Search

Aims: To describe the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of melanoma brain metastasis (MBM) patients throughout the first 18 weeks of ipilimumab–nivolumab or nivolumab treatment. Materials & methods: HRQoL data (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer's Core Quality of Life Questionnaire, additional Brain Neoplasm Module, and EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level Questionnaire) were collected as a secondary outcome of the Anti-PD1 Brain Collaboration phase II trial. Mixed linear modeling assessed changes over time, whereas the Kaplan–Meier method was used to determine median time to first deterioration. Results: Asymptomatic MBM patients treated with ipilimumab–nivolumab (n = 33) or nivolumab (n = 24) maintained baseline HRQoL. MBM patients with symptoms or leptomeningeal/progressive disease treated with nivolumab (n = 14) reported a statistically significant trend toward improvement. Conclusion: MBM patients treated with either ipilimumab–nivolumab or nivolumab did not report a significant deterioration in HRQoL within 18 weeks of treatment initiation. Clinical trial registration: NCT02374242 ( ClinicalTrials.gov )

Purpose: In the phase III CheckMate 238 study, adjuvant nivolumab significantly improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival versus ipilimumab in patients with resected stage IIIB–C or stage IV melanoma, with benefit sustained at 4 years. We report updated 5-year efficacy and biomarker findings. Patients and Methods: Patients with resected stage IIIB–C/IV melanoma were stratified by stage and baseline programmed death cell ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and received nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or ipilimumab 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses and then every 12 weeks, both intravenously for 1 year until disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was RFS. Results: At a minimum follow-up of 62 months, RFS with nivolumab remained superior to ipilimumab (HR = 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–0.86; 5-year rates of 50% vs. 39%). Five-year distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) rates were 58% with nivolumab versus 51% with ipilimumab. Five-year overall survival (OS) rates were 76% with nivolumab and 72% with ipilimumab (75% data maturity: 228 of 302 planned events). Higher levels of tumor mutational burden (TMB), tumor PD-L1, intratumoral CD8+ T cells and IFNγ-associated gene expression signature, and lower levels of peripheral serum C-reactive protein were associated with improved RFS and OS with both nivolumab and ipilimumab, albeit with limited clinically meaningful predictive value. Conclusions: Nivolumab is a proven adjuvant treatment for resected melanoma at high risk of recurrence, with sustained, long-term improvement in RFS and DMFS compared with ipilimumab and high OS rates. Identification of additional biomarkers is needed to better predict treatment outcome.

PURPOSE Effective treatments are needed for melanoma that progresses on inhibitors of programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) or its ligand (PD-L1). We conducted the phase II LEAP-004 study to evaluate the combination of the multikinase inhibitor lenvatinib and the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab in this population (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03776136 ). METHODS Eligible patients with unresectable stage III-IV melanoma with confirmed progressive disease (PD) within 12 weeks of the last dose of a PD-1/L1 inhibitor given alone or with other therapies, including cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte–associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitors, received lenvatinib 20 mg orally once daily plus ≤ 35 doses of pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks until PD or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST, version 1.1, by independent central review. RESULTS A total of 103 patients were enrolled and treated. The median study follow-up was 15.3 months. ORR in the total population was 21.4% (95% CI, 13.9 to 30.5), with three (2.9%) complete responses and 19 (18.4%) partial responses. The median duration of response was 8.3 months (range, 3.2-15.9+). ORR was 33.3% in the 30 patients with PD on prior anti–PD-1 plus anti–CTLA-4 therapy. The median progression-free survival and overall survival in the total population were 4.2 months (95% CI, 3.8 to 7.1) and 14.0 months (95% CI, 10.8 to not reached), respectively. Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 47 (45.6%) patients, most commonly hypertension (21.4%); one patient died from a treatment-related event (decreased platelet count). CONCLUSION Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab provides clinically meaningful, durable responses in patients with advanced melanoma with confirmed PD on prior PD-1/L1 inhibitor-based therapy, including those with PD on anti–PD-1 plus anti–CTLA-4 therapy. The safety profile was as expected. These data support lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as a potential regimen for this population of high unmet need.

