208) of patients in the dacarbazine group. Additional analyses were performed on outcomes with subsequent therapies. Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 15.0% (31 of 206) of nivolumab-treated patients and in 17.6% (36 of 205) of dacarbazine-treated patients. There were no deaths due to study drug toxic effects., Conclusions and Relevance: Nivolumab led to improved 3-year overall survival vs dacarbazine in patients with previously untreated BRAF wild-type advanced melanoma., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01721772.

Purpose Until recently, limited options existed for patients with advanced melanoma who experienced disease progression while receiving treatment with ipilimumab. Here, we report the coprimary overall survival (OS) end point of CheckMate 037, which has previously shown that nivolumab resulted in more patients achieving an objective response compared with chemotherapy regimens in ipilimumab-refractory patients with advanced melanoma. Patients and Methods Patients were stratified by programmed death-ligand 1 expression, BRAF status, and best prior cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 therapy response, then randomly assigned 2:1 to nivolumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks or investigator's choice chemotherapy (ICC; dacarbazine 1,000 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks or carboplatin area under the curve 6 plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks). Patients were treated until they experienced progression or unacceptable toxicity, with follow-up of approximately 2 years. Results Two hundred seventy-two patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab (99% treated) and 133 to ICC (77% treated). More nivolumab-treated patients had brain metastases (20% v 14%) and increased lactate dehydrogenase levels (52% v 38%) at baseline; 41% of patients treated with ICC versus 11% of patients treated with nivolumab received anti-programmed death 1 agents after randomly assigned therapy. Median OS was 16 months for nivolumab versus 14 months for ICC (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95.54% CI, 0.73 to 1.24); median progression-free survival was 3.1 months versus 3.7 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.0; 95.1% CI, 0.78 to 1.436). Overall response rate (27% v 10%) and median duration of response (32 months v 13 months) were notably higher for nivolumab versus ICC. Fewer grade 3 and 4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in patients on nivolumab (14% v 34%). Conclusion Nivolumab demonstrated higher, more durable responses but no difference in survival compared with ICC. OS should be interpreted with caution as it was likely impacted by an increased dropout rate before treatment, which led to crossover therapy in the ICC group, and by an increased proportion of patients in the nivolumab group with poor prognostic factors.

Simple Summary: Immune checkpoint blockade has dramatically improved the outcomes of patients with melanoma. Available long-term updates of clinical studies show a sustained clinical benefit for patients treated with PD-1 inhibitors such as nivolumab or pembrolizumab or for those treated with a combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab. However, about 40–50% of patients acquire resistance to therapy within five years from the start of anti-PD-1 therapy. This review assesses available definitions of the resistance and patterns of response to PD-1 immunotherapy and summarizes the potential underlying mechanisms. The available data on resistance to PD-1 therapy, medical needs and therapeutic options for melanoma patients resistant to ICI are discussed for the metastatic setting, including brain metastases, as well as for the adjuvant and neo-adjuvant settings. Available 4- and 5-year updates for progression-free and for overall survival demonstrate a lasting clinical benefit for melanoma patients receiving anti-PD-directed immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. However, at least one-half of the patients either do not respond to therapy or relapse early or late following the initial response to therapy. Little is known about the reasons for primary and/or secondary resistance to immunotherapy and the patterns of relapse. This review, prepared by an interdisciplinary expert panel, describes the assessment of the response and classification of resistance to PD-1 therapy, briefly summarizes the potential mechanisms of resistance, and analyzes the medical needs of and therapeutic options for melanoma patients resistant to immune checkpoint inhibitors. We appraised clinical data from trials in the metastatic, adjuvant and neo-adjuvant settings to tabulate frequencies of resistance. For these three settings, the role of predictive biomarkers for resistance is critically discussed, as well as are multimodal therapeutic options or novel immunotherapeutic approaches which may help patients overcome resistance to immune checkpoint therapy. The lack of suitable biomarkers and the currently modest outcomes of novel therapeutic regimens for overcoming resistance, most of them with a PD-1 backbone, support our recommendation to include as many patients as possible in novel or ongoing clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: PD-1 antibodies (PD1ab) are increasingly used in metastatic melanoma and other malignancies. Arthralgia is an underestimated side effect of PD-1 antibody treatment with unknown cause. Our aim was to characterize PD1ab-induced arthralgia.Patients and methods: We retrospectively included patients with metastatic cutaneous malignancies treated with pembrolizumab or nivolumab ± ipilimumab at the National Center for Tumor Diseases (Heidelberg) between 01/2013 and 09/2016. Arthralgia was characterized by laboratory diagnostics, imaging, and if indicated, rheumatologic consultation.Results: 