Real-world survival of patients with advanced BRAF V600 mutated melanoma treated with front-line BRAF/MEK inhibitors, anti-PD-1 antibodies, or nivolumab/ipilimumab

Prognostic Role of Clinicopathological Characteristics and Serum Markers in Metastatic Melanoma Patients Treated with BRAF and MEK Inhibitors

Prognostic studies can provide important information about disease biology and improve the use of biomarkers to optimize treatment decisions.

METHODS

A total of 199 patients with advanced melanoma treated with BRAF + MEK inhibitors were included in our single-center retrospective study. We analyzed the risk of progression and death using multivariate Cox proportional hazard models. The predictive effect of prognostic factors on progression-free survival (PFS) was evaluated in ROC analysis.

RESULTS

We found that primary tumor localization, Clark level, pT category, baseline M stage and baseline serum S100B are independent and significant prognostic factors for PFS. The discriminative power of the combination of these factors was excellent for predicting 18 month PFS (AUC 0.822 [95% CI 0.727; 0.916], p < 0.001). Primary tumor localization on the extremities, Clark level V, baseline M1c stage or M1d stage, and elevated baseline serum S100B and LDH levels were independently and significantly associated with unfavorable overall survival (OS).

CONCLUSION

Baseline M stage and serum S100B appear to be independent prognostic factors for both PFS and OS in melanoma patients treated with BRAF + MEK inhibitors. We newly identified significant and independent prognostic effects of primary tumor localization and Clark level on survival that warrant further investigation.

Targeted therapy or immunotherapy in BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma: a Spanish center's decade of experience

Background

Targeted therapies and immunotherapy are currently considered the mainstay first-line treatment for advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma. However, the impact of treatment (targeted therapy and immunotherapy) and the prognostic factors are still not clear.

Material and methods

Medical records of 140 patients diagnosed with advanced melanoma between 2011 and 2021 were retrospectively reviewed to extract demographic, BRAF status, treatment, performance status, and survival data. ORR, PFS, and OS were compared between patients diagnosed with advanced melanoma and treated with first-line IT or BRAF/MEKi. The prognostic factors were assessed using Cox regression models.

Results

In all patients and those treated with immunotherapy, we did not find any effect of BRAF status on ORR, PFS, or OS. In patients with BRAF-mutated melanoma, ORR was 43.8% vs. 70% (P=0.04), PFS was 19.2 vs. 11.5 months (p=0.22), and OS was 33.4 vs. 16.4 months for the immunotherapy and targeted therapy groups, respectively (P=0.04). ECOG, presence of brain metastases, and high LDH level from initiation of first-line treatment were all associated with differences in PFS and OS.

Conclusion

Patients with advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma treated with first-line immunotherapy had a significantly longer PFS and OS than those treated with first-line BRAF/MEKi; however, first-line BRAF/MEKi treatment had a significantly higher ORR than first-line immunotherapy.

Outcome and treatment-related adverse events of combined immune checkpoint inhibition with flipped dosing in a real-world cohort of 79 patients with metastasized melanoma

Introduction

Combined immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) with ipilimumab and nivolumab is a widely used treatment regimen for metastatic melanoma with non-resectable metastases. Nevertheless, the standard dose of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg bw and nivolumab 1 mg/kg bw is associated with a high rate of treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) (59% grade 3-4). In the CheckMate 511 study, it could be shown that flipped dosing with ipilimumab 1 mg/kg bw and nivolumab 3 mg/kg bw resulted in a significant reduction of trAE.

Methods

We have also used this regimen in the clinical setting and report the trAE, progression-free survival, and overall survival for 79 patients with metastatic melanoma who started combined ICI in the flipped dosing between March 2019 and April 2020.

Results

in total, 40 patients started first-line, 50% of whom had an elevated lactate dehydrogenase level at baseline. The disease control rate of these patients was 50%. The 2-year overall survival rate 67%. Moreover, 33% of the patients suffered grade 3 or 4 treatment related adverse events.

Discussion

The results of our study correspond very well to the results of the CheckMate 511 study (2-year OS: 65%, grade 3-4 immune-related side effects: 35%). Combined ICI with ipilimumab 1 mg/kg bw and nivolumab 3 mg/kg bw seems to be an equally effective but better-tolerated therapy regimen for metastasized melanoma patients, also in a real-world cohort.

Systemic therapy for Asian patients with advanced BRAF V600-mutant melanoma in a real-world setting: A multi-center retrospective study in Japan (B-CHECK-RWD study)

BACKGROUND

Anti-PD-1-based immunotherapy is considered a preferred first-line treatment for advanced BRAF V600-mutant melanoma. However, a recent international multi-center study suggested that the efficacy of immunotherapy is poorer in Asian patients in the non-acral cutaneous subtype. We hypothesized that the optimal first-line treatment for Asian patients may be different.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected data of Asian patients with advanced BRAF V600-mutant melanoma treated with first-line BRAF/MEK inhibitors (BRAF/MEKi), anti-PD-1 monotherapy (Anti-PD-1), and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (PD-1/CTLA-4) between 2016 and 2021 from 28 institutions in Japan.

RESULTS

We identified 336 patients treated with BRAF/MEKi (n = 236), Anti-PD-1 (n = 64) and PD-1/CTLA-4 (n = 36). The median follow-up duration was 19.9 months for all patients and 28.6 months for the 184 pa tients who were alive at their last follow-up. For patients treated with BRAF/MEKi, anti-PD-1, PD-1/CTLA-4, the median ages at baseline were 62, 62, and 53 years (p = 0.03); objective response rates were 69%, 27%, and 28% (p < 0.001); median progression-free survival (PFS) was 14.7, 5.4, and 5.8 months (p = 0.003), and median overall survival (OS) was 34.6, 37.0 months, and not reached, respectively (p = 0.535). In multivariable analysis, hazard ratios (HRs) for PFS of Anti-PD-1 and PD-1/CTLA-4 compared with BRAF/MEKi were 2.30 (p < 0.001) and 1.38 (p = 0.147), and for OS, HRs were 1.37 (p = 0.111) and 0.56 (p = 0.075), respectively. In propensity-score matching, BRAF/MEKi showed a tendency for longer PFS and equivalent OS with PD-1/CTLA-4 (HRs for PD-1/CTLA-4 were 1.78 [p = 0.149]) and 1.03 [p = 0.953], respectively). For patients who received second-line treatment, BRAF/MEKi followed by PD-1/CTLA-4 showed poor survival outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The superiority of PD-1/CTLA-4 over BRAF/MEKi appears modest in Asian patients. First-line BRAF/MEKi remains feasible, but it is difficult to salvage at progression. Ethnicity should be considered when selecting systemic therapies until personalized biomarkers are available in daily practice. Further studies are needed to establish the optimal treatment sequence for Asian patients.

Correlation of Baseline Tumor Burden with Clinical Outcome in Melanoma Patients Treated with Ipilimumab

INTRODUCTION

Tumor burden is a frequently mentioned parameter; however, a commonly accepted definition is still lacking.

METHODS

In this double-center prospective and retrospective study, 76 patients with unresectable stage III or stage IV melanoma treated with ipilimumab were included. We defined the baseline tumor burden (BTB) as the global sum of all metastases' longest diameters before treatment started and correlated the calculated BTB with disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and with the baseline levels of LDH, S100B, and sULPB2.

RESULTS

BTB correlated significantly with DCR (p = 0.009), PFS (p = 0.002), OS (p = 0.032), and the occurrence of NRAS mutation (p = 0.006). BTB was also correlated to baseline serum levels of LDH (p = 0.011), S100B (p = 0.027), and SULBP (p < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis revealed that BPB and LDH were independently correlated with PFS and OS. With increasing BTB, disease control was less likely; no patient with a BTB >200 mm achieved disease control. For patients with brain metastasis, no correlation of BTB with DCR (p = 0.251), PFS (p = 0.059), or OS (p = 0.981) was observed.