Here, we present a novel case of a patient with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who received CTLA-4 and then PD-1 immune-checkpoint blockade (ICB) as treatment for concomitant metastatic melanoma. Whereas the metastatic melanoma was responsive to ICB, the CLL rapidly progressed (but responded to ICB cessation and ibrutinib). There were no new genetic mutational drivers to explain the altered clinical course. PD-1/PD-L1/PD-L2 and CTLA-4/CD80/CD86 expression was not increased in CLL B cells, CD8+ or CD4+ T-cell subsets, or monocytes. The patient’s CLL B cells demonstrated strikingly prolonged in vitro survival during PD-1 blockade, which was not observed in samples taken before or after ICB, or with other patients. To our knowledge, a discordant clinical course to ICB coupled with these biological features has not been reported in a patient with dual malignancies.

Anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD1) antibodies, pembrolizumab and nivolumab, alone or in combination with ipilimumab, have become standard treatment for melanoma and multiple other malignancies. Neurological adverse effects are rare and have not been well characterized to date. Patients who developed neurological adverse effects while being treated with PD1, alone or in combination with ipilimumab, were retrospectively identified from 10 cancer centers. Fifty-eight patients were included, and the median time from treatment initiation to development of neurological adverse effects was 7 weeks (range, 1-86.5 weeks). Thirty-seven (64%) toxicities affected the peripheral nervous system. Fifty (86%) patients were treated with corticosteroids, with 22 (37%) patients requiring further immunomodulation including intravenous immunoglobulin (16), plasmapheresis (7), mycophenolate mofetil (4), cyclophosphamide (1), and rituximab (1). Twenty-seven (46%) had a complete resolution of their neurological symptoms, and two (4%) patients died secondary to complications from their neurological adverse effects. The response rate of the cancer to immunotherapy was 78%, and the median progression free survival was not reached. Neurological adverse effects can occur with PD1 treatment, do not appear to impact treatment response, but may be irreversible or worsen in some patients. Management may require immunomodulation beyond corticosteroids.

Objective Implementing the routine collection of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) is key to improving healthcare quality and patient satisfaction. The implementation process can be strengthened through staff and patient co-design. The aim of this project was to develop a set of Australian PROM implementation recommendations (‘AusPROM’) to guide rapid translation into practice. Methods Staff working across 29 Australian private hospitals participated in the project. The hospitals provided elective surgery and spanned each state and territory of Australia. Staff engaged in a Delphi technique to develop the AusPROM, which involved three iterative focus groups. To ensure full disclosure, staff were also provided with additional project-related data sources throughout the Delphi technique. This included data from a patient focus group (patient co-design), patient survey, technical feasibility testing, 3 months of pilot testing (four sites), 3 months of national implementation (29 sites) and global evidence. This process ensured that staff and patient feedback was used to co-design the three iterations of the AusPROM recommendations until the final agreed version was established. Results A total of 22 AusPROM recommendations were included in the final iteration. The recommendations covered the domains of PROM characteristics, healthcare organisation characteristics, external influences, staff and patient characteristics, and facilitators to implementing AusPROMS in routine practice. Conclusion The AusPROM recommendations offer practical considerations for the implementation of PROMs in hospitals. The iterative nature of the Delphi technique ensured that staff and patient co-design were central to the development of the AusPROM recommendations.