26 of 195 patients (13.3%) developed arthralgia. The median onset of symptoms was 100 days (7–780 days). Most frequently, arthralgia involved large joints (shoulders, knees) in a predominantly symmetrical pattern. Only two patients were seropositive for rheumatoid factor and/or anti-citrullinated protein antibodies. Ten patients developed the clinical picture of arthritis, with seven of them showing synovitis in MRI or PET/CT. Five patients showed inflammation in joints pre-damaged by osteoarthritis. In 11 patients arthralgia could not be specified. The majority of patients was satisfactorily treated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), 23.1% required additional low-dose corticosteroids and only 7.6% of our patients received further immunosuppressive treatment. Patients with arthralgia showed a better treatment response and improved PFS and OS.Conclusion: Arthralgia is frequent during PD1ab treatment. The clinical picture varies between synovitis of predominantly large joints, progressive osteoarthritis and arthralgia without evident joint damage. Vast majority of cases can be satisfactorily managed by NSAID and/or low-dose corticosteroids. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Uveal melanomas ( UMs) are a rare form of cancer with clinical and pathological characteristics distinct from cutaneous melanomas. Ipilimumab has shown efficacy and safety in the treatment of metastatic UM. This provides a rationale for treatment with other immune checkpoint inhibitors. This is a retrospective review of 15 patients with metastatic UM treated between June 2014 and February 2016, who received treatment with the anti- PD-1 Abs pembrolizumab or nivolumab. Patients were treated at two German university hospitals. Therapy was administered at the approved dosing schedules of 2 mg/kg q3w for pembrolizumab and 3 mg/kg q2w for nivolumab. Treatment was given until first tumor assessment and continued if tumor assessment showed disease control. Tumor assessments were performed at baseline and following scans every 12 weeks. Patients were monitored throughout for adverse events. Best response to treatment was stable disease in four patients. Eight out of 15 (53%) patients received treatment until first tumor assessment. As of February 2016, median progression-free survival ( PFS) is 3 months (range 0.75-6.75 months) and overall survival ( OS) is 5 months (range 1-16 months). Eight out of 15 (53%) patients are still alive (two patients lost to follow-up) with one out of four patients is in ongoing disease control. Patients with multiple organ metastases and elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase did not respond well to treatment. No objective response to PD-1 Ab therapy was seen. Best response to treatment was stable disease in four patients. Treatment was well tolerated with manageable toxicity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Primary melanoma of the prostate has an extremely rare incidence. Only five cases have been reported in the literature and prognosis is poor. The most likely origin of prostatic melanoma is the transitional epithelium of the prostatic urethra. Surgical care for primary melanoma of mucosal sites is less well established than for primary cutaneous melanoma, but excision of the primary is recommended if the patient has no systemic disease. Case presentation: Here, we describe a case of primary malignant melanoma of the prostate. A 37-year-old male patient with history of both chemo- and radiation therapy for Hodgkin's disease was admitted to the University Hospital Heidelberg on suspicion of pleomorphic sarcoma of the bladder. In-house diagnostic work-up revealed a malignant melanoma of the prostate. We then performed radical prostatectomy with extended lymphadenectomy. Despite presumably curative surgery, the patient suffered from early relapse of disease with pulmonary metastasis. Systemic chemotherapy and subsequent immuno-oncologic treatment was thereafter initiated. Conclusion: Since prostatic melanoma is a rare disease and a melanoma metastasis of unknown primary is the differential diagnosis, a multidisciplinary approach including early imaging to rule out possible metastases and to search for another potentially existing primary is advisable. To prevent complications related to local tumor progression and to receive tissue for mutational analysis, we recommend complete surgical resection to reduce the tumor mass. Novel immune and targeted oncologic therapies can lead to an improved survival in some cases and support of clinical trials is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: The fractal dimension (FD) and the multifractal spectrum (MFS) are nonlinear quantitative measures which express the heterogeneity in the distribution of the tracer, F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose, (18F-FDG), in the body of patients suffering from metastatic melanoma. Given the well-documented, high accumulation of the tracer in tumor/metastatic sites, the measures expressing the tracer distribution also express the extent of metastases in the body. As such, FD and MFS can be employed to detect the presence of melanoma and to monitor the therapeutic outcome using the PET-CT follow-up digitized scans of the patients. In the present study, the FD and MFS measures of patients are evaluated before and during treatment with PD-1 inhibitors and are compared with the corresponding values of healthy controls. The MFS predictions agree with the PET Response Evaluation Criteria for Immunotherapy (PERCIMT) in 81% of the cases, while the FD agrees in 77% of all cases. Therefore, the quantitative MFS is proposed as an additional, alternative biomarker for monitoring the immunotherapy outcome in melanoma patients, after treatment with PD-1 inhibitors. Longitudinal whole-body PET-CT scans with F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) in