CONCLUSION

Calculated BTB is an independent prognostic factor for patients with metastatic melanoma treated with ipilimumab. Using calculated BTB as a definition of tumor burden may help increase comparability of outcome of therapies in future studies.

Combination of immune-checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies for melanoma therapy: The more, the better?

The approval of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) and mitogen activated protein kinase inhibitors (MAPKi) in recent years significantly improved the treatment management and survival of patients with advanced malignant melanoma. CPI aim to counter-act receptor-mediated inhibitory effects of tumor cells and immunomodulatory cell types on effector T cells, whereas MAPKi are intended to inhibit tumor cell survival. In agreement with these complementary modes of action preclinical data indicated that the combined application of CPI and MAPKi or their optimal sequencing might provide additional clinical benefit. In this review the rationale and preclinical evidence that support the combined application of MAPKi and CPI either in concurrent or consecutive regimens are presented. Further, we will discuss the results from clinical trials investigating the sequential or combined application of MAPKi and CPI for advanced melanoma patients and their implications for clinical practice. Finally, we outline mechanisms of MAPKi and CPI cross-resistance which limit the efficacy of currently available treatments, as well as combination regimens.

Understanding Real-World Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes among Metastatic Melanoma Patients in Alberta, Canada

Immunotherapy and targeted therapies have been shown to considerably improve long-term survival outcomes in metastatic melanoma patients. Real-world evidence on the uptake of novel therapies and outcomes for this patient population in Canada are limited. We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of all metastatic melanoma patients diagnosed in Alberta, Canada (2015-2018) using electronic medical records and administrative data. Information on BRAF testing for patients diagnosed in 2017 or 2018 was obtained through chart abstraction. In total, 434 metastatic melanoma patients were included, of which 110 (25.3%) were de novo metastatic cases. The median age at diagnosis was 66 years (IQR: 57-76) and 70.0% were men. BRAF testing was completed for the majority of patients (88.7%). Among all patients, 60.4%, 19.1%, and 6.0% initiated first-line, second-line, and third-line systemic therapy. The most common therapies were anti-PD-1 and targeted therapies. The two-year survival probability from first-line therapy, second-line therapy, and third-line therapy was 0.50 (95% CI: 0.44-0.57), 0.26 (95% CI: 0.17-0.40), and 0.14 (95% CI: 0.40-0.46), respectively. In the first-line setting, survival was highest for patients that received ipilimumab or ipilimumab plus nivolumab, while targeted therapy had the highest survival in the second-line setting. This study indicates that novel therapies improve survival in the real world but a considerable proportion of patients do not receive treatment with systemic therapy.

Sequencing Targeted and Immune Therapy in BRAF-Mutant Melanoma: Lessons Learned

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The treatment strategy for BRAF-mutated melanoma remains unsatisfactory, although the advent of immune checkpoint inhibition has improved the prognosis of advanced melanoma. This article reports current evidence on the efficacy and safety of sequential immunotherapy with targeted therapy in patients with BRAF-mutated melanoma. It discusses criteria for the use of available options in clinical practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

Targeted therapy provides rapid disease control in a relatively high proportion of patients, although the development of secondary resistance limits the duration of responses; in contrast, immunotherapy may induce slow but more durable responses in a subset of patients. Therefore, the identification of a combination strategy for the use of these therapies seems a promising perspective. Currently, inconsistent data have been obtained, but most studies indicate that the administration of BRAFi/MEKi prior to immune checkpoint inhibitors appears to reduce the efficacy of immunotherapy. On the contrary, several clinical and real-life studies suggest that frontline immunotherapy with subsequent targeted therapy may be associated with better tumor control than immunotherapy alone. Larger clinical studies are ongoing to confirm the efficacy and safety of this sequencing strategy for treating BRAF-mutated melanoma with immunotherapy followed by targeted therapy.

Sequencing of Ipilimumab Plus Nivolumab and Encorafenib Plus Binimetinib for Untreated BRAF-Mutated Metastatic Melanoma (SECOMBIT): A Randomized, Three-Arm, Open-Label Phase II Trial

PURPOSE

Limited prospective data are available on sequential immunotherapy and BRAF/MEK inhibition for BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma.

METHODS

SECOMBIT is a randomized, three-arm, noncomparative phase II trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02631447). Patients with untreated, metastatic BRAFV600-mutant melanoma from 37 sites in nine countries were randomly assigned to arm A (encorafenib [450 mg orally once daily] plus binimetinib [45 mg orally twice daily] until progressive disease [PD] -> ipilimumab plus nivolumab [ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks and nivolumab 1 mg/kg once every 3 weeks × four cycles -> nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks]), arm B [ipilimumab plus nivolumab until PD -> encorafenib plus binimetinib], or arm C (encorafenib plus binimetinib for 8 weeks -> ipilimumab plus nivolumab until PD -> encorafenib plus binimetinib). The primary end point was overall survival (OS) at 2 years. Secondary end points included total progression-free survival, 3-year OS, best overall response rate, duration of response, and biomarkers in the intent-to-treat population. Safety was analyzed throughout sequential treatment in all participants who received at least one dose of study medication.

RESULTS

A total of 209 patients were randomly assigned (69 in arm A, 71 in arm B, and 69 in arm C). At a median follow-up of 32.2 (interquartile range, 27.9-41.6) months, median OS was not reached in any arm and more than 30 patients were alive in all arms. Assuming a null hypothesis of median OS of ≤ 15 months, the OS end point was met for all arms. The 2-year and 3-year OS rates were 65% (95% CI, 54 to 76) and 54% (95% CI, 41 to 67) in arm A, 73% (95% CI, 62 to 84) and 62% (95% CI, 48 to 76) in arm B, and 69% (95% CI, 59 to 80) and 60% (95% CI, 58 to 72) in arm C. No new safety signals emerged.

CONCLUSION

Sequential immunotherapy and targeted therapy provide clinically meaningful survival benefits for patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma.

Combination Dabrafenib and Trametinib Versus Combination Nivolumab and Ipilimumab for Patients With Advanced BRAF-Mutant Melanoma: The DREAMseq Trial-ECOG-ACRIN EA6134

PURPOSE

Combination programmed cell death protein 1/cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4-blockade and dual BRAF/MEK inhibition have each shown significant clinical benefit in patients with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma, leading to broad regulatory approval. Little prospective data exist to guide the choice of either initial therapy or treatment sequence in this population. This study was conducted to determine which initial treatment or treatment sequence produced the best efficacy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a phase III trial, patients with treatment-naive BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma were randomly assigned to receive either combination nivolumab/ipilimumab (arm A) or dabrafenib/trametinib (arm B) in step 1, and at disease progression were enrolled in step 2 to receive the alternate therapy, dabrafenib/trametinib (arm C) or nivolumab/ipilimumab (arm D). The primary end point was 2-year overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were 3-year OS, objective response rate, response duration, progression-free survival, crossover feasibility, and safety.

RESULTS

A total of 265 patients were enrolled, with 73 going onto step 2 (27 in arm C and 46 in arm D). The study was stopped early by the independent Data Safety Monitoring Committee because of a clinically significant end point being achieved. The 2-year OS for those starting on arm A was 71.8% (95% CI, 62.5 to 79.1) and arm B 51.5% (95% CI, 41.7 to 60.4; log-rank P = .010). Step 1 progression-free survival favored arm A (P = .054). Objective response rates were arm A: 46.0%; arm B: 43.0%; arm C: 47.8%; and arm D: 29.6%. Median duration of response was not reached for arm A and 12.7 months for arm B (P < .001). Crossover occurred in 52% of patients with documented disease progression. Grade ≥ 3 toxicities occurred with similar frequency between arms, and regimen toxicity profiles were as anticipated.

CONCLUSION

Combination nivolumab/ipilimumab followed by BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy, if necessary, should be the preferred treatment sequence for a large majority of patients.

