Phase 2 study of sunitinib in patients with metastatic mucosal or acral melanoma

VEGF/VEGFR axis and its signaling in melanoma: Current knowledge toward therapeutic targeting agents and future perspectives

Melanoma is responsible for most skin cancer-associated deaths globally. The progression of melanoma is influenced by a number of pathogenic processes. Understanding the VEGF/VEGFR axis, which includes VEGF-A, PlGF, VEGF-B, VEGF-C, and VEGF-D and their receptors, VEGFR-1, VEGFR-2, and VEGFR-3, is of great importance in melanoma due to its crucial role in angiogenesis. This axis generates multifactorial and complex cellular signaling, engaging the MAPK/ERK, PI3K/AKT, PKC, PLC-γ, and FAK signaling pathways. Melanoma cell growth and proliferation, migration and metastasis, survival, and acquired resistance to therapy are influenced by this axis. The VEGF/VEGFR axis was extensively examined for their potential as diagnostic/prognostic biomarkers in melanoma patients and results showed that VEGF overexpression can be associated with unfavorable prognosis, higher level of tumor invasion and poor response to therapy. MicroRNAs linking to the VEGF/VEGFR axis were identified and, in this review, divided into two categories according to their functions, some of them promote melanoma angiogenesis (promotive group) and some restrict melanoma angiogenesis (protective group). In addition, the approach of treating melanoma by targeting the VEGF/VEGFR axis has garnered significant interest among researchers. These agents can be divided into two main groups: anti-VEGF and VEGFR inhibitors. These therapeutic options may be a prominent step along with the modern targeting and immune therapies for better coverage of pathological processes leading to melanoma progression and therapy resistance.

Clinical practice guidelines for molecular tumor marker, 2nd edition review part 2

In recent years, rapid advancement in gene/protein analysis technology has resulted in target molecule identification that may be useful in cancer treatment. Therefore, "Clinical Practice Guidelines for Molecular Tumor Marker, Second Edition" was published in Japan in September 2021. These guidelines were established to align the clinical usefulness of external diagnostic products with the evaluation criteria of the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency. The guidelines were scoped for each tumor, and a clinical questionnaire was developed based on a serious clinical problem. This guideline was based on a careful review of the evidence obtained through a literature search, and recommendations were identified following the recommended grades of the Medical Information Network Distribution Services (Minds). Therefore, this guideline can be a tool for cancer treatment in clinical practice. We have already reported the review portion of "Clinical Practice Guidelines for Molecular Tumor Marker, Second Edition" as Part 1. Here, we present the English version of each part of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for Molecular Tumor Marker, Second Edition.

Nilotinib in KIT-driven advanced melanoma: Results from the phase II single-arm NICAM trial

Mucosal (MM) and acral melanomas (AM) are rare melanoma subtypes of unmet clinical need; 15%-20% harbor KIT mutations potentially targeted by small-molecule inhibitors, but none yet approved in melanoma. This multicenter, single-arm Phase II trial (NICAM) investigates nilotinib safety and activity in KIT mutated metastatic MM and AM. KIT mutations are identified in 39/219 screened patients (18%); of 29/39 treated, 26 are evaluable for primary analysis. Six patients were alive and progression free at 6 months (local radiology review, 25%); 5/26 (19%) had objective response at 12 weeks; median OS was 7.7 months; ddPCR assay correctly identifies KIT alterations in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in 16/17 patients. Nilotinib is active in KIT-mutant AM and MM, comparable to other KIT inhibitors, with demonstrable activity in nonhotspot KIT mutations, supporting broadening of KIT evaluation in AM and MM. Our results endorse further investigations of nilotinib for the treatment of KIT-mutated melanoma. This clinical trial was registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN39058880) and EudraCT (2009-012945-49).

Multidisciplinary approach and treatment of acral and mucosal melanoma

Acral and mucosal melanoma are uncommon variants of melanoma. Acral melanoma has an age-adjusted incidence of approximately 1.8 cases per million individuals per year, accounting for about 2% to 3% of all melanoma cases. On the other hand, mucosal melanoma, with an incidence of 2.2 cases per million per year, makes up around 1.3% of all melanoma cases. These melanomas, in addition to being biologically and clinically distinct from cutaneous melanoma, share certain clinical and pathologic characteristics. These include a more aggressive nature and a less favorable prognosis. Furthermore, they exhibit a different mutational pattern, with KIT mutations being more prevalent in acral and mucosal melanomas. This divergence in mutational patterns may partially account for the relatively poorer prognosis, particularly to immune checkpoint inhibitors. This review explores various aspects of acral and mucosal melanoma, including their clinical presentation, pathologic features, mutational profiles, current therapeutic approaches, outcomes associated with systemic therapy, and potential strategies to address resistance to existing treatments.