patients suffering from metastatic melanoma were analyzed and the tracer distribution in patients was compared with that of healthy controls. Nineteen patients with metastatic melanoma were scanned before, after two and after four cycles of treatment with PD-1 inhibitors (pembrolizumab, nivolumab) applied as monotherapy or as combination treatment with ipilimumab. For comparison eight healthy controls were analyzed. As quantitative measures for the comparison between controls and patients, the nonlinear fractal dimension (FD) and multifractal spectrum (MFS) were calculated from the digitized PET-CT scans. The FD and MFS measures, which capture the dispersion of the tracer in the body, decreased with disease progression, since the tracer particles tended to accumulate around metastatic sites in patients, while the measures increased when the patients' clinical condition ameliorate. The MFS measure gave better predictions and were consistent with the PET Response Evaluation Criteria for Immunotherapy (PERCIMT) in 81% of the cases, while FD agreed in 77% of all cases. These results agree, qualitatively, with a previous study of our group when treatment with ipilimumab monotherapy was considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent studies suggest that combining nivolumab with ipilimumab is a more effective treatment for melanoma patients, compared to using ipilimumab or nivolumab alone. However, treatment with these immunotherapeutic agents is frequently associated with increased risk of toxicity, and (auto-) immune-related adverse events. The precise pathophysiologic mechanisms of these events are not yet clear, and evidence from clinical trials and translational studies remains limited. Our retrospective analysis of ~7700 metastatic melanoma patients treated with ipilimumab and/or nivolumab from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) demonstrates that the identified immune-related reactions are specific to ipilimumab and/or nivolumab, and that when the two agents are administered together, their safety profile combines reactions from each drug alone. While more prospective studies are needed to characterize the safety of ipilimumab and nivolumab, the present work constitutes perhaps the first effort to examine the safety of these drugs and their combination based on computational evidence from real world post marketing data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is an immunogenic but aggressive skin cancer. Even after complete resection and radiation, relapse rates are high. PD-1 and PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors showed clinical benefit in advanced MCC. We aimed to assess efficacy and safety of adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibition in completely resected MCC (ie, a setting without an established systemic standard-of-care treatment). In this multicentre phase 2 trial, patients (any stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–1) at 20 academic medical centres in Germany and the Netherlands with completely resected MCC lesions were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks for 1 year, or observation, stratified by stage (American Joint Committee on Cancer stages 1–2 vs stages 3–4), age (<65 vs ≥65 years), and sex. Landmark disease-free survival (DFS) at 12 and 24 months was the primary endpoint, assessed in the intention-to-treat populations. Overall survival and safety were secondary endpoints. This planned interim analysis was triggered when the last-patient-in was followed up for more than 1 year. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02196961) and with the EU Clinical Trials Register (2013-000043-78). Between Oct 1, 2014, and Aug 31, 2020, 179 patients were enrolled (116 [65%] stage 3–4, 122 [68%] ≥65 years, 111 [62%] male). Stratification factors (stage, age, sex) were balanced across the nivolumab (n=118) and internal control group (observation, n=61); adjuvant radiotherapy was more common in the control group. At a median follow-up of 24·3 months (IQR 19·2–33·4), median DFS was not reached (between-groups hazard ratio 0·58, 95% CI 0·30–1·12); DFS rates in the nivolumab group were 85% at 12 months and 84% at 24 months, and in the observation group were 77% at 12 months and 73% at 24 months. Overall survival results were not yet mature. Grade 3–4 adverse events occurred in 48 [42%] of 115 patients who received at least one dose of nivolumab and seven [11%] of 61 patients in the observation group. No treatment-related deaths were reported. Adjuvant therapy with nivolumab resulted in an absolute risk reduction of 9% (1-year DFS) and 10% (2-year DFS). The present interim analysis of ADMEC-O might suggest clinical use of nivolumab in this area of unmet medical need. However, overall survival events rates, with ten events in the active treatment group and six events in the half-the-size observation group, are not mature enough to draw conclusions. The explorative data of our trial support the continuation of ongoing, randomised trials in this area. ADMEC-O suggests that adjuvant immunotherapy is clinically feasible in this area of unmet medical need. Bristol Myers Squibb. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights • Except for animal studies, almost no data exist about the use of modern melanoma therapy with checkpoint inhibitors during pregnancy. • The use of modern immunotherapy concepts is critical because many parallel mechanisms exist between immunotolerance towards malignant melanoma cells and foetal cells. • We describe the outcome of the application of ipilimumab and nivolumab combination therapy in an advanced melanoma patient during her second trimester. • Revelation of this dramatic non-standard clinical situation may help clinicians and patients in decision-making when facing similar cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]