Long-term survival of patients with advanced melanoma treated with BRAF-MEK inhibitors

Recent results of patients with advanced melanoma treated with first-line BRAF-MEK inhibitors in clinical trials showed 5-year survival in one-third of patients with a median overall survival (OS) of more than 2 years. This study aimed to investigate these patients' real-world survival and identify the characteristics of long-term survivors. The study population consisted of patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma with a BRAF-V600 mutated tumor who were treated with first-line BRAF-MEK inhibitors between 2013 and 2017. Long-term survival was defined as a minimum OS of 2 years from start therapy. The median progression-free survival (mPFS) and median OS (mOS) of real-world patients ( n  = 435) were respectively 8.0 (95% CI, 6.8-9.4) and 11.7 (95% CI, 10.3-13.5) months. Two-year survival was reached by 28% of the patients, 22% reached 3-year survival and 19% reached 4-year survival. Real-world patients often had brain metastases (41%), stage IV M1c disease (87%), ECOG PS ≥2 (21%), ≥3 organ sites (62%) and elevated LDH of ≥250 U/I (49%). Trial-eligible real-world patients had an mOS of 17.9 months. Patients surviving more than 2 years ( n  = 116) more often had an ECOG PS ≤1 (83%), normal LDH (60%), no brain metastases (60%), no liver metastases (63%) and <3 organ sites (60%). Long-term survival of real-world patients treated with first-line BRAF-MEK inhibitors is significantly lower than that of trial patients, which is probably explained by poorer baseline characteristics of patients treated in daily practice. Long-term survivors generally had more favorable characteristics with regard to age, LDH level and metastatic sites, compared to patients not reaching long-term survival.

Application of Electronic Health Record Text Mining: Real-World Tolerability, Safety, and Efficacy of Adjuvant Melanoma Treatments

Introduction: Nivolumab (N), pembrolizumab (P), and dabrafenib plus trametinib (D + T) have been registered as adjuvant treatments for resected stage III and IV melanoma since 2018. Electronic health records (EHRs) are a real-world data source that can be used to review treatments in clinical practice. In this study, we applied EHR text-mining software to evaluate the real-world tolerability, safety, and efficacy of adjuvant melanoma treatments. Methods: Adult melanoma patients receiving adjuvant treatment between January 2019 and October 2021 at the Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands, were included. CTcue text-mining software (v3.1.0, CTcue B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands) was used to construct rule-based queries and perform context analysis for patient inclusion and data collection from structured and unstructured EHR data. Results: In total, 122 patients were included: 54 patients treated with nivolumab, 48 with pembrolizumab, and 20 with D + T. Significantly more patients discontinued treatment due to toxicity on D + T (N: 16%, P: 6%, D + T: 40%), and X2 (6, n = 122) = 14.6 and p = 0.024. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) mainly showed immune-related treatment-limiting adverse events (AEs), and chronic thyroid-related AE occurred frequently (hyperthyroidism: N: 15%, P: 13%, hypothyroidism: N: 20%, P: 19%). Treatment-limiting toxicity from D + T was primarily a combination of reversible AEs, including pyrexia and fatigue. The 1-year recurrence-free survival was 70.3% after nivolumab, 72.4% after pembrolizumab, and 83.0% after D + T. Conclusions: Text-mining EHR is a valuable method to collect real-world data to evaluate adjuvant melanoma treatments. ICIs were better tolerated than D + T, in line with RCT results. For BRAF+ patients, physicians must weigh the higher risk of reversible treatment-limiting AEs of D + T against the risk of long-term immune-related AEs.

The future of targeted kinase inhibitors in melanoma

Melanoma is a cancer of the pigment-producing cells of the body and its incidence is rising. Targeted inhibitors that act against kinases in the MAPK pathway are approved for BRAF-mutant metastatic cutaneous melanoma and increase patients' survival. Response to these therapies is limited by drug resistance and is less durable than with immune checkpoint inhibition. Conversely, rare melanoma subtypes have few therapeutic options for advanced disease and MAPK pathway targeting agents show minimal anti-tumor effects. Nevertheless, there is a future for targeted kinase inhibitors in melanoma: in new applications such as adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy and in novel combinations with immunotherapies or other targeted therapies. Pre-clinical studies continue to identify tumor dependencies and their corresponding actionable drug targets, paving the way for rational targeted kinase inhibitor combinations as a personalized medicine approach for melanoma.

Early Effects of Nivolumab and Ipilimumab Combined Immunotherapy in the Treatment of Metastatic Melanoma in Poland: A Multicenter Experience

Nivolumab and ipilimumab combination became the first-line standard in advanced melanoma. We assessed its efficacy in a real-life study in Poland. In a one-year follow-up, we evaluated the medical records of 50 melanoma patients treated with that modality in five oncology centers. We recorded therapy outcomes and adverse events (AEs) after 3 and 12 months of therapy. At the first checkpoint, the disease control rate (DCR) was recorded in 58% (n = 29) of patients, but the same number of patients (n = 29, 58%) stopped immunotherapy due to disease progression (PD, n = 14, 48.3%), toxicity (n = 11, 37.9%) or death (n = 4, 13.8%). Among patients with DCR after the induction phase, 8 (27.6%) terminated due to toxicity, and 21 (72.4%) continued. However, at the 12-month checkpoint, only 14 patients (27% of all) were still receiving immunotherapy. In 7 (33.3%) it was discontinued due to PD (n = 2), toxicity (n = 2, 28.6% each), or death (n = 3, 42.9%). AEs occurred in 66.7% (n = 34) of patients; severe (grade 3 or 4) in half of them. Interestingly, those with AEs had an 80% lower risk of death (hazard ratio [HR] 0.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.07−0.57, p = 0.001) and PD (HR 0.2, 95%CI 0.09−0.47, p < 0.0001). In the entire group of patients, after a 12-month follow-up, the median overall survival was not reached (NR, range: 6.8 months-NR) and progression-free survival was 6.3 (range: 3-NR) months. Our results demonstrate that combined immunotherapy is less effective in real-life than in pivotal trials. However, early responders will likely continue the therapy after a one-year follow-up. AEs occurrence might be a predictor of clinical effectiveness.

In-Depth Characterisation of Real-World Advanced Melanoma Patients Receiving Immunotherapies and/or Targeted Therapies: A Case Series

Immunotherapies and targeted therapies have shown significant benefits for melanoma survival in the clinical trial setting. Much less is known about the characteristics and associated outcomes of those receiving such therapies in real-world settings. This study describes the characteristics of patients with advanced melanoma receiving immuno- and/or targeted therapies in a real-world setting. This prospective cohort study enrolled participants aged >18 years, diagnosed with advanced melanoma and currently undergoing immuno- and/or targeted therapies outside a clinical trial for follow-up with three-dimensional (3D) total-body imaging. Participants (n = 41) had a mean age of 62 years (range 29−86), 26 (63%) were male and the majority (n = 26, 63%) had ≥2 comorbidities. After a median of 39 months (range 1−52) follow-up, 59% (n = 24/41) of participants were alive. Despite multiple co-morbidities, the survival of participants with advanced melanoma treated using immuno- and/or targeted therapies was similar or better in our real-world setting compared to those treated in clinical trials using similar therapies. Larger studies powered to evaluate phenotypic and socio-economic characteristics, as well as specific comorbidities associated with survival in a real-world setting, are required to help determine those who will most benefit from immuno- and/or targeted therapies.

Real-world treatment patterns and overall survival in BRAF-mutant melanoma patients treated with immunotherapy or targeted therapy

Aim: To assess overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma by first-line (1L) targeted therapy (TT) or checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) use, second-line (2L) TT or CPI use, and treatment sequence. Patients & methods: Advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma patients treated with 1L CPI or TT were selected from a real-world, electronic health record-derived database. Results: CPI was associated with improved survival after adjustment for potential confounders (hazard ratio, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.66-0.87]). Median OS was similar between 2L therapies and among likely treatment sequences. Conclusion: This real-world study demonstrated a survival benefit with 1L CPI versus TT. Analyses of 2L and treatment sequences were unable to detect or rule out clinically relevant differences in OS.