PURPOSE Nivolumab and relatlimab activity in advanced melanoma with prior progression on anti–programmed death-1/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-(L)1)-containing regimens is under investigation. RELATIVITY-047 demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) for nivolumab and relatlimab over nivolumab in previously untreated advanced melanoma. METHODS The phase I/IIa, open-label RELATIVITY-020 trial part D assessed efficacy and safety of nivolumab and relatlimab in advanced melanoma with progression during, or within 3 months of, 1 (D1) or ≥ 1 (D2) anti–PD-(L)1-containing regimens. Safety was a primary end point. Objective response rate (coprimary end point) and PFS by blinded independent central review (BICR) were assessed. RESULTS Five hundred eighteen patients (D1 = 354; D2 = 164) received nivolumab and relatlimab. Among evaluable patients, the objective response rate by BICR was 12.0% (95% CI, 8.8 to 15.8) in D1 (n = 351) and 9.2% (95% CI, 5.2 to 14.7) in D2 (n = 163). Responses appeared to be enriched among patients with tumors expressing programmed death ligand 1 or lymphocyte activation gene 3; however, responses were observed regardless of programmed death ligand 1 and lymphocyte activation gene 3 expression (1%). The median duration of response was not reached (95% CI, 12.9 to not reached) in D1 and 12.8 months (95% CI, 6.9 to 12.9) in D2. The median PFS by BICR was 2.1 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 3.5) in D1 and 3.2 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 3.6) in D2; the 6-month PFS rate was 29.1% (95% CI, 24.2 to 34.1) and 27.7% (95% CI, 20.5 to 35.4), respectively. The grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse event incidence was 15.0% in D1 and 12.8% in D2. One case of grade 3 myocarditis and no treatment-related deaths occurred across part D. CONCLUSION Nivolumab and relatlimab had a manageable safety profile and demonstrated durable clinical activity in a proportion of patients with heavily pretreated advanced melanoma with prior progression on anti–PD-(L)1-containing regimens. [Media: see text]

DATA SUPPLEMENT Adjuvant Nivolumab Versus Ipilimumab in Resected Stage III/IV Melanoma: 5-Year Efficacy and Biomarker Results From CheckMate 238

Purpose:In the phase III CheckMate 238 study, adjuvant nivolumab significantly improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival versus ipilimumab in patients with resected stage IIIB–C or stage IV melanoma, with benefit sustained at 4 years. We report updated 5-year efficacy and biomarker findings.Patients and Methods:Patients with resected stage IIIB–C/IV melanoma were stratified by stage and baseline programmed death cell ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and received nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or ipilimumab 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses and then every 12 weeks, both intravenously for 1 year until disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was RFS.Results:At a minimum follow-up of 62 months, RFS with nivolumab remained superior to ipilimumab (HR = 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–0.86; 5-year rates of 50% vs. 39%). Five-year distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) rates were 58% with nivolumab versus 51% with ipilimumab. Five-year overall survival (OS) rates were 76% with nivolumab and 72% with ipilimumab (75% data maturity: 228 of 302 planned events). Higher levels of tumor mutational burden (TMB), tumor PD-L1, intratumoral CD8+ T cells and IFNγ-associated gene expression signature, and lower levels of peripheral serum C-reactive protein were associated with improved RFS and OS with both nivolumab and ipilimumab, albeit with limited clinically meaningful predictive value.Conclusions:Nivolumab is a proven adjuvant treatment for resected melanoma at high risk of recurrence, with sustained, long-term improvement in RFS and DMFS compared with ipilimumab and high OS rates. Identification of additional biomarkers is needed to better predict treatment outcome.

Treatment for metastatic melanoma includes targeted and/or immunotherapy. Although many patients respond, only a subset has complete response. As late-stage patients often have multiple tumors in difficult access sites, non-invasive techniques are necessary for the development of predictive/prognostic biomarkers. PET/CT scans from 52 patients with stage III/IV melanoma were assessed and CT image parameters were evaluated as prognostic biomarkers. Analysis indicated patients with high standard deviation or high mean of positive pixels (MPP) had worse progression-free survival (P = 0.00047 and P = 0.0014, respectively) and worse overall survival (P = 0.0223 and P = 0.0465, respectively). Whole-exome sequencing showed high MPP was associated with BRAF mutation status (P = 0.0389). RNA-sequencing indicated patients with immune “cold” signatures had worse survival, which was associated with CT biomarker, MPP4 (P = 0.0284). Multiplex immunofluorescence confirmed a correlation between CD8 expression and image biomarkers (P = 0.0028).Implications:CT parameters have the potential to be cost-effective biomarkers of survival in melanoma, and reflect the tumor immune-microenvironment.

Kaplan-Meier (log-rank) analysis of MPP4 and SD3 showing the PFS and OS for stage III patients only. a. PFS for MPP4, **p=0.0017, b. OS for MPP4, *p=0.0117, c. PFS for SD3, ***p=0.0003 and d. OS for SD3, **p=0.0094.