Anorectal mucosal melanoma

Anorectal mucosal melanoma accounts for less than 1 % of all anorectal malignant tumors and a tendency for delayed diagnosis leads to advanced disease at presentation.1,2 Due to the rarity of the disease, there are limited prospective trials exploring the optimal treatment strategies. Generally, tumors are surgically excised, with a preference for conservative management with wide local excision. In the past decade, there have been advances with immunotherapy and other targeted therapies. Multiple clinical trials continue exploring neoadjuvant/adjuvant combination treatments in the setting of advanced or unresectable disease.

Advances in targeted therapy and immunotherapy for melanoma (Review)

Melanoma is the most aggressive and deadly type of skin cancer and is known for its poor prognosis as soon as metastasis occurs. Since 2011, new and effective therapies for metastatic melanoma have emerged, with US Food and Drug Administration approval of multiple targeted agents, such as V-Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1/mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase inhibitors and multiple immunotherapy agents, such as cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4 and anti-programmed cell death protein 1/ligand 1 blockade. Based on insight into the respective advantages of the above two strategies, the present article provided a review of clinical trials of the application of targeted therapy and immunotherapy, as well as novel approaches of their combinations for the treatment of metastatic melanoma in recent years, with a focus on upcoming initiatives to improve the efficacy of these treatment approaches for metastatic melanoma.

The role of angiogenesis in melanoma: Clinical treatments and future expectations

The incidence of melanoma has increased rapidly over the past few decades, with mortality accounting for more than 75% of all skin cancers. The high metastatic potential of Melanoma is an essential factor in its high mortality. Vascular angiogenic system has been proved to be crucial for the metastasis of melanoma. An in-depth understanding of angiogenesis will be of great benefit to melanoma treatment and may promote the development of melanoma therapies. This review summarizes the recent advances and challenges of anti-angiogenic agents, including monoclonal antibodies, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, human recombinant Endostatin, and traditional Chinese herbal medicine. We hope to provide a better understanding of the mechanisms, clinical research progress, and future research directions of melanoma.

Advanced Acral Melanoma Therapies: Current Status and Future Directions

Melanoma is one of the deadliest malignancies. Its incidence has been significantly increasing in most countries in recent decades. Acral melanoma (AM), a peculiar subgroup of melanoma occurring on the palms, soles, and nails, is the main subtype of melanoma in people of color and is extremely rare in Caucasians. Although great progress has been made in melanoma treatment in recent years, patients with AM have shown limited benefit from current therapies and thus consequently have worse overall survival rates. Achieving durable therapeutic responses in this high-risk melanoma subtype represents one of the greatest challenges in the field. The frequency of BRAF mutations in AM is much lower than that in cutaneous melanoma, which prevents most AM patients from receiving treatment with BRAF inhibitors. However, AM has more frequent mutations such as KIT and CDK4/6, so targeted therapy may still improve the survival of some AM patients in the future. AM may be less susceptible to immune checkpoint inhibitors because of the poor immunogenicity. Therefore, how to enhance the immune response to the tumor cells may be the key to the application of immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced AM. Anti-angiogenic drugs, albumin paclitaxel, or interferons are thought to enhance the effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Combination therapies based on the backbone of PD-1 are more likely to provide greater clinical benefits. Understanding the molecular landscapes and immune microenvironment of AM will help optimize our combinatory strategies.

The pharmacotherapeutic management of nail unit and acral melanomas

INTRODUCTION

Acral and nail unit melanomas are rare subtypes of melanoma, which have poor prognoses. Current guidelines for optimal treatment are lacking. Recent clinical trials have evaluated new pharmacotherapeutic agents for melanoma treatment, with dramatically improved survival rates; however, studies on acral and nail unit melanomas are limited in comparison to trials on cutaneous melanoma.

AREAS COVERED

This is a comprehensive review of the literature regarding the available treatment options for acral and nail unit melanomas, with consideration of safety and tolerability.