The Role of Treatment Sequencing with Immune-Checkpoint Inhibitors and BRAF/MEK Inhibitors for Response and Survival of Patients with BRAFV600-Mutant Metastatic Melanoma—A Retrospective, Real-World Cohort Study

The advent of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) and BRAF/MEK-directed targeted therapy (TT) has improved the treatment landscape of patients with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma. While TT allows for rapid disease control, the development of secondary TT resistance limits the duration of responses. Responses to CPI have a slower onset but can be durable in a subset of patients. To date, little prospective data is available for the optimal sequencing of these agents in melanoma patients. In this retrospective, single-center, real-world analysis, we identified 135 patients with BRAF-mutated, metastatic melanoma who received consecutive treatment with TT followed by CPI, or vice versa, as first and second-line therapy, respectively. We collected data on clinical-pathological factors, treatment duration, best overall response, progression-free survival and overall survival (OS). Our data revealed that front-line treatment with CPI, followed by TT, showed a non-significant trend towards better OS compared to front-line TT (median OS: 35.0 vs. 18.0 months, p = 0.070). This association was confirmed in a subgroup of patients without systemic pre-treatments (median OS: 41.0 vs. 14.0 months, p = 0.02). Further, we observed significantly better objective response rates to second-line treatments for patients receiving front-line CPI (18.4 vs. 37.8%, p = 0.024). Last, our results indicated that rapid disease progression was less common in patients treated with front-line CPI (27.6% vs. 16.2%) and that subsequent treatment with TT resulted in favorable survival outcomes. Our real-world data indicate that sequential treatment with front-line CPI is associated with favorable tumor control and overall survival in a subgroup of previously untreated BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma patients.

Real-world frequency of BRAF testing and utilization of therapies in patients with advanced melanoma

Both BRAF/MEK targeted agents and immunotherapy are approved for the treatment of advanced melanoma. BRAF testing is recommended at the time of advanced melanoma diagnosis. In addition, little is known regarding the treatment trends for patients with BRAF mutated tumors. This investigation aims to assess the real-world prevalence of molecular testing and treatment trends for patients with BRAF mutated tumors. Using a de-identified database, patients of age ≥18 years with advanced melanoma from 2013 to 2018 were examined. Molecular testing performed within 3 months of advanced diagnosis was considered to have the test performed at the time of diagnosis. Test prevalence was calculated and compared in groups stratified by the patient, tumor and treatment factors. In total 4459 patients were included; 1936 (43.4%) stage III, 1191 (26.7%) stage IV and 1332 (29.9%) recurrent. Totally 50.4% of patients received systemic treatment; 76.4% stage IV, 71% recurrent patients and 26.7% stage III patients. However, 73.5% received first-line immunotherapy. In total 73.8% of patients had molecular testing, and 50.5% had tested at the time of advanced diagnosis. Of those tested 42% had a BRAF mutated tumor. In total 48% of these patients received first-line immunotherapy whereas 43% received a BRAF inhibitor, with increasing immunotherapy use seen over time. The majority of patients with advanced melanoma undergo molecular testing at the time of advanced diagnosis. Immunotherapy is the most commonly prescribed treatment regardless of BRAF mutational status. These results provide real-world data on the frequency of molecular testing and treatment trends for patients with advanced melanoma.

Real-World Evidence of Systemic Therapy Sequencing on Overall Survival for Patients with Metastatic BRAF-Mutated Cutaneous Melanoma

Aim: To evaluate optimal systemic therapy sequencing (first-line targeted therapy (1L-TT) vs. first-line immunotherapy (1L-IO)) in patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma. Methods: Nation-wide prospective data of patients with newly diagnosed BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma were retrieved from the Canadian Melanoma Research Network. Results: Our study included 79 and 107 patients in the 1L-IO and 1L-TT groups, respectively. There were more patients with ECOG 0−1 (91% vs. 72%, p = 0.023) in the 1L-IO group compared to the 1L-TT group. Multivariable Cox analysis suggested no OS differences between the two groups (HR 0.838, 95%CI 0.502−1.400, p = 0.500). However, patients who received 1L-TT then 2L-IO had the longest OS compared to 1L-IO without 2L therapy, 1L-IO then 2L-TT, and 1L-TT without 2L therapy (38.3 vs. 32.2 vs. 16.9 vs. 6.3 months, p < 0.001). For patients who received 2L therapy, those who received 2L-IO had a trend towards OS improvement compared with the 2L-TT group (21.7 vs. 8.9 months, p = 0.053). Conclusions: Our nation-wide prospective study failed to establish any optimal systemic therapy sequencing in advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma patients. Nevertheless, we provided evidence that immunotherapy has durable efficacy in advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma patients, regardless of treatment line, and that Canadian medical oncologists were selecting the appropriate treatment sequences in a real-world setting, based on patients’ clinical and tumour characteristics.

BRAF inhibitors and their immunological effects in malignant melanoma

INTRODUCTION

The treatment of cutaneous melanoma has been revolutionised by the development of small molecule inhibitors targeting the MAPK pathway, including inhibitors of BRAF (BRAFi) and MEK (MEKi), and immune checkpoint blockade antibodies, occurring in tandem. Despite these advances, the 5-year survival rate for patients with advanced melanoma remains only around 50%. Although not designed to alter immune responses within the tumour microenvironment (TME), MAPK pathway inhibitors (MAPKi) exert a range of effects on the host immune compartment which may offer opportunities for therapeutic interventions.

AREAS COVERED

We review the effects of MAPKi especially BRAFi, on the TME, focussing on alterations in inflammatory cytokine secretion, the recruitment of immune cells and their functions, both during response to BRAFi treatment and as resistance develops. We outline potential combinations of MAPKi with established and experimental treatments.

EXPERT OPINION

MAPKi in combination or in sequence with established treatments such as checkpoint inhibitors, anti-angiogenic agents, or new therapies such as adoptive cell therapies, may augment their immunological effects, reverse tumour-associated immune suppression and offer the prospect of longer-lived clinical responses. Refining therapeutic tools at our disposal and embracing "old friends" in the melanoma treatment arsenal, alongside new target identification, may improve the chances of therapeutic success.

Combined inhibition of HMGCoA reductase and mitochondrial complex I induces tumor regression of BRAF inhibitor-resistant melanomas

BACKGROUND

Primary and posttreatment resistance to BRAFV600 mutation-targeting inhibitors leads to disease relapse in a majority of melanoma patients. In many instances, this resistance is promoted by upregulation of mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation (OxPhos) in melanoma cells. We recently showed that a novel electron transport chain (ETC) complex I inhibitor, IACS-010759 (IACS), abolished OxPhos and significantly inhibited tumor growth of high-OxPhos, BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi)-resistant human melanomas. However, the inhibition was not uniform across different high OxPhos melanomas, and combination with BRAFi did not improve efficacy.

METHODS

We performed a high-throughput unbiased combinatorial drug screen of clinically relevant small molecules to identify the most potent combination agent with IACS for inhibiting the growth of high-OxPhos, BRAFi-resistant melanomas. We performed bioenergetics and carbon-13 metabolite tracing to delineate the metabolic basis of sensitization of melanomas to the combination treatment. We performed xenograft tumor growth studies and Reverse-Phase Protein Array (RPPA)-based functional proteomics analysis of tumors from mice fed with regular or high-fat diet to evaluate in vivo molecular basis of sensitization to the combination treatment.

RESULTS

A combinatorial drug screen and subsequent validation studies identified Atorvastatin (STN), a hydroxymethylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitor (HMGCRi), as the most potent treatment combination with IACS to inhibit in vitro cell growth and induce tumor regression or stasis of some BRAFi-resistant melanomas. Bioenergetics analysis revealed a dependence on fatty acid metabolism in melanomas that responded to the combination treatment. RPPA analysis and carbon-13 tracing analysis in these melanoma cells showed that IACS treatment decreased metabolic fuel utilization for fatty acid metabolism, but increased substrate availability for activation of the mevalonate pathway by HMGCR, creating a dependence on this pathway. Functional proteomic analysis showed that IACS treatment inhibited MAPK but activated AKT pathway. Combination treatment with STN counteracted AKT activation.