Multiplex immunofluorescence staining quantification by Visiopharm Image Analytical System. DAPI nuclei were segmented defining the areas. Then each marker was quantified within this DAPI area. MPP4 low (MelR062) and MPP4 high (MelR166) phenotypes are represented.

Table S1. Patient Characteristics. AJCC: American Joint Committee on Cancer Table S2. Clinical information including histology, stage and survival. Table S3. Univariate analysis of clinico-pathological and CT features. Log-rank (Mantel-Cox) test to determine optimal cut-offs for low/high groups. Table S4. RNAseq immune genes for multiplex analysis.

The association between TMB and SD3/MPP4 is not statistically significant. A. MPP4, not significant, Fisher's exact. B. SD3, not significant, Fisher's exact.

Supplementary Materials

Purpose:Combination therapy with reduced-dose programmed death 1 inhibitor plus standard-dose cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated antigen 4 inhibitor demonstrated efficacy, but substantial toxicity, in melanoma. We present long-term results of part 1B of KEYNOTE-029, which assessed safety and efficacy of standard-dose pembrolizumab plus reduced-dose ipilimumab in advanced melanoma.Patients and Methods:Part 1B was an expansion cohort of the open-label, phase Ib portion of KEYNOTE-029. Eligible patients had advanced melanoma and no previous immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Patients received pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg (amended to 200 mg) every 3 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks (four cycles), then pembrolizumab alone for up to 2 years. Primary end point was safety; secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DOR), and overall survival (OS).Results:A total of 153 patients received at least one dose of pembrolizumab plus ipilimumab. At a median follow-up of 36.8 months, 71.9% had received four doses of ipilimumab and 30.7% had completed 2 years of pembrolizumab; 26.1% completed both treatments. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 96.1% (47.1% grade 3/4; no deaths), leading to discontinuation of one or both study drugs in 35.9%. ORR was 62.1% with 42 (27.5%) complete and 53 (34.6%) partial responses. Median DOR was not reached; 36-month ongoing response rate was 84.2%. Median PFS and OS were not reached; 36-month rates were 59.1% and 73.4%, respectively.Conclusions:Standard-dose pembrolizumab plus reduced-dose ipilimumab demonstrated robust antitumor activity, durable response, and favorable long-term survival with manageable toxicity.

Objective: Radiomics studies have shown promising results defining image surrogates that predict treatment response and survival in oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma. There are limited studies examining radiogenomics profiles in oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) and this warrants further exploration. Background: Although advances have been made in the treatment of OAC, the five-year overall survival remains poor. Hence, there is a need for biomarkers to improve therapeutic approaches. Methods: Image analysis was performed on pre-treatment PET/CT scans from 80 OAC patients. In the discovery cohort (n=50), CT texture analysis was performed using a filtration-histogram method to evaluate the prognostic value of image features. Whole-genome sequencing, RNA sequencing (RNAseq) and immunohistochemistry characterised the molecular pathways associated with the CT markers. A validation cohort (n=30) was used to confirm radiomics biomarkers. Results: Analysis showed 3 CT markers were significantly associated with both disease-specific and disease-free survival. Combining these markers provided further prognostic significance. Furthermore, we identified a correlation between CT markers and major pathological response rate. Both RNAseq and immunohistochemistry confirmed that lower CD8 T-cell expression in the tumour correlated with the poor survival group predicted using CT markers. RNAseq gene set enrichment analysis identified pathways associated with these radiomics biomarkers. Finally, radiomics analysis in a validation cohort confirmed CT marker (SD, standard deviation) as a biomarker of survival and identified additional image features associated with patient survival. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that radiogenomics has the potential to identify OAC subgroups with prognostic significance and support clinical decision making.