EXPERT OPINION

Programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitors are more efficacious than cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 blockers in acral and nail unit melanomas, although both are well-tolerated. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors have good clinical activity, however, data on safety is relatively limited. There is minimal data on high dose interferon α-2b and cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitors, and efficacy and safety must be evaluated in future trials before they can be recommended for use in this patient population. Prospective clinical trials on acral and nail unit melanomas are lacking, and must be performed in large patient populations, with international collaboration likely necessary in order to enroll adequate participants.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of genomic alterations in acral melanoma

Acral melanoma (AM) tumors arise on the palms, soles, fingers, toes, and nailbeds. A comprehensive systematic meta-analysis of AM genomic aberrations has not been conducted to date. A literature review was carried out to identify studies sequencing AM. Whole-genome/exome data from 181 samples were identified. Targeted panel sequencing data from MSK-IMPACT were included as a validation cohort (n = 92), and studies using targeted hot spot sequencing were also collated for BRAF (n = 26 studies), NRAS (n = 21), and KIT (n = 32). Statistical analysis indicated BRAF, NRAS, PTEN, TYRP1, and KIT as significantly mutated genes. Frequent copy-number aberrations were also found for important cancer genes, such as CDKN2A, KIT, MDM2, CCND1, CDK4, and PAK1, among others. Mapping genomic alterations within the context of the hallmarks of cancer identified four components frequently altered, including (i) sustained proliferative signaling and (ii) evading growth suppression, (iii) genome instability and mutation, and (iv) enabling replicative immortality. This analysis provides the largest analysis of genomic aberrations in AM in the literature to date and highlights pathways that may be therapeutically targetable.

More than just acral melanoma: the controversies of defining the disease

Acral melanoma (AM) is a malignant cutaneous melanocytic tumour specifically located on the palms, soles, and nail apparatus, which are areas of glabrous (hairless) skin. Acral lentiginous melanoma, a subtype of AM, represents a histopathological subtype diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma with unique morphological and structural features. Despite clear definitions, the misuse of these terms and the inconsistency in reporting the histopathological features of AM cases have become a major obstacle to the study of the disease. In this review, we discuss the epidemiology, histopathological features, prognosis, and genetic profile of AM, highlighting the differences observed when histopathological subtypes are considered. The increasing global effort to characterise AM cases from ethnically diverse populations would benefit greatly from a more consistent classification of the disease.

c-Kit inhibitors for unresectable or metastatic mucosal, acral or chronically sun-damaged melanoma: a systematic review and one-arm meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Activating genomic alterations of the receptor tyrosine kinase KIT are found preferentially in certain melanoma subtypes such as acral and mucosal melanoma or melanoma arising in chronically sun-damaged skin. However, the therapeutic value of c-Kit inhibitors for these subtypes currently remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to summarise the efficacy and safety of c-Kit inhibitors for unresectable or metastatic mucosal, acral or chronically sun-damaged melanoma.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature research in MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL and hand searched pertinent trial registers and conference abstracts for eligible trials until 23rd June 2020. Results were pooled using a random-effects model to calculate pooled proportions of objective response rates (ORRs) and severe adverse events (sAEs) from unselected KIT mutant or amplified cohorts.

RESULTS

Nineteen single-arm studies with an overall sample size of 601 patients were included. The studies investigated imatinib (n = 8), nilotinib (n = 7), dasatinib (n = 3) and sunitinib (n = 1). The pooled ORR for all inhibitors was 15% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12-18%). Subgroup analysis revealed the highest ORR (20%; 95% CI: 14-26%) for nilotinib. The ORR for mucosal melanoma was 14% (95% CI: 6-24%) and 22% for acral lentiginous melanoma (95% CI: 14-30%). At least one sAE was reported in 42% of patients (95% CI: 34-50%).

CONCLUSIONS

c-Kit inhibitors represent a valuable treatment option for patients with KIT-mutant melanoma, in particular for mutations of exons 11 and 13. Furthermore, high-quality trials are urgently needed to investigate putative combinations of specific targeted therapies with immunotherapy.