CONCLUSIONS

STN and other clinically approved HMGCRi could be promising combinatorial agents for improving the efficacy of ETC inhibitors like IACS in BRAFi-resistant melanomas.

Treatment patterns and outcomes following disease progression on anti-PD-1 therapies for advanced melanoma

Background: Anti-PD-1-based therapies prolong survival in advanced melanoma, but disease progression is common. This study evaluated treatment patterns and overall survival (OS) after anti-PD-1 progression. Methods: Retrospective data from patients with advanced melanoma and progression on anti-PD-1 treatment between 2014 and 2019 were taken from Flatiron Health, which reflects largely community practice. Treatment patterns and OS were analyzed for BRAF mutant (mt) and wild-type (wt) subgroups; OS was also examined across all patients. Results: Progression following anti-PD-1 was recorded for 679 patients. Median OS ranged from 5.0 to 11.3 months. Of 275 BRAFmt and 374 BRAFwt patients, 113 (41.1%) and 228 (61.0%) received no subsequent therapy, respectively. However, 48.4% of BRAFmt and 57.8% of BRAFwt patients continued anti-PD-1 treatment beyond progression. Conclusion: This real-world study underscores the need for effective treatments for advanced melanoma post-progression on anti-PD-1 therapy.

Neratinib kills B-RAF V600E melanoma via ROS-dependent autophagosome formation and death receptor signaling

Melanoma cells expressing mutant B-RAF V600E are susceptible to treatment with the combination of a B-RAF inhibitor and a MEK1/2 inhibitor. We investigated the impact of the ERBB family and MAP4K inhibitor neratinib on the biology of PDX isolates of cutaneous melanoma expressing B-RAF V600E. Neratinib synergized with HDAC inhibitors to kill melanoma cells at their physiologic concentrations. Neratinib activated ATM, AMPK, ULK1, and PERK and inactivated mTORC1/2, ERK1/2, eIF2 alpha, and STAT3. Neratinib increased expression of Beclin1, ATG5, CD95, and FAS-L and decreased levels of multiple toxic BH3 domain proteins, MCL1, BCL-XL, FLIP-s, and ERBB1/2/4. ATG13 S318 phosphorylation and autophagosome formation was dependent upon ATM, and activation of ATM was dependent on reactive oxygen species. Reduced expression of ERBB1/2/4 required autophagosome formation and reduced MCL1/BCL-XL levels required eIF2 alpha phosphorylation. Maximal levels of eIF2 alpha phosphorylation required signaling by ATM-AMPK and autophagosome formation. Knock down of eIF2 alpha, CD95, FAS-L, Beclin1, and ATG5 or over-expression of FLIP-s significantly reduced killing. Combined knock down of Beclin1 and CD95 abolished cell death. Our data demonstrate that PDX melanoma cells expressing B-RAF V600E are susceptible to being killed by neratinib and more so when combined with HDACi.

Durable Response to Vemurafenib and Cobimetinib for the Treatment of BRAF-Mutated Metastatic Melanoma in Routine Clinical Practice

Background

The combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors delays the onset of resistance and provides more sustained and dramatic responses in comparison with a BRAF inhibitor in monotherapy. The objective of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the combination therapy with vemurafenib/cobimetinib in terms of durability, and to describe differential characteristics in patients associated to durable responses in real-world settings.

Patients and Methods

Retrospective, observational, cross-sectional, multicenter study involving 41 patients with advanced melanoma harboring a BRAF^V600 mutation who initiated a combination therapy with vemurafenib/cobimetinib between May 2018 and March 2019. Participants were differentiated regarding the durability of the response: durable (complete response, CR, or a partial response, PR, for at least 12 months) and non-durable (stable disease, SD, progressive disease, PD, or CR/PR <12 months). Secondary endpoints included treatment adherence, labor productivity, anxiety/depression, and safety profile.

Results

During the combination therapy, 12 patients (29.3%) had a CR, 19 a PR (46.3%), 5 showed SD (12.2%), and 5 had PD. A total of 12 patients (29.3%) were considered as achieving a durable response and 29 (70.7%) as a non-durable one. Practically all sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were similar between patients. Body mass index was the only differential factor (with higher body mass index achieving a non-durable response). The treatment adherence was 100% in patients with durable response and 66.7% in those with non-durable.

Conclusion

The combination treatment with vemurafenib/cobimetinib results in an important impact on long-term survival, leading to a steady CR in one-third of the patients.

Cautious addition of targeted therapy to PD-1 inhibitors after initial progression of BRAF mutant metastatic melanoma on checkpoint inhibitor therapy

Background

Virtually all metastatic patients with metastatic melanoma who progress after initial treatment with PD-1 or CTLA-4 directed antibodies will die of their disease. Salvage options are urgently needed. It is theoretically attractive to combine immunotherapy with targeted agents in progressing patients with BRAF mutation positive melanoma, but the toxicity of combined treatment has proven challenging.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of our patient database and identified 23 patients who progressed on initial checkpoint inhibitor treatment, who subsequently had cautious addition of BRAF±MEK inhibitor therapy to continued PD-1 antibody treatment.

Results

We found an objective response rate of 55% in second line therapy, with a median progression-free survival of 33.4 months and median overall survival of 34.1 months, with 40% of patients in unmaintained remission at over 3 years. Ten of 12 responding patients were able to discontinue all therapy and continue in unmaintained remission. Toxicity of this approach was generally manageable (21.7% grade 3–5 toxicity). There was 1 early sudden death for unknown reasons in a responding patient.

Discussion

Our results suggest that 2nd line therapy with PD-1 inhibitors plus BRAF±MEK inhibitors has substantial activity and manageable toxicity. This treatment can induce additional durable complete responses in patients who have progressed on initial immunotherapy. These results suggest further evaluation be performed of sequential PD-1 antibody treatment with cautious addition of targeted therapy in appropriate patients.

Clinical Categorization Algorithm (CLICAL) and Machine Learning Approach (SRF-CLICAL) to Predict Clinical Benefit to Immunotherapy in Metastatic Melanoma Patients: Real-World Evidence from the Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione Pascale, Napoli, Italy

The real-life application of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) may yield different outcomes compared to the benefit presented in clinical trials. For this reason, there is a need to define the group of patients that may benefit from treatment. We retrospectively investigated 578 metastatic melanoma patients treated with ICIs at the Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione "G. Pascale" of Napoli, Italy (INT-NA). To compare patients' clinical variables (i.e., age, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), eosinophil, BRAF status, previous treatment) and their predictive and prognostic power in a comprehensive, non-hierarchical manner, a clinical categorization algorithm (CLICAL) was defined and validated by the application of a machine learning algorithm-survival random forest (SRF-CLICAL). The comprehensive analysis of the clinical parameters by log risk-based algorithms resulted in predictive signatures that could identify groups of patients with great benefit or not, regardless of the ICI received. From a real-life retrospective analysis of metastatic melanoma patients, we generated and validated an algorithm based on machine learning that could assist with the clinical decision of whether or not to apply ICI therapy by defining five signatures of predictability with 95% accuracy.

Real-world effectiveness of pembrolizumab in advanced melanoma: analysis of a French national clinicobiological database

Aim: To describe real-world pembrolizumab administration and outcomes for advanced melanoma in France. Materials & methods: Using the MelBase longitudinal database, this multicenter historical-prospective study examined treatment and outcomes of patients with nonuveal, unresectable stage III/IV melanoma initiating pembrolizumab from April 2016 to September 2017, with follow-up to September 2019. Kaplan-Meier time-to-event analyses were conducted. Results: Of 223 patients (median age 67; 51% men), 134 (60%), 36 (16%) and 53 (24%) initiated pembrolizumab in first-, second- and third-line, respectively. Median overall survival (months) was 32.6 (95% CI: 20.3-not reached [NR]), 14.4 (8.6-NR) and 9.3 (6.4-NR), respectively. Best real-world tumor response of complete or partial response was recorded for 49, 39 and 26% of patients, respectively. Conclusion: Study results support benefits of pembrolizumab therapy for advanced melanoma.

