Search

IntroductionImmunotherapy has revolutionized the prognosis of patients with metastatic melanoma. To date, the most active regimen is the combination of ipilimumab + nivolumab (ipi-nivo) achieving a response rate of nearly 60% and a median survival (OS) of 6 years. However, approximately 40% of patients experience primary resistance, while around 50% experience secondary resistance, highlighting the need for an effective second-line treatment option The recently published results on the use of lenvatinib + pembrolizumab in the advanced line setting led to the adoption of this regimen at our institution. Here we present our experience with this regimen, focusing on efficacy and safety.MethodsElectronic medical records of patients treated at a tertiary referral melanoma center, with at least one cycle of anti PD-1 + lenvatinib from 2020 to 2023 were analyzed for baseline demographic characteristics, disease related characteristics and treatment outcomes.ResultsForty-two patients were identified. The Response rate (RR) was 28% and the disease control rate was 38%. Responses were seen across different melanoma subtypes, including 67% in acral melanoma, 20% in uveal melanoma, and 25% in mucosal melanoma. Patients with a more aggressive disease manifested by elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) achieved a RR of 26%, while patients with active central nervous system (CNS) metastases had a RR of 31%, and an intra-cranial RR of 23%. Responses were seen across lines of treatment, with a 25% RR in the second and third lines, and a 36% RR in the fourth and fifth lines. The median progression free survival was 3 months, and the median survival was 11 months. The treatment was not easily tolerated with 31% of the patients experiencing grade 3-4 toxicity, which was manageable through dose interruptions and reductions. Only 7% of patients discontinued the treatment due to toxicity.ConclusionLenvatinib in combination with anti-PD1 had demonstrated both relative safety and efficacy in patients with metastatic melanoma of all subtypes in the advanced line setting. We are eagerly anticipating the mature results of the LEAP-004 study hoping that this regimen will receive regulatory approval, paving the way for its widespread adoption in daily practice worldwide.

IntroductionImmunotherapy has revolutionized metastatic Melanoma therapy. The most active regimen is combination therapy of Ipilimumab-Nivolumab (Ipi-Nivo) with response rates (RR) of ~60% and median overall survival (OS) of ~6 years. Immune-related adverse events (irAE) are common (~60% develop grade 3-4) and pose a challenge when treating frail patients. We sought to examine whether Ipi-Nivo therapy is feasible in elderly metastatic melanoma patients.MethodsElectronic records of patients treated at the Ella Lemelbaum Institute with Ipi-Nivo between the years 2017-2021 were screened for age. Elderly patients were defined as age 75 and older (group A) and were matched with records of patients age 75 (median 77) were identified and were matched to 34 younger patients (median age 57). No statistically significant differences were noted in terms of baseline parameters except for BRAF mutation status (group A 15%, group B 47%, p=0.008). Response rate in group A was 38% and is consistent with previously published data. Median PFS was the same for both groups (A = 5.5 months, B= 7.5 months, p=NS). Treatment was similarly tolerated: 35% of group A patients completed 4 cycles of therapy compared to 28% for group B (p=NS). Grade 2-4 irAE were the same (A=58%, B=66%, p=NS) and there was no difference in the need for hospitalization for G3-4 events between the groups. (A=63%, B=69%, p=NS). Further division into 4 age groups (>80 vs 75-79 in group A and 65-74 vs

Introduction: Uveal melanoma (UM) is a subtype of melanoma arising from the ocular region. Despite various local therapies available, a significant portion of patients develop distant metastases, primarily to the liver. While cutaneous melanoma is very sensitive to immunotherapy, UM is known to be less responsive and patients were excluded from pivotal clinical trials. To date, there is no standard first line therapy for metastatic UM and clinical trial participation is encouraged. While UM is considered a radio-resistant tumor, there is a role for radiotherapy (RT) as palliative treatment and possibly for immune sensitization. This a retrospective analysis aimed at addressing the role of combination checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) with RT as a synergistic treatment in metastatic UM patient. We hypothesized that concurrent RT would improve the clinical response to immunotherapy. Methods: Retrospective chart review of patients with metastatic UM treated with ICI at Ella Lemelbaum Institute between 2015 and 2021. Patients’ electronic medical records were analyzed for baseline characteristics, response rate and survival data. Patients were grouped according to receipt of concomitant RT. Study was approved by local IRB and statistical analyses done using Stata V.17 Results: Thirty-nine patients were treated with immunotherapy. Fifty percent were treated with anti-programmed cell death (PD)-1 and 50% with anti-PD1– anti CTLA4 combination therapy. Nine patients were treated concomitantly with immunotherapy and external beam RT or with stereotactic body RT (group A) and 29 patients were treated with immunotherapy alone (group B). Overall response rate was significantly higher in group A (44% versus 10%, p = 0.004). Median progression-free survival was longer for patients in group A (22 months versus 3 m, Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.37, p = 0.036). Median overall survival was also longer for group A (26 months versus 7.5 m, HR = 0.34, p = 0.03). Toxicity was comparable between the groups. Conclusions: RT may improve response to immunotherapy with ICI in metastatic UM patients and may confer an advantage in survival. Further prospective, larger studies are warranted.