This study assessed long-term clinical and radiological outcomes following treatment with combination stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and immunotherapy (IT) for melanoma brain metastases (BM).A retrospective review was performed in a contemporary cohort of patients with melanoma BM at a single tertiary institution receiving Gamma Knife101 patients (435 melanoma BM) were treated with SRS between January-2015 and June-2019. 68.3% of patients received IT within 4 weeks of SRS (concurrent) and 31.7% received SRS alone or non-concurrently with IT. Overall, BM local control rate was 87.1% after SRS. Median progression free survival was 8.7 months. Median follow-up was 29.2 months. On multivariate analysis (MVA), patients receiving concurrent SRS-IT maintained a higher chance of achieving a complete (CR) or partial response (PR) [HR 2.6 (95% CI: 1.2-5.5, P = 0.012)] and a reduced likelihood of progression of disease (PD) [HR 0.52 (95% CI: 0.16-0.60), P = 0.048]. Any increase in BM volume on the initial MRI 3 months after SRS predicted a lower likelihood of achieving long-term CR or PR on MVA accounting for concurrent IT, BRAF status and dexamethasone use [HR = 0.048 (95% CI: 0.007-0.345, P = 0.0026)]. Stratified volumetric change demonstrated a sequential relationship with outcomes on Kaplan-Meier analysis.Concurrent SRS-IT has favourable clinical and radiological outcomes with respect to CR, PR and a reduced likelihood of PD. Changes in BM volume on the initial MRI 3 months after SRS were predictive of long-term outcomes for treatment response.

Targeted therapy (BRAF inhibitor plus MEK inhibitor) is now among the possible treatment options for patients with BRAF mutation-positive stage III or stage IV melanoma. This makes prompt BRAF mutation testing an important step in the management of patients diagnosed with stage III or IV melanoma; one that can help better ensure that the optimal choice of systemic treatment is initiated with minimal delay. This article offers guidance about when and how BRAF mutation testing should be conducted when patients are diagnosed with melanoma in Australia. Notably, it recommends that pathologists reflexively order BRAF mutation testing whenever a patient is found to have American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC)/Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) stage III or IV melanoma (i.e., any metastatic spread beyond the primary tumour) and that patient's BRAF mutation status is hitherto unknown, even if BRAF mutation testing has not been specifically requested by the treating clinician (in Australia, Medicare-subsidised BRAF

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.

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. & ordf;2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Purpose: Standard-dose pembrolizumab plus alternative-dose ipilimumab (1 mg/kg Q3W for 4 doses) were tolerable and had robust antitumor activity in advanced melanoma in cohort B of the phase 1 KEYNOTE-029 study. Cohort C evaluated standard-dose pembrolizumab with two other alternative ipilimumab regimens. Patients and Methods: Patients with treatment-naive unresectable stage III/IV melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W for ≤24 months plus ipilimumab 50 mg Q6W for 4 doses (PEM200+IPI50), or the same pembrolizumab regimen plus ipilimumab 100 mg Q12W for 4 doses (PEM200+IPI100). Primary end points were incidence of grade 3–5 treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) and objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1 by independent central review. Per protocol-defined thresholds, grade 3–5 TRAE incidence ≤26% indicated meaningful toxicity reduction and ORR ≥48% indicated no decrease in efficacy versus data reported for other PD-1 inhibitor/ipilimumab combinations. Results: Median follow-up on February 18, 2019, was 16.3 months in PEM200+IPI50 (N = 51) and 16.4 months in PEM200+IPI100 (N = 51). Grade 3–5 TRAEs occurred in 12 (24%) patients in PEM200+IPI50 and 20 (39%) in PEM200+IPI100. One patient in PEM200+IPI50 died from treatment-related autoimmune myocarditis. Immune-mediated AEs or infusion reactions occurred in 21 (42%) patients in PEM200+IPI50 and 28 (55%) in PEM200+IPI100. ORR was 55% in PEM200+IPI50; 61% in PEM200+IPI100. Conclusions: Pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W plus ipilimumab 50 mg Q6W or 100 mg Q12W demonstrated antitumor activity above the predefined threshold; pembrolizumab plus ipilimumab 50 mg Q6W had lower incidence of grade 3–5 TRAEs than the predefined threshold, suggesting a reduction in toxicity. See related commentary by Jameson-Lee and Luke, p. 5153

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.