First line immunotherapy extends brain metastasis free survival, improves overall survival, and reduces the incidence of brain metastasis in patients with advanced melanoma

BACKGROUND

Recent advances in targeted therapy and immunotherapy have improved the prognosis of melanoma patients but brain metastasis remains a major challenge. Currently, it is unclear how existing therapies can be best used to prevent or treat brain metastasis in melanoma patients.

AIMS

We aimed to assess brain metastasis free survival (BMFS), overall survival (OS), incidence of brain metastases, and sequencing strategies of immunotherapy and targeted therapy in patients with BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We retrospectively analyzed 683 patients with BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma treated with first line (1L) immunotherapy (N = 266) or targeted therapy (N = 417). The primary outcome was BMFS. Secondary outcomes included OS of all patients and incidence of brain metastases in patients without documented brain metastases prior to 1L therapy. The median BMFS was 13.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 12.4-16.0] among all patients. The median BMFS for patients receiving 1L immunotherapy was 41.9 months [95% CI: 22.8-not reached (NR)] and targeted therapy was 11.0 months (95% CI: 8.8-12.5). Median OS results were qualitatively similar to BMFS results. The cumulative incidence of brain metastases for patients receiving 1L targeted therapy was higher than for patients receiving 1L immunotherapy (P < .001). Patients receiving 1L anti-CTLA4 plus anti-PD1 combination immunotherapy only or followed by second line (2L) targeted therapy had better BMFS (HR 0.40, 95% CI: 0.24-0.67, P = .001), improved OS (HR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.30-0.81, P = .005), and reduced incidence of brain metastases (HR 0.47, 95% CI: 0.24-0.67, P = .047) than patients receiving 1L combination BRAF and MEK targeted therapy followed by 2L immunotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Patients with advanced BRAF mutant melanoma treated with 1L immunotherapy have significantly longer BMFS and OS, and reduced incidence of brain metastases, compared with those treated with 1L targeted therapy. Further studies evaluating the ability of immunotherapy and targeted therapy to improve OS and prevent brain metastases are warranted.

Posterior Reversible Encephalopathy Syndrome (PRES) and Drug-Induced Hypersensitivity Syndrome (DIHS) following Immunotherapy and BRAF/MEK Inhibition with Continued Response in Metastatic Melanoma

Background. The role of immunotherapy continues to evolve across both solid and hematologic malignancies. However, while use of immunotherapy has increased via the advent of checkpoint inhibition, chimeric antigen receptors, and vaccines against malignant cells, there remains uncertainty regarding the recognition and management of delayed immune-related reactions and post treatment immune-related sensitivity to subsequent medications, such as BRAF/MEK kinase inhibitors. Furthermore, it is unclear how immunotherapy may alter the adverse effect profile and efficacy of subsequent lines of treatment. Case Presentation. Discussed is a patient with stage IV metastatic melanoma who failed first-line treatment with a combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab. He was then treated with BRAF/MEK kinase inhibition via Encorafenib and Binimetinib. Shortly thereafter, the patient developed posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES) and a generalized pruritic rash that was biopsied with consideration toward drug reaction versus drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DIHS), formerly called drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS). The BRAF/MEK combination was held and steroid taper initiated with continued response even beyond conclusion of the steroid taper. Discussion and Conclusions. This case highlights the diagnostic challenge presented by PRES and DIHS in the setting of immunotherapy and BRAF/MEK kinase inhibition for malignant melanoma. The clinical rationale for reinitiating therapy following severe immune reactions subsequent to immunotherapy in the setting of relapsed/refractory metastatic melanoma is discussed. Additionally, the durable response our patient experienced throughout the drug hold period and steroid taper and its clinical potential etiologies and applications are reviewed. As checkpoint inhibition and tyrosine-kinase inhibitors have become cornerstones of cancer therapy, larger studies and long-term observations are needed to investigate the risks and benefits across different sequences of therapy.

PD-1 and LAG-3 Checkpoint Blockade: Potential Avenues for Therapy in B-Cell Lymphoma

The dependence of cancer on an immunotolerant tumor microenvironment (TME) is well established. Immunotherapies that overcome tumor-induced immune suppression have been central to recent advancements in oncology. This is highlighted by the success of agents that interrupt PD-1 mediated immune suppression in a range of cancers. However, while PD-1 blockade has been paradigm-shifting in many malignancies, the majority of cancers show high rates of primary resistance to this approach. This has led to a rapid expansion in therapeutic targeting of other immune checkpoint molecules to provide combination immune checkpoint blockade (ICB), with one such promising approach is blockade of Lymphocyte Activation Gene 3 (LAG-3). Clinically, lymphoproliferative disorders show a wide spectrum of responses to ICB. Specific subtypes including classical Hodgkin lymphoma have demonstrated striking efficacy with anti-PD-1 therapy. Conversely, early trials of ICB have been relatively disappointing in common subtypes of Non-Hodgkin lymphoma. In this review, we describe the TME of common lymphoma subtypes with an emphasis on the role of prominent immune checkpoint molecules PD-1 and LAG3. We will also discuss current clinical evidence for ICB in lymphoma and highlight key areas for further investigation where synergistic dual checkpoint blockade of LAG-3 and PD-1 could be used to overcome ICB resistance.

GZ17-6.02 Interacts With [MEK1/2 and B-RAF Inhibitors] to Kill Melanoma Cells

We defined the lethal interaction between the novel therapeutic GZ17-6.02 and the standard of care combination of the MEK1/2 inhibitor trametinib and the B-RAF inhibitor dabrafenib in PDX isolates of cutaneous melanoma expressing a mutant B-RAF V600E protein. GZ17-6.02 interacted with trametinib/dabrafenib in an additive fashion to kill melanoma cells. Regardless of prior vemurafenib resistance, the drugs when combined interacted to prolong ATM S1981/AMPK T172 and eIF2α S51 phosphorylation and prolong the reduced phosphorylation of JAK2 Y1007, STAT3 Y705 and STAT5 Y694. In vemurafenib-resistant cells GZ17-6.02 caused a prolonged reduction in mTORC1 S2448, mTORC2 S2481 and ULK1 S757 phosphorylation; regardless of vemurafenib resistance, GZ17-6.02 caused a prolonged elevation in CD95 and FAS-L expression. Knock down of eIF2α, Beclin1, ATG5, ATM, AMPKα, CD95 or FADD significantly reduced the ability of GZ17-6.02 to kill as a single agent or when combined with the kinase inhibitors. Expression of activated mTOR, activated STAT3, activated MEK1 or activated AKT significantly reduced the ability of GZ17-6.02 to kill as a single agent or when combined with kinase inhibitors; protective effects that were significantly less pronounced in cells treated with trametinib/dabrafenib. Regardless of vemurafenib resistance, the drugs alone or in combination all reduced the expression of PD-L1 and increased the levels of MHCA, which was linked to degradation of multiple HDAC proteins. Our findings support the use of GZ17-6.02 in combination with trametinib/dabrafenib in the treatment of melanomas expressing mutant B-RAF V600E proteins.

Recent advances in molecular targeted therapy for unresectable and metastatic BRAF-mutated melanoma

The clinical outcome of BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma has been improved by both molecular targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors. Long-term follow-up data reveal durable clinical responses in patients receiving first-line combinations of BRAF inhibitors plus MEK inhibitors, particularly those showing a complete response. Clinical outcomes are also associated with the lactate dehydrogenase levels and the number of metastatic organs. Although brain metastasis is frequently difficult to control, systemic therapy is preferred in cases with small and asymptomatic brain metastases associated with progressive extra-cranial disease. Control of intra-cranial disease with BRAF inhibitors plus MEK inhibitors is comparable with that of immune checkpoint inhibitors, although immune checkpoint inhibitors are superior to targeted therapies with respect to survival. The BRAF inhibitors plus MEK inhibitors regimen is well-tolerated, and toxicities are usually manageable and reversible, but differ according to the specific regimen used. Guidelines in the United States, Europe, and Japan recommend targeted therapy for patients who need early tumor responses. A meta-analysis of retrospective data shows that the baseline lactate dehydrogenase level is significantly higher in patients treated with BRAF inhibitors plus MEK inhibitors than in those treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors, suggesting that clinicians tend to use BRAF inhibitors plus MEK inhibitors for more advanced disease. Since there is insufficient efficacy and safety data on the use of targeted therapies for acral and mucosal melanoma, a retrospective analysis may be useful. The combination of molecular targeted therapy plus immune checkpoint inhibitors is expected to elicit further improvement. The results of several trials using combination or sequential therapies will be available in the next few years.