An accurate and comprehensive histopathology report is essential for cutaneous melanoma management, providing critical information for accurate staging and risk estimation and determining the optimal surgical approach. In many institutions, a review of melanoma biopsy specimens by expert dermatopathologists is considered a necessary step. This study examined these reviews to determine the critical primary histopathology Breslow score in which a histopathology review would be most beneficial. Histopathology reports of patients referred to our institute between January 2011 and September 2019 were compared with our in-house review conducted by an expert dermatopathologist. The review focused on assessing fundamental histologic and clinical prognostic features. A total of 177 specimens underwent histopathology review. Significant changes in the Breslow index were identified in 103 cases (58.2%). Notably, in many of these cases (73.2%), the revised Breslow was higher than the initially reported score. Consequently, the T-stage was modified in 51 lesions (28.8%). Substantial discordance rates were observed in Tis (57%), T1b (59%), T3a (67%) and T4a (50%) classifications. The revised histopathology reports resulted in alterations to the surgical plan in 15.3% of the cases. These findings emphasize the importance of having all routine pathologies of pigmented lesions referred to a dedicated cancer center and reviewed by an experienced dermatopathologist. This recommendation is particularly crucial in instances where the histopathology review can potentially alter the diagnosis and treatment plan, such as in melanoma in situ and thinner melanomas measuring 0.6–2.2 mm in thickness. Our study highlights the significant impact of histopathology reviews in cutaneous melanoma cases. The observed changes in Breslow scores and subsequent modifications in T-stage classification underline the need for thorough evaluation by an expert dermatopathologist, especially in cases of melanoma in situ and thin melanomas. Incorporating such reviews into routine practice within dedicated cancer centers can improve diagnostic accuracy and guide appropriate treatment decisions, ultimately leading to better patient outcomes.

BackgroundThe use of CGP in guiding treatment decisions in aNSCLC with acquired resistance to ALK TKIs is questionable.MethodsWe prospectively assessed the impact of CGP on the decision-making process in ALK-rearranged aNSCLC patients following progression on 2nd/3rd-generation ALK TKIs. Physician’s choice of the most recommended next-line systemic treatment (NLST) was captured before and after receival of CGP results; the percentage of cases in which the NLST recommendation has changed was assessed along with the CGP turnaround time (TAT). Patients were divided into groups: patients in whom the NLST was initiated after (group 1) and before (group 2) receival of the CGP results. Time-to-treatment discontinuation (TTD) and overall survival (OS) with NLST were compared between the groups.ResultsIn 20 eligible patients (median [m]age 63 years [range, 40-89], females 75%, adenocarcinoma 100%, failure of alectinib 90%, FoundationOne Liquid CDx 80%), CGP has altered NLST recommendation in 30% of cases. CGP findings were as follows: ALK mutations 30% (l1171X 10%, G1202R, L1196M, G1269A, G1202R+l1171N+E1210K 5% each), CDKN2A/B mutation/loss 10%, c-met amplification 5%. CGP mTAT was 2.9 weeks [IQR, 2.4-4.4]. mTTD was 11.3 months (95% CI, 2.1-not reached [NR]) and 5.4 months (95% CI, 2.0-NR) in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p-0.34). mOS was 13.2 months (95% CI, 2.9-NR) and 13.0 months (95% CI, 6.0-NR) in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p-0.86).ConclusionCGP has a significant impact on the decision-making process in ALK-rearranged aNSCLC following progression on 2nd/3rd-generation ALK TKIs.