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of cobimetinib plus atezolizumab in the treatment of patients with advanced BRAFThis phase 1b, open-label, international multicentre study enrolled 3 cohorts. Herein, we report on patients in cohorts A and B who had progressed on prior anti‒PD-1 therapy. Patients in cohort A received cobimetinib 60 mg once daily for 21 days followed by a 7-day break and concurrent intravenous atezolizumab 840 mg every 2 weeks. Patients in cohort B received the same dosing regimen as cohort A except for cycle 1 in which patients received cobimetinib only for the first 14 days prior to initiation of atezolizumab on cycle 1 day 15. Coprimary end-points were objective response rate and disease control rate. Secondary end-points were duration of response, progression free survival and overall survival.Between 19th June 2017 and 12th December 2018, 103 patients were enrolled. Median follow-up was 6.9 months (interquartile range, 4.8-10.1 months); objective response rate was 14.6% and disease control rate was 38.8% (95% confidence interval, 29.39-48.94). The median duration of response, progression-free survival and overall survival was 12.7 months, 3.8 months and 14.7 months, respectively. The most common adverse events were diarrhoea (75/103; 72.8%), dermatitis acneiform (57/103; 55.3%) and nausea (52/103; 50.5%). Thirty-four patients (33.0%) died: 33 (91.7%) due to progressive disease and one (1%) due to treatment-related oesophagitis.Combination therapy with cobimetinib and atezolizumab in patients with advanced BRAFThis study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT03178851.

The impact of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) on clinical outcomes with first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with metastatic melanoma was previously analyzed in the phase II study, CheckMate 069. This retrospective analysis utilized data from three phase II/III studies of first-line ICI therapy in untreated advanced melanoma: CheckMate 066, 067, and 069. All randomized patients with PPI use ≤ 30 days before initiating study treatment were included in the PPI-use subgroup. Possible associations between baseline PPI use and efficacy were evaluated within each treatment arm of each study using multivariable modeling. Approximately 20% of 1505 randomized patients across the studies reported baseline PPI use. The median follow-up was 52.6–58.5 months. Objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival analyses provided insufficient evidence of a meaningful association between PPI use and efficacy outcomes with nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab, nivolumab, or ipilimumab therapy. In five of the six ICI treatment arms, 95% confidence intervals for odds ratios or hazard ratios traversed 1. Significant associations were observed in the CheckMate 069 combination arm between PPI use and poorer ORR and PFS. This multivariable analysis found insufficient evidence to support meaningful associations between PPI use and ICI efficacy in patients with advanced melanoma.

Nivolumab was approved as adjuvant therapy for melanoma based on data from CheckMate 238, which enrolled patients per American Joint Committee on Cancer version 7 (AJCC-7) criteria. Here, we analyse long-term outcomes per AJCC-8 staging criteria compared with AJCC-7 results to inform clinical decisions for patients diagnosed per AJCC-8. In a double-blind, phase 3 trial (NCT02388906), patients aged ≥15 years with resected, histologically confirmed AJCC-7 stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV melanoma were randomised to receive nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or ipilimumab 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks for 4 doses and then every 12 weeks, both intravenously ≤1 year. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) were assessed in patients with stage III disease, per AJCC-7 and AJCC-8. Per AJCC-7 staging, 42.4% and 57.3% of patients were in substage IIIB and IIIC, respectively; per AJCC-8, 1.1%, 30.4%, 62.8%, and 5.0% were in IIIA, IIIB, IIIC, and IIID. After 4 years' minimum follow-up, the AJCC-7 superior efficacy of nivolumab over ipilimumab in patients with resected stage III melanoma was preserved per AJCC-8 analysis. No statistically significant difference in RFS between stage III substage hazard ratios was observed per AJCC-7 or -8 staging criteria (interaction test: AJCC-7, P = 0.8115; AJCC-8, P = 0.1051; P = 0.8392 ((AJCC-7) and P = 0.8678 (AJCC-8) for DMFS). CheckMate 238 4-year RFS and DMFS outcomes are consistent per AJCC-7 and AJCC-8 staging criteria. Outcome benefits can therefore be translated for patients diagnosed per AJCC-8.