The impact of BRAF mutation status on clinical outcomes with anti-PD-1 monotherapy versus combination ipilimumab/nivolumab in treatment-naïve advanced stage melanoma

Nearly half of all metastatic melanoma patients possess the BRAF V600 mutation. Several therapies are approved for advanced stage melanoma, but it is unclear if there is a differential outcome to various immunotherapy regimens based on BRAF mutation status. We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of metastatic or unresectable melanoma patients who were treated with combination ipilimumab/nivolumab (ipi/nivo) or anti-PD-1 monotherapy, nivolumab, or pembrolizumab, as first-line treatment. 235 previously untreated patients were identified in our study. Our univariate analysis showed no statistical difference in progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) with ipi/nivo versus anti-PD-1 monotherapy in the BRAF V600 mutant cohort, but there was improved PFS [HR: 0.48, 95% CI, 0.28-0.80] and OS [HR: 0.50, 95% CI, 0.26-0.96] with ipi/nivo compared to anti-PD-1 monotherapy in the BRAF WT group. After adjusting for known prognostic variables in our multivariable analysis, the BRAF WT cohort continued to show PFS and OS benefit with ipi/nivo compared to anti-PD-1 monotherapy. Our single-institution analysis suggests ipi/nivo should be considered over anti-PD-1 monotherapy as the initial immunotherapy regimen for metastatic melanoma patients regardless of BRAF mutation status, but possibly with greater benefit in BRAF WT.

First-line immunotherapy versus targeted therapy in patients with BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma: a real-world analysis

Aim: To compare effectiveness of nivolumab + ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) versus BRAF + MEK inhibitors (BRAFi + MEKi) in patients with BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma in the real-world setting. Materials & methods: This study used the Flatiron Health electronic medical record database. Results: After adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics, NIVO + IPI was associated with a 32% reduction in risk of death versus BRAFi + MEKi. At a mean follow-up of 15-16 months, 64% of NIVO + IPI patients and 43% of BRAFi + MEKi patients were alive; subsequent therapy was administered to 33 and 41% of patients, respectively. After first-line NIVO + IPI, 20% of patients died before subsequent therapy, whereas 32% died after first-line BRAFi + MEKi. Conclusion: In this real-world study, patients treated with first-line NIVO + IPI showed significant survival benefit versus those receiving first-line BRAFi + MEKi.

An observational study of drug utilization and associated outcomes among adult patients diagnosed with BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma treated with first-line anti-PD-1 monotherapies or BRAF/MEK inhibitors in a community-based oncology setting

Introduction

Anti‐PD‐1 monotherapies (aPD‐1) and BRAF/MEK inhibitors (BRAF/MEKi) changed the BRAF‐mutant advanced melanoma treatment landscape. This study aimed to improve the understanding of real‐world treatment patterns and optimal treatment sequence.

Methods

This was a retrospective study of BRAF‐mutant advanced melanoma patients who initiated 1L aPD‐1 or BRAF/MEKi in the US Oncology Network between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2017, followed through 31 December 2018. Patient and treatment characteristics were assessed descriptively, with Kaplan‐Meier methods used for time‐to‐event endpoints. As the primary analysis, overall survival (OS) and physician‐assessed progression‐free survival (rwPFS) were evaluated with Cox proportional hazard regression models and propensity score matching (n = 49).

Results

A total of 224 patients were included (median age 61 years, 62.9% male, 89.7% white): 36.2% received aPD‐1 and 63.8% BRAF/MEKi. Median OS and rwPFS were longer among aPD‐1 vs BRAF/MEKi patients (OS: not reached vs 13.9 months, log‐rank P = .0169; rwPFS: 7.6 vs 6.5 months, log‐rank P = .0144). Receipt of aPD‐1 was associated with improved OS (HR = 0.602 vs BRAF/MEKi [95%CI 0.382‐0.949]; P = .0287). Among patients without an event within 6 months of 1L initiation, receipt of aPD‐1 was associated with a decreased risk of progression or death from 6 months onwards (HR = 0.228 [95%CI 0.106‐0.493]; P = .0002). This association was not observed among patients within 6 months of 1L initiation (HR = 1.146; 95% CI 0.755‐1.738). Results from the propensity score‐matched pairs were consistent with these trends.

Conclusion

These results suggest a clinical benefit of 1L aPD‐1 compared to BRAF/MEKi after 6 months of treatment for BRAF‐mutant advanced melanoma. Future research should explore factors associated with early progression and their relationship with clinical outcomes.

Distinct Mutation Patterns Reveal Melanoma Subtypes and Influence Immunotherapy Response in Advanced Melanoma Patients

The detection of somatic driver mutations by next-generation sequencing (NGS) is becoming increasingly important in the care of advanced melanoma patients. In our study, we evaluated the NGS results of 82 melanoma patients from clinical routine in 2017. Besides determining the tumor mutational burden (TMB) and annotation of all genetic driver alterations, we investigated their potential as a predictor for resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and as a distinguishing feature between melanoma subtypes. Melanomas of unknown primary had a similar mutation pattern and TMB to cutaneous melanoma, which hints at its cutaneous origin. Besides the typical hotspot mutation in BRAF and NRAS, we frequently observed CDKN2A deletions. Acral and mucosal melanomas were dominated by CNV alterations affecting PDGFRA, KIT, CDK4, RICTOR, CCND2 and CHEK2. Uveal melanoma often had somatic SNVs in GNA11/Q and amplification of MYC in all cases. A significantly higher incidence of BRAF V600 mutations and EGFR amplifications, PTEN and TP53 deletions was found in patients with disease progression while on ICI. Thus, NGS might help to characterize melanoma subtypes more precisely and to identify possible resistance mechanisms to ICI therapy. Nevertheless, NGS based studies, including larger cohorts, are needed to support potential genetic ICI resistance mechanisms.

Real World Outcomes of Ipilimumab and Nivolumab in Patients with Metastatic Melanoma

Background: Immunotherapy has drastically changed the outlook for melanoma patients over the past decade. Specifically, the dual blockade of immune checkpoints using ipilimumab and nivolumab has shown unprecedented response rates and survival outcomes. This immense achievement, though, is at the cost of toxicity, with 60% of the patients experiencing high-grade adverse events (AEs). Our study aims to report the efficacy and toxicity outcomes of an out-of-trial, real-life population. Methods: Data on metastatic melanoma patients treated with ipilimumab and nivolumab were retrieved from our melanoma database—a single-center prospectively updated, medical-records based oncologic registry. Data included demographics, clinical and pathological information, as well as tumor responses and survival. Associations between patient or treatment characteristics and outcomes were also evaluated. Results: We identified 172 metastatic melanoma patients, of whom 64% were treatment-naïve. The median follow-up was 12 months. The response rates for treatment-naïve and previously-treated patients were 61% and 25%, respectively; median progression-free survival (PFS) were 12.2 and 2.6 months, and median overall survival (OS) were not-reached (NR) and 6.1 months, respectively. The estimated three-year OS for treatment-naïve patients was 58% (95% CI 42–65). At data cutoff, 22% were still on-treatment. Grade 3–4 adverse events (AEs) were reported in 60% of the patients, almost all of whom were exposed to steroid treatments (59%); AEs were fatal in 4 patients, and led to permanent treatment discontinuation in 31%. Factors significantly associated with outcome were cutaneous histology, low lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), low number of metastatic sites, performance status, first line of treatment and number of combinations administered during the induction phase. Conclusions: Despite the profoundly different baseline patient characteristics, the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab is as effective in the real-world population as it was in clinical trials, including long-term outcomes. In addition to confirming the significance of baseline prognostic factors, our study reveals that the number of combinations effectively administered may also be correlated with good outcome.