Hypoxia-dependent drivers of melanoma progression

Hypoxia, a condition of low oxygen availability, is a hallmark of tumour microenvironment and promotes cancer progression and resistance to therapy. Many studies reported the essential role of hypoxia in regulating invasiveness, angiogenesis, vasculogenic mimicry and response to therapy in melanoma. Melanoma is an aggressive cancer originating from melanocytes located in the skin (cutaneous melanoma), in the uveal tract of the eye (uveal melanoma) or in mucosal membranes (mucosal melanoma). These three subtypes of melanoma represent distinct neoplasms in terms of biology, epidemiology, aetiology, molecular profile and clinical features.In this review, the latest progress in hypoxia-regulated pathways involved in the development and progression of all melanoma subtypes were discussed. We also summarized current knowledge on preclinical studies with drugs targeting Hypoxia-Inducible Factor-1, angiogenesis or vasculogenic mimicry. Finally, we described available evidence on clinical studies investigating the use of Hypoxia-Inducible Factor-1 inhibitors or antiangiogenic drugs, alone or in combination with other strategies, in metastatic and adjuvant settings of cutaneous, uveal and mucosal melanoma.Hypoxia-Inducible Factor-independent pathways have been also reported to regulate melanoma progression, but this issue is beyond the scope of this review.As evident from the numerous studies discussed in this review, the increasing knowledge of hypoxia-regulated pathways in melanoma progression and the promising results obtained from novel antiangiogenic therapies, could offer new perspectives in clinical practice in order to improve survival outcomes of melanoma patients.

RTK Inhibitors in Melanoma: From Bench to Bedside

MAPK (mitogen activated protein kinase) and PI3K/AKT (Phosphatidylinositol-3-Kinase and Protein Kinase B) pathways play a key role in melanoma progression and metastasis that are regulated by receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs). Although RTKs are mutated in a small percentage of melanomas, several receptors were found up regulated/altered in various stages of melanoma initiation, progression, or metastasis. Targeting RTKs remains a significant challenge in melanoma, due to their variable expression across different melanoma stages of progression and among melanoma subtypes that consequently affect response to treatment and disease progression. In this review, we discuss in details the activation mechanism of several key RTKs: type III: c-KIT (mast/stem cell growth factor receptor); type I: EGFR (Epidermal growth factor receptor); type VIII: HGFR (hepatocyte growth factor receptor); type V: VEGFR (Vascular endothelial growth factor), structure variants, the function of their structural domains, and their alteration and its association with melanoma initiation and progression. Furthermore, several RTK inhibitors targeting the same receptor were tested alone or in combination with other therapies, yielding variable responses among different melanoma groups. Here, we classified RTK inhibitors by families and summarized all tested drugs in melanoma indicating the rationale behind the use of these drugs in each melanoma subgroups from preclinical studies to clinical trials with a specific focus on their purpose of treatment, resulted effect, and outcomes.

Potential of substituted quinazolines to interact with multiple targets in the treatment of cancer

The efficacy of quinazoline-based antiglioma agents has been attributed to their effects on microtubule dynamics.1,2 The design, synthesis and biological evaluation of quinazolines as potent inhibitors of multiple intracellular targets, including microtubules and multiple RTKs, is described. In addition to the known ability of quinazolines 1 and 2 to cause microtubule depolymerization, they were found to be low nanomolar inhibitors of EGFR, VEGFR-2 and PDGFR-β. Low nanomolar inhibition of EGFR was observed for 1-3 and 9-10. Compounds 1 and 4 inhibited VEGFR-2 kinase with activity better than or equal to that of sunitinib. In addition, compounds 1 and 2 had similar potency to sunitinib in the CAM angiogenesis assay. Multitarget activities of compounds in the present study demonstrates that the quinazolines can affect multiple pathways and could lead to these agents having antitumor potential caused by their activity against multiple targets.

Characterization of genetics in patients with mucosal melanoma treated with immune checkpoint blockade

Mucosal melanoma is a rare form of melanoma which arises from melanocytes in the mucosal membranes and can be effectively treated with immune checkpoint blockade (ICB). However, response rates in mucosal melanoma are lower than those observed for cutaneous melanomas.

Targeted sequencing of up to 447 genes (OncoPanel) was performed on tumors from all mucosal melanoma patients seen at the Dana‐Farber Cancer Institute from 2011 until March 2019.

We identified a total of 46 patients who received ICB with both tumor‐genotype and ICB response data available. Within this cohort of patients, 16 (35%) had durable clinical benefit (DCB) to their first line of ICB. The average mutational burden/megabase was 6.23 and did not correlate with tumor response to ICB. Patients with KIT aberrations had a higher DCB rate compared with patients with wildtype KIT (71 vs. 28%), but this was not found to be statistically significant. For comparison, we analyzed tumor genotypes from