Purpose of Review Effective adjuvant treatment with immunotherapy and targeted therapy has significantly improved outcomes for patients with resectable locally advanced or metastatic melanoma, but a substantial proportion unfortunately relapse. Here, we review available data and explore evolving research which might impact decision-making in this setting. Recent Findings Small retrospective studies have explored pattern of disease relapse and observed outcomes of subsequent treatment. There are ongoing trials in the neoadjuvant setting which may provide valuable information regarding disease response and potentially change the way we approach disease relapse. Summary Currently there is limited evidence to guide clinicians in managing melanomas that relapse after adjuvant therapy. Standardised data collection and future prospective studies are needed.

Objective Implementing the routine collection of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) is key to improving healthcare quality and patient satisfaction. The implementation process can be strengthened through staff and patient co-design. The aim of this project was to develop a set of Australian PROM implementation recommendations ('AusPROM') to guide rapid translation into practice. Methods Staff working across 29 Australian private hospitals participated in the project. The hospitals provided elective surgery and spanned each state and territory of Australia. Staff engaged in a Delphi technique to develop the AusPROM, which involved three iterative focus groups. To ensure full disclosure, staff were also provided with additional project-related data sources throughout the Delphi technique. This included data from a patient focus group (patient co-design), patient survey, technical feasibility testing, 3 months of pilot testing (four sites), 3 months of national implementation (29 sites) and global evidence. This process ensured that staff and patient feedback was used to co-design the three iterations of the AusPROM recommendations until the final agreed version was established. Results A total of 22 AusPROM recommendations were included in the final iteration. The recommendations covered the domains of PROM characteristics, healthcare organisation characteristics, external influences, staff and patient characteristics, and facilitators to implementing AusPROMS in routine practice. Conclusion The AusPROM recommendations offer practical considerations for the implementation of PROMs in hospitals. The iterative nature of the Delphi technique ensured that staff and patient co-design were central to the development of the AusPROM recommendations.

In clinical trials, dabrafenib plus trametinib improved overall survival (OS) compared with single-agent BRAF inhibitors (BRAFi) in patients with BRAF V600-mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma. We investigated dabrafenib plus trametinib therapy in a compassionate-use setting [Named Patient Program (NPP); DESCRIBE II]. A retrospective chart review of patients with BRAF V600-mutated unresectable stage III/IV melanoma receiving dabrafenib plus trametinib as compassionate use was conducted. Treatment patterns and duration, clinical outcomes, and tolerability were evaluated. Of 271 patients, 92.6% had stage IV melanoma, including 36.5% with brain metastases. Overall, 162 patients (59.8%) were BRAFi naive and 171 (63.1%) received first-line dabrafenib plus trametinib. Among BRAFi-naive patients, the overall response rate (ORR) was 67.3%, median OS (mOS) was 20.0 months, and median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 7.5 months. In BRAFi-naive patients with known brain metastases (n = 62), ORR was 61.3%, mOS was 15.5 months, and mPFS was 6.2 months. Eighty-four patients received BRAFi monotherapy for >30 days and switched to dabrafenib plus trametinib prior to progression. Of these 84 patients, 63 had known disease status at the time of switch, and 22 improved with the combination therapy. No new safety signals were identified, and dabrafenib plus trametinib was well tolerated. Dabrafenib plus trametinib showed substantial clinical activity in NPP patients with BRAF V600-mutated unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Analysis of treatment patterns demonstrated the effectiveness of the combination in patients with brain metastases and across lines of therapy with a well tolerated and manageable safety profile.

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.

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; 98.4% CI, 0.43-0.74) among patients who started treatment. The incidence of irAEs was 190 (37.4%) in the pembrolizumab arm (n = 509) and 45 (9.0%) in the placebo arm (n = 502); in each treatment group, the incidence was similar for men and women. The occurrence of an irAE was associated with a longer RFS in the pembrolizumab arm (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.39-0.95; P = .03) in both men and women. However, in the placebo arm, this association was not significant. Compared with the placebo arm, the reduction in the hazard of recurrence or death in the pembrolizumab arm was greater after the onset of an irAE than without or before an irAE (HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.24-0.57 vs HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.49-0.77, respectively; P = .03).Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the occurrence of an irAE was associated with a longer RFS in the pembrolizumab arm.Trial Registrations: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02362594; EudraCT identifier: 2014-004944-37.