Search

PURPOSE: In the phase III CheckMate 067 trial, durable clinical benefit was demonstrated previously with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab. Here, we report 6.5-year efficacy and safety outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated unresectable stage III or stage IV melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks (four doses) followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks (n = 314), nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks (n = 316), or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks (four doses; n = 315). Coprimary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab versus ipilimumab. Secondary end points included objective response rate, descriptive efficacy assessments of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab alone, and safety. Melanoma-specific survival (MSS; descriptive analysis), which excludes deaths unrelated to melanoma, was also evaluated. RESULTS: Median OS (minimum follow-up, 6.5 years) was 72.1, 36.9, and 19.9 months in the combination, nivolumab, and ipilimumab groups, respectively. Median MSS was not reached, 58.7, and 21.9 months, respectively; 6.5-year OS rates were 57%, 43%, and 25% in patients with BRAF-mutant tumors and 46%, 42%, and 22% in those with BRAF-wild-type tumors, respectively. In patients who discontinued treatment, the median treatment-free interval was 27.6, 2.3, and 1.9 months, respectively. Since the 5-year analysis, no new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION: These 6.5-year CheckMate 067 results, which include the longest median OS in a phase III melanoma trial reported to date and the first report of MSS, showed durable, improved clinical outcomes with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab versus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma and, in descriptive analyses, with the combination over nivolumab monotherapy.

PURPOSE: Guidelines addressing melanoma in-transit metastasis (ITM) recommend immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) as a first-line treatment option, despite the fact that there are no efficacy data available from prospective trials for exclusively ITM disease. The study aims to analyze the outcome of patients with ITM treated with ICI based on data from a large cohort of patients treated at international referral clinics. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients treated between January 2015 and December 2020 from Australia, Europe, and the USA, evaluating treatment with ICI for ITM with or without nodal involvement (AJCC8 N1c, N2c, and N3c) and without distant disease (M0). Treatment was with PD-1 inhibitor (nivolumab or pembrolizumab) and/or CTLA-4 inhibitor (ipilimumab). The response was evaluated according to the RECIST criteria modified for cutaneous lesions. RESULTS: A total of 287 patients from 21 institutions in eight countries were included. Immunotherapy was first-line treatment in 64 (22%) patients. PD-1 or CTLA-4 inhibitor monotherapy was given in 233 (81%) and 23 (8%) patients, respectively, while 31 (11%) received both in combination. The overall response rate was 56%, complete response (CR) rate was 36%, and progressive disease (PD) rate was 32%. Median PFS was ten months (95% CI 7.4-12.6 months) with a one-, two-, and five-year PFS rate of 48%, 33%, and 18%, respectively. Median MSS was not reached, and the one-, two-, and five-year MSS rates were 95%, 83%, and 71%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Systemic immunotherapy is an effective treatment for melanoma ITM. Future studies should evaluate the role of systemic immunotherapy in the context of multimodality therapy, including locoregional treatments such as surgery, intralesional therapy, and regional therapies.

BACKGROUND: Acral melanoma is a rare melanoma subtype with poor prognosis. Importantly, these patients were not identified as a specific subgroup in the landmark melanoma trials involving ipilimumab and the anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) agents nivolumab and pembrolizumab. There is therefore an absence of prospective clinical trial evidence regarding the efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) in this population. Acral melanoma has lower tumor mutation burden (TMB) than other cutaneous sites, and primary site is associated with differences in TMB. However the impact of this on the effectiveness of immune CPIs is unknown. We examined the efficacy of CPIs in acral melanoma, including by primary site. METHODS: Patients with unresectable stage III/IV acral melanoma treated with CPI (anti-PD-1 and/or ipilimumab) were studied. Multivariable logistic and Cox regression analyses were conducted. Primary outcome was objective response rate (ORR); secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: In total, 325 patients were included: 234 (72%) plantar, 69 (21%) subungual and 22 (7%) palmar primary sites. First CPI included: 184 (57%) anti-PD-1, 59 (18%) anti-PD-1/ipilimumab combination and 82 (25%) ipilimumab. ORR was significantly higher with initial anti-PD-1/ipilimumab compared with anti-PD-1 (43% vs 26%, HR 2.14, p=0.0004) and significantly lower with ipilimumab (15% vs 26%, HR 0.49, p=0.0016). Landmark PFS at 1 year was highest for anti-PD-1/ipilimumab at 34% (95% CI 24% to 49%), compared with 26% (95% CI 20% to 33%) with anti-PD-1 and 10% (95% CI 5% to 19%) with ipilimumab. Despite a trend for increased PFS, anti-PD-1/ipilimumab combination did not significantly improve PFS (HR 0.85, p=0.35) or OS over anti-PD-1 (HR 1.30, p=0.16), potentially due to subsequent therapies and high rates of acquired resistance. No outcome differences were found between primary sites. CONCLUSION: While the ORR to anti-PD-1/ipilimumab wa