Long-Term Outcomes in BRAF-Mutated Melanoma Treated with Combined Targeted Therapy or Immune Checkpoint Blockade: Are We Approaching a True Cure?

Approximately 50% of all melanomas harbor an activating BRAF mutation. In patients suffering from an advanced melanoma with such a somatic alteration, combined targeted therapy with a BRAF and MEK inhibitor can be applied to significantly increase the survival probability. Nevertheless, resistance mechanisms, as well as negative predictive biomarkers (elevated lactate dehydrogenase levels, high number of metastatic organ disease sites, brain metastasis), remain a major problem in treating melanoma patients. Recently, a landmark overall survival (OS) rate of 34% after 5 years of combined targeted therapy in treatment-naïve patients was reported. On the other hand, patients harboring a BRAF mutation and receiving first-line immune checkpoint blockade with ipilimumab plus nivolumab showed a 5-year OS rate of 60%. As indicated by these data, long-term survival can be reached in melanoma patients but it remains unclear if this is equivalent to reaching a true cure for metastatic melanoma. In this review, we summarize the recent results for combined targeted therapy and immunotherapy in advanced melanoma harboring an activating BRAF mutation and discuss the impact of baseline characteristics on long-term outcome.

The Current State of Molecular Testing in the BRAF-Mutated Melanoma Landscape

The incidence of melanoma, among the most lethal cancers, is widespread and increasing. Metastatic melanoma has a poor prognosis, representing about 90% of skin cancer mortality. The increased knowledge of tumor biology and the greater understanding of the immune system role in the anti-tumor response has allowed us to develop a more rational approach to systemic therapies. The discovery of activating BRAF mutations in half of all melanomas has led to the development of molecularly targeted therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors, which dramatically improved outcomes of patients with stage IV BRAF-mutant melanoma. More recently, the results of clinical phase III studies conducted in the adjuvant setting led to the combined administration of BRAF and MEK inhibitors also in patients with resected high-risk melanoma (stage III). Therefore, BRAF mutation testing has become a priority to determine the oncologist's choice and course of therapy. In this review, we will report the molecular biology-based strategies used for BRAF mutation detection with the main advantages and disadvantages of the most commonly used diagnostic strategies. The timing of such molecular assessment in patients with cutaneous melanoma will be discussed, and we will also examine considerations and approaches for accurate and effective BRAF testing.

Immunotherapy in the Treatment of Metastatic Melanoma: Current Knowledge and Future Directions

Melanoma is one of the most immunologic malignancies based on its higher prevalence in immune-compromised patients, the evidence of brisk lymphocytic infiltrates in both primary tumors and metastases, the documented recognition of melanoma antigens by tumor-infiltrating T lymphocytes and, most important, evidence that melanoma responds to immunotherapy. The use of immunotherapy in the treatment of metastatic melanoma is a relatively late discovery for this malignancy. Recent studies have shown a significantly higher success rate with combination of immunotherapy and chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or targeted molecular therapy. Immunotherapy is associated to a panel of dysimmune toxicities called immune-related adverse events that can affect one or more organs and may limit its use. Future directions in the treatment of metastatic melanoma include immunotherapy with anti-PD1 antibodies or targeted therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors.

Primary Resistance to PD-1-Based Immunotherapy-A Study in 319 Patients with Stage IV Melanoma

Background: Primary resistance to immunotherapy can be observed in approximately 40–65% of the stage IV melanoma patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. A minority of the patients receive a second-line therapy, and the clinical benefit is small. Patients and methods: Stage IV melanoma patients treated with first-line PD-1-based immunotherapy between January 2015 and December 2018 were investigated. Primary resistance was defined as progressive disease (PD) at the time of the first tumor assessment after starting immunotherapy. Patients with complete response, partial response, and stable disease were classified as having disease control (DC). Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated by Kaplan–Meier estimator. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to determine prognostic factors associated with OS. Results: Three hundred and nineteen patients were included, and 40% had primary resistance to immunotherapy. The median follow-up time was 22 months. Patients with primary resistance had 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS rates of 41%, 15%, and 10%, respectively, compared to 91%, 81%, and 65% for the patients who achieved DC. The following independently significant prognostic factors for OS were identified: protein S100B level and primary tumor localization. There was a statistically significant difference for OS (p < 0.0001) but not for PFS (p = 0.230) when analyzing risk groups formed with a combination of these two variables (low-, intermediate-, and high-risk subgroups). Conclusions: Melanoma patients with primary resistance to immunotherapy have a dismal prognosis. Response at the first tumor assessment after starting immunotherapy is a stronger prognostic factor for the further course of the disease than pretreatment risk factors.

Trend and socioeconomic disparities in survival outcome of metastatic melanoma after approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

The approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) for metastatic melanoma in 2011 has changed the treatment landscape of this disease. However, current trend of the population-based survival remains unclear.

METHODS

8078 patients with metastatic melanoma diagnosed in the pre-ICI (2005-2010) and post-ICI period (2011-2016) were enrolled from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program for survival comparison. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to reduce selection bias. Cox proportional hazards model was applied for identifying survival-related factors and constructing a prognostic nomogram. The accuracy of the nomogram was determined by concordance index (C-index), calibration curves, and validated by an internal cohort.

RESULTS

Patients in the post-ICI period had a significantly longer median overall survival (OS) than those in the pre-ICI period, even after performing PSM between the two periods. We also found socioeconomic disparities in the survival improvement. Significant differences in OS between the two periods were only observed in cases with medical insurance and patients living in urban or low-poverty area, but not uninsured cases and patients from rural or high-poverty area. For patients in the post-ICI period, multivariate analysis demonstrated that socioeconomic and insurance status were independent prognostic factors, which can be combined with other clinical variates into a nomogram for OS prediction with promising C-index of 0.672 and 0.650 in the training- and testing cohort, respectively.

CONCLUSION

An overall trend to favorable survival at the population level and socioeconomic disparities in the survival trend are observed in metastatic melanoma after the ICI approval. The proposed nomogram is available for prognostication in the current melanoma management.

Real-world survival of patients with advanced BRAF V600 mutated melanoma treated with front-line BRAF/MEK inhibitors, anti-PD-1 antibodies, or nivolumab/ipilimumab

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment sequence for patients with advanced BRAF V600 mutant melanoma is unknown. BRAF/MEK inhibition (BRAF/MEKi), single agent anti-PD-1 (aPD-1) antibodies and combination immune checkpoint inhibition with nivolumab and ipilimumab (niv/ipi) are all approved; however, they have not been prospectively compared. Therefore, we sought to compare overall survival of patients with advanced BRAF mutant melanoma treated with either front-line BRAF/MEKi, aPD-1, or niv/ipi.

METHODS

Patients with advanced BRAF mutant melanoma who had received BRAF/MEKi, niv/ipi, or aPD-1 in the front-line setting were identified from a nationwide database comprising de-identified patient-level structured and unstructured data derived from electronic health records. Survival was compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank analysis. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression models were used to measure the effect of front-line treatment, age (>64 or not), LDH (elevated or not), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (>1 or not) on survival.

RESULTS

Five hundred and sixty seven patients with advanced disease and treated with front-line aPD-1 (n = 162), BRAF/MEKi (n = 297) or niv/ipi (n = 108) were identified. With a median follow-up of 22.4 months, median overall survival (OS) for patients treated with front-line niv/ipi was not reached (NR) while median OS for patients treated with aPD-1 or BRAF/MEKi was 39.5 months and 13.2 months, respectively. Front-line treatment with PD-1 and niv/ipi were associated with statistically longer survival than BRAF/MEKi in multivariate analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

In our real-world retrospective analysis, patients with advanced BRAF mutant melanoma treated with front-line niv/ipi or aPD-1 had longer survival compared to those treated with front-line BRAF/MEKi.