Purpose: To assess the safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and preliminary efficacy of cetrelimab (JNJ-63723283), a monoclonal antibody programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitor, in patients with advanced/refractory solid tumors in the phase 1/2 LUC1001 study. Methods: In phase 1, patients with advanced solid tumors received intravenous cetrelimab 80, 240, 460, or 800 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) or 480 mg Q4W. In phase 2, patients with melanoma, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H)/DNA mismatch repair-deficient colorectal cancer (CRC) received cetrelimab 240 mg Q2W. Response was assessed Q8W until Week 24 and Q12W thereafter. Results: In phase 1, 58 patients received cetrelimab. Two dose-limiting toxicities were reported and two recommended phase 2 doses (RP2D) were defined (240 mg Q2W or 480 mg Q4W). After a first dose, mean maximum serum concentrations (Cmax) ranged from 24.7 to 227.0 µg/mL; median time to Cmax ranged from 2.0 to 3.2 h. Pharmacodynamic effect was maintained throughout the dosing period across doses. In phase 2, 146 patients received cetrelimab 240 mg Q2W. Grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 53.9% of patients. Immune-related AEs (any grade) occurred in 35.3% of patients (grade ≥ 3 in 6.9%). Overall response rate was 18.6% across tumor types, 34.3% in NSCLC, 52.6% in programmed death ligand 1–high (≥ 50% by immunohistochemistry) NSCLC, 28.0% in melanoma, and 23.8% in centrally confirmed MSI-H CRC. Conclusions: The RP2D for cetrelimab was established. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic characteristics, safety profile, and clinical activity of cetrelimab in immune-sensitive advanced cancers were consistent with known PD-1 inhibitors. Trial registrations: NCT02908906 at ClinicalTrials.gov, September 21, 2016; EudraCT 2016–002,017-22 at clinicaltrialsregister.eu, Jan 11, 2017.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant targeted therapy (TT) improves relapse free survival in patients with resected BRAF mutant stage III melanoma. The outcomes and optimal management of patients who relapse after adjuvant TT is unknown. METHODS: Patients from twenty-one centres with recurrent melanoma after adjuvant TT were included. Disease characteristics, adjuvant therapy, recurrence, treatment at relapse and outcomes were examined. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients developed recurrent melanoma; nineteen (22%) during adjuvant TT. Median time to first recurrence was 18 months and median follow-up from first recurrence was 31 months. Fifty-eight (68%) patients received immunotherapy (IT) or TT as 1st line systemic therapy at either first or subsequent recurrence and had disease that was assessable for response. Response to anti-PD-1 (±trial agent), combination ipilimumab-nivolumab, TT rechallenge and ipilimumab monotherapy was 63%, 62% 25% and 10% respectively. Twenty-eight (33%) patients had died at census, all from melanoma. Two-year OS was 84% for anti-PD-1 therapy (±trial agent), 92% for combination ipilimumab and nivolumab, 49% for TT and 45% for ipilimumab monotherapy (p = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who relapse after adjuvant TT respond well to subsequent anti-PD-1 based therapy and have outcomes similar to those seen when first line anti-PD-1 therapy is used in stage IV melanoma.

PURPOSE: The randomized phase III coBRIM study (NCT01689519) demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with addition of cobimetinib to vemurafenib compared with vemurafenib in patients with previously untreated BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma. We report long-term follow-up of coBRIM, with at least 5 years since the last patient was randomized. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either oral cobimetinib (60 mg once daily on days 1-21 in each 28-day cycle) or placebo in combination with oral vemurafenib (960 mg twice daily). RESULTS: 495 patients were randomized to cobimetinib plus vemurafenib (n = 247) or placebo plus vemurafenib (n = 248). Median follow-up was 21.2 months for cobimetinib plus vemurafenib and 16.6 months for placebo plus vemurafenib. Median OS was 22.5 months (95% CI, 20.3-28.8) with cobimetinib plus vemurafenib and 17.4 months (95% CI, 15.0-19.8) with placebo plus vemurafenib; 5-year OS rates were 31% and 26%, respectively. Median PFS was 12.6 months (95% CI, 9.5-14.8) with cobimetinib plus vemurafenib and 7.2 months (95% CI, 5.6-7.5) with placebo plus vemurafenib; 5-year PFS rates were 14% and 10%, respectively. OS and PFS were longest in patients with normal baseline lactate dehydrogenase levels and low tumor burden, and in those achieving complete response. The safety profile remained consistent with previously published reports. CONCLUSIONS: Extended follow-up of coBRIM confirms the long-term clinical benefit and safety profile of cobimetinib plus vemurafenib compared with vemurafenib monotherapy in patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma.

INTRODUCTION: In patients with metastatic melanoma, progression of a single tumour lesion (solitary progression) after response to immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) is increasingly treated with local therapy. We evaluated the role of local therapy for solitary progression in melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic melanoma treated with ICI between 2010 and 2019 with solitary progression as first progressive event were included from 17 centres in 9 countries. Follow-up and survival are reported from ICI initiation. RESULTS: We identified 294 patients with solitary progression after stable disease in 15%, partial response in 55% and complete response in 30%. The median follow-up was 43 months; the median time to solitary progression was 13 months, and the median time to subsequent progression after treatment of solitary progression (TTSP) was 33 months. The estimated 3-year overall survival (OS) was 79%; median OS was not reached. Treatment consisted of systemic therapy (18%), local therapy (36%), both combined (42%) or active surveillance (4%). In 44% of patients treated for solitary progression, no subsequent progression occurred. For solitary progression during ICI (n = 143), the median TTSP was 29 months. Both TTSP and OS were similar for local therapy, ICI continuation and both combined. For solitary progression post ICI (n = 151), the median TTSP was 35 months. TTSP was higher for ICI recommencement plus local therapy than local therapy or ICI recommencement alone (p = 0.006), without OS differences. CONCLUSION: Almost half of patients with melanoma treated for solitary progression after initial response to ICI had no subsequent progression. This study suggests that local therapy can benefit patients and is associated with favourable long-term outcomes.

IMPORTANCE: Whether immune-related adverse events (irAEs) indicate drug activity in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between irAEs and recurrence-free survival (RFS) in the double-blind EORTC 1325/KEYNOTE-054 clinical trial comparing pembrolizumab therapy and placebo for the treatment of patients with high-risk stage III melanoma. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1019 adults with stage III melanoma were randomly assigned on a 1:1 ratio to receive treatment with pembrolizumab therapy or placebo. Eligible patients were adults 18 years and older with complete resection of cutaneous melanoma metastatic to lymph nodes, classified with stage IIIA (at least 1 micrometastasis measuring >1 mm in greatest diameter), IIIB, or IIIC (without in-transit metastasis) cancer. Patients were randomized from August 26, 2015, to November 14, 2016. The clinical cutoff for the data set was October 2, 2017. Analyses were then performed on the database, which was locked on November 28, 2017. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were scheduled to receive 200 mg of pembrolizumab or placebo every 3 weeks for a total of 18 doses for approximately 1 year or until disease recurrence, unacceptable toxic effects, major protocol violation, or withdrawal of consent. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The association between irAEs and RFS was estimated using a Cox model adjusted for sex, age, and AJCC-7 stage, with a time-varying covariate that had a value of 0 before irAE onset and 1 after irAE onset. RESULTS: Of 1011 patients who began treatment with pembrolizumab therapy or placebo, 622 (61.5%) were men and 389 (38.5%) were women; 386 patients (38.2%) were aged 50 to 64 years, 377 (37.3%) were younger than 50 years, and 248 (24.5%) were 65 years and older. Consistent with the reported main analysis in the intent-to-treat population, RFS was longer in the pembrolizumab arm compared with the placebo arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.56

PURPOSE: We conducted the phase III double-blind European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 1325/KEYNOTE-054 trial to evaluate pembrolizumab versus placebo in patients with resected high-risk stage III melanoma. On the basis of 351 recurrence-free survival (RFS) events at a 1.25-year median follow-up, pembrolizumab prolonged RFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; P < .0001) compared with placebo. This led to the approval of pembrolizumab adjuvant treatment by the European Medicines Agency and US Food and Drug Administration. Here, we report an updated RFS analysis at the 3.05-year median follow-up. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 1,019 patients with complete lymph node dissection of American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual (seventh edition; AJCC-7), stage IIIA (at least one lymph node metastasis > 1 mm), IIIB, or IIIC (without in-transit metastasis) cutaneous melanoma were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab at a flat dose of 200 mg (n = 514) or placebo (n = 505) every 3 weeks for 1 year or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity. The two coprimary end points were RFS in the overall population and in those with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive tumors. RESULTS: Pembrolizumab (190 RFS events) compared with placebo (283 RFS events) resulted in prolonged RFS in the overall population (3-year RFS rate, 63.7% v 44.1% for pembrolizumab v placebo, respectively; HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.68) and in the PD-L1-positive tumor subgroup (HR, 0.57; 99% CI, 0.43 to 0.74). The impact of pembrolizumab on RFS was similar in subgroups, in particular according to AJCC-7 and AJCC-8 staging, and BRAF mutation status (HR, 0.51 [99% CI, 0.36 to 0.73] v 0.66 [99% CI, 0.46 to 0.95] for V600E/K v wild type). CONCLUSION: In resected high-risk stage III melanoma, pembrolizumab adjuvant therapy provided a sustained and clinically meaningful improvement in RFS at 3-year median follow-up. This improvement was consistent across subgroups.

BACKGROUND: Avelumab, a human anti-programmed death-ligand 1 immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody, showed favorable efficacy and safety in patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (mMCC) in the phase II JAVELIN Merkel 200 trial, leading to approval in multiple countries. We describe real-world experience with avelumab in patients with mMCC from an expanded access program. METHODS: Eligible patients had mMCC and progressive disease during or after chemotherapy or were ineligible for chemotherapy or clinical trial participation. Patients received an initial 3-month supply of avelumab (administered as 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity); resupply was allowed following complete response, partial response, stable disease, or clinical benefit per physician assessment. RESULTS: Between December 15, 2015, and March 4, 2019, 558 of 620 requests from 38 countries were medically approved, and 494 patients received avelumab. Among 240 evaluable patients, the objective response rate was 46.7% (complete response in 22.9%, including 3 of 16 potentially immunocompromised patients), and the disease control rate was 71.2%. The median duration of treatment in evaluable patients with response was 7.9 months (range, 1.0-41.7) overall and 5.2 months (range, 3.0-13.9) in immunocompromised patients. No new safety signals were identified. The expanded access program closed for new requests on December 31, 2018, as required after regulatory approval; benefitting patients continued to receive avelumab. CONCLUSIONS: The avelumab expanded access program for patients with mMCC demonstrated efficacy and safety in a real-world setting, consistent with the results from JAVELIN Merkel 200, and provided a treatment for patients with limited options.

BACKGROUND: We sought to identify patient subgroups with distinct postprogression overall survival (ppOS) outcomes and investigate the impact of original treatment assignment and initial postprogression treatment (ppRx) on ppOS. METHODS: Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) was performed to model relationships between prespecified covariates and ppOS in patients with BRAFV600-mutated metastatic melanoma who had experienced progressive disease (PD) following treatment with cobimetinib plus vemurafenib, vemurafenib monotherapy, or dacarbazine in the BRIM-2, BRIM-3, BRIM-7, and coBRIM studies. Prognostic subgroups identified by RPA were then applied to pooled treatment cohorts. The primary endpoint was ppOS, defined as time from first PD to death from any cause. RESULTS: RPA identified baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), baseline disease stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at PD, and ppRx as significant prognostic factors for ppOS. Median ppOS was longest in patients with normal baseline LDH, stage M1c disease at baseline, and ppRx with immunotherapy or targeted therapy (12.2 months; 95% CI 10.3-16.1) and shortest in those with elevated baseline LDH > 2 × upper limit of normal (2.3 months; 95% CI 1.8-2.7). Original treatment assignment did not impact ppOS. Across treatment cohorts, patients treated with immunotherapy or targeted therapy after PD had better ppOS than those given other treatments. CONCLUSION: A combination of factors at baseline (LDH, disease stage) and PD (performance status, ppRx) impact ppOS outcomes. ppRx with immunotherapy or targeted therapy is an independent prognostic factor for improved overall survival following progression regardless of original treatment. Trial registration The trials included in this analysis are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00949702 (BRIM-2), NCT01006980 (BRIM-3), NCT01271803 (BRIM-7), and NCT01689519 (coBRIM).

BACKGROUND: This pooled analysis investigated the prognostic value of depth of response in two cohorts of patients with BRAFV600-mutated metastatic melanoma treated with vemurafenib or cobimetinib plus vemurafenib. METHODS: The data were pooled from BRIM-2, BRIM-3, BRIM-7 and coBRIM. Association of depth of response with survival was estimated by Cox proportional hazards regression, adjusted for clinically relevant covariates. Depth of response was analysed in previously identified prognostic subgroups based on disease characteristics and gene signatures. RESULTS: Greater tumour reduction and longer time to maximal response were significantly associated with longer progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) when evaluated as continuous variables. Patients with the deepest responses had long-lasting survival outcomes (median PFS: 14 months; OS: 32 months with vemurafenib; not estimable with cobimetinib plus vemurafenib). Cobimetinib plus vemurafenib improved depth of response versus vemurafenib monotherapy regardless of other prognostic factors, including gene signatures. CONCLUSIONS: Greater depth of response was associated with improved survival, supporting its utility as a measure of treatment efficacy in melanoma and further evaluation of its incorporation into existing prognostic models. Cobimetinib plus vemurafenib improved outcomes across quartiles of response regardless of prognostic factors or gene signatures and provided durable survival benefits in patients with deep responses.

The prognostic significance of programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) on treatment outcomes in patients receiving BRAF with or without MEK inhibitors is not well understood. This retrospective exploratory analysis evaluated the association of tumour PD-L1 expression with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) among 210 patients in the coBRIM trial treated with cobimetinib plus vemurafenib or placebo plus vemurafenib. In the vemurafenib cohort, there was a trend of increased PFS and OS in those with PD-L1+ melanoma, with hazard ratios (HRs; PD-L1+ vs. PD-L1- ) of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.46-1.07) and 0.69 (95% CI, 0.42-1.13) for PFS and OS, respectively. However, in patients treated with cobimetinib plus vemurafenib, a similar trend was not observed with HRs (PD-L1+ versus PD-L1- ) of 1.04 (95% CI, 0.66-1.68) and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.57-1.57) for PFS and OS, respectively. The combination cobimetinib plus vemurafenib appears to overcome the poor prognosis associated with low PD-L1 expression.

Anti-programmed death (PD)-1 and PD-ligand (L)-1 checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized the therapy of several cancers. Immunotherapy of cancer can offer long-term durable benefit to patients, is active regardless of tumour histology, has a unique immune-related safety profile, and can be used in combination with other cancer treatments. In addition, recent research has shown that immune-based therapy can be used as adjuvant therapy, that outcomes may be influenced by dose, and that clinical activity is observed in patients with brain metastases. Despite our increased understanding of these agents, there are still several important questions that need to be answered. These include strategies to overcome primary and acquired resistance, the influence of mutational status on treatment outcomes, the optimal duration of treatment, and the need to identify novel combination regimens that offer increased anti-tumour potency and/or reduced toxicity. Here we review recent developments in these areas, with particular focus on new data reported at the 2017 ASCO Annual Meeting.

BACKGROUND: There are limited real-world data on health care resource utilization (HCRU) among advanced melanoma patients. The objective of this study was to describe HCRU and health care costs associated with the management of advanced melanoma patients receiving ipilimumab. METHODS: This retrospective multinational, observational study included advanced melanoma patients from Australia, Germany, Italy, and Spain who had received at least 1 dose of ipilimumab. Data extracted from medical charts included inpatient admissions, outpatient visits, surgical procedures, laboratory investigations, radiation therapy, imaging studies, and concomitant medications. Cost estimates were based on unit costs from country-specific standard reimbursement sources. Subgroup analyses were performed for BRAF mutation status and ipilimumab refractory patients, who had disease progression within 24 weeks of their last dose of ipilimumab. RESULTS: Mean age of 362 enrolled patients was 60.6 years (standard deviation [SD] 14.4). During a median follow-up period of 30.2 weeks, 57% of patients were admitted to hospital and 16% underwent surgery. Health care resource utilization rates varied substantially across countries and were highest in Germany. Concomitant medications to treat adverse events were commonly used. Subgroup analyses showed higher utilization rates among ipilimumab refractory and BRAF mutant patients. Mean weekly total costs associated with HCRU were lower in the pre-progression period (€107; 95% confidence interval (CI): 79-145) than in the post-progression period (€216; 95% CI: 180-259). CONCLUSION: Health care resource utilization pattern and associated costs among patients treated with ipilimumab varied greatly among countries and between pre- and post-progression periods. There is a high economic burden associated with ipilimumab refractory melanoma. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Metastatic melanoma patients treated with the anti-CTLA-4 inhibitor ipilimumab have a high util

BACKGROUND: Serous chorioretinopathy has been associated with MEK inhibitors, including cobimetinib. We describe the clinical features of serous retinopathy observed with cobimetinib in patients with BRAF V600-mutated melanoma treated in the Phase III coBRIM study. METHODS: In the coBRIM study, 493 patients were treated in two randomly assigned treatment groups: cobimetinib and vemurafenib (n = 247) or vemurafenib (n = 246). All patients underwent prospective ophthalmic examinations at screening, at regular intervals during the study, and whenever ocular symptoms developed. Patients with serous retinopathy were identified in the study database using a group of relevant and synonymous adverse event terms. RESULTS: Eighty-six serous retinopathy events were reported in 70 patients (79 events in 63 cobimetinib and vemurafenib-treated patients vs seven events in seven vemurafenib-treated patients). Most patients with serous retinopathy identified by ophthalmic examination had no symptoms or had mild symptoms, among them reduced visual acuity, blurred vision, dyschromatopsia, and photophobia. Serous retinopathy usually occurred early during cobimetinib and vemurafenib treatment; median time to onset was 1.0 month. Most events were managed by observation and continuation of cobimetinib without dose modification and resolved or were resolving by the data cutoff date (19 Sept 2014). CONCLUSIONS: Cobimetinib treatment was associated with serous retinopathy in patients with BRAF V600-mutated melanoma. Retinopathy was generally asymptomatic or mild. Periodic ophthalmologic evaluations at regular intervals and at the manifestation of any visual disturbance are recommended to facilitate early detection and resolution of serous retinopathy while patients are taking cobimetinib. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01689519). First received: September 18, 2012.

MELANOMA BRIDGE 2015 KEYNOTE SPEAKER PRESENTATIONS Molecular and immuno-advances K1 Immunologic and metabolic consequences of PI3K/AKT/mTOR activation in melanoma Vashisht G. Y. Nanda, Weiyi Peng, Patrick Hwu, Michael A. Davies K2 Non-mutational adaptive changes in melanoma cells exposed to BRAF and MEK inhibitors help the establishment of drug resistance Gennaro Ciliberto, Luigi Fattore, Debora Malpicci, Luigi Aurisicchio, Paolo Antonio Ascierto, Carlo M. Croce, Rita Mancini K3 Tumor-intrinsic beta-catenin signaling mediates tumor-immune avoidance Stefani Spranger, Thomas F. Gajewski K4 Intracellular tumor antigens as a source of targets of antibody-based immunotherapy of melanoma Yangyang Wang, Soldano Ferrone Combination therapies K5 Harnessing radiotherapy to improve responses to immunotherapy in cancer Claire Vanpouille-Box, Erik Wennerberg, Karsten A. Pilones, Silvia C. Formenti, Sandra Demaria K6 Creating a T cell-inflamed tumor microenvironment overcomes resistance to checkpoint blockade Haidong Tang, Yang Wang, Yang-Xin Fu K7 Biomarkers for treatment decisions? Reinhard Dummer K8 Combining oncolytic therapies in the era of checkpoint inhibitors Igor Puzanov K9 Immune checkpoint blockade for melanoma: should we combine or sequence ipilimumab and PD-1 antibody therapy? Michael A. Postow News in immunotherapy K10 An update on adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy for melanom Ahmad Tarhini K11 Targeting multiple inhibitory receptors in melanoma Joe-Marc Chauvin, Ornella Pagliano, Julien Fourcade, Zhaojun Sun, Hong Wang, Cindy Sanders, John M. Kirkwood, Tseng-hui Timothy Chen, Mark Maurer, Alan J. Korman, Hassane M. Zarour K12 Improving adoptive immune therapy using genetically engineered T cells David F. Stroncek Tumor microenvironment and biomarkers K13 Myeloid cells and tumor exosomes: a crosstalk for assessing immunosuppression? Veronica Huber, Licia Rivoltini K14 Update on the SITC biomarker taskforce: progress and challenges Magdalena Thurin World-wide immunosc

The fourth "Melanoma Bridge Meeting" took place in Naples, December 3-6th, 2014. The four topics discussed at this meeting were: Molecular and Immunological Advances, Combination Therapies, News in Immunotherapy, and Tumor Microenvironment and Biomarkers. Until recently systemic therapy for metastatic melanoma patients was ineffective, but recent advances in tumor biology and immunology have led to the development of new targeted and immunotherapeutic agents that prolong progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). New therapies, such as mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway inhibitors as well as other signaling pathway inhibitors, are being tested in patients with metastatic melanoma either as monotherapy or in combination, and all have yielded promising results. These include inhibitors of receptor tyrosine kinases (BRAF, MEK, and VEGFR), the phosphatidylinositol 3 kinase (PI3K) pathway [PI3K, AKT, mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR)], activators of apoptotic pathway, and the cell cycle inhibitors (CDK4/6). Various locoregional interventions including radiotherapy and surgery are still valid approaches in treatment of advanced melanoma that can be integrated with novel therapies. Intrinsic, adaptive and acquired resistance occur with targeted therapy such as BRAF inhibitors, where most responses are short-lived. Given that the reactivation of the MAPK pathway through several distinct mechanisms is responsible for the majority of acquired resistance, it is logical to combine BRAF inhibitors with inhibitors of targets downstream in the MAPK pathway. For example, combination of BRAF/MEK inhibitors (e.g., dabrafenib/trametinib) have been demonstrated to improve survival compared to monotherapy. Application of novel technologies such sequencing have proven useful as a tool for identification of MAPK pathway-alternative resistance mechanism and designing other combinatorial therapies such as those between BRAF and AKT inhibitors. Improved surviv

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is a frequent skin cancer which can cause substantial morbidity due to its location on the face, its frequency of relapse and its capacity to invade local tissues. The primary treatment of BCC usually involves surgery or radiotherapy. In patients who have exhausted surgical and radiotherapy options or with metastatic BCC, guidelines recommend the use of the Hedgehog pathway inhibitor vismodegib. This molecule is indicated for the treatment of adults with metastatic BCC, or with locally advanced BCC which has recurred following surgery or who are not eligible to surgery or radiation. This paper aims to provide suggestions on the optimal management of BCC patients treated with vismodegib in clinical practice, according to the large experience gained by a group of Italian dermatologists and oncologists. In particular, the focus of this paper will be on the monitoring of patients and the management of adverse events.

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common skin cancer worldwide. Most occur on the head and neck, where cosmetic and functional outcomes are critical. BCC can be locally destructive if not diagnosed early and treated appropriately. Surgery is the treatment of choice for the majority of high-risk lesions. Aggressive, recurrent or unresectable tumors can be difficult to manage. Until recently, no approved systemic therapy was available for locally advanced or metastatic BCC inappropriate for surgery or radiotherapy. Vismodegib provides a systemic treatment option. However, a consensus definition of advanced BCC is lacking. A multidisciplinary panel with expertise in oncology, dermatology, dermatologic surgery and radiation oncology proposes a consensus definition based on published evidence and clinical experience.

The American Joint Committee on Cancer/Union Internationale Contre le Cancer (AJCC/UICC) TNM staging system provides the most reliable guidelines for the routine prognostication and treatment of colorectal carcinoma. This traditional tumour staging summarizes data on tumour burden (T), the presence of cancer cells in draining and regional lymph nodes (N) and evidence for distant metastases (M). However, it is now recognized that the clinical outcome can vary significantly among patients within the same stage. The current classification provides limited prognostic information and does not predict response to therapy. Multiple ways to classify cancer and to distinguish different subtypes of colorectal cancer have been proposed, including morphology, cell origin, molecular pathways, mutation status and gene expression-based stratification. These parameters rely on tumour-cell characteristics. Extensive literature has investigated the host immune response against cancer and demonstrated the prognostic impact of the in situ immune cell infiltrate in tumours. A methodology named 'Immunoscore' has been defined to quantify the in situ immune infiltrate. In colorectal cancer, the Immunoscore may add to the significance of the current AJCC/UICC TNM classification, since it has been demonstrated to be a prognostic factor superior to the AJCC/UICC TNM classification. An international consortium has been initiated to validate and promote the Immunoscore in routine clinical settings. The results of this international consortium may result in the implementation of the Immunoscore as a new component for the classification of cancer, designated TNM-I (TNM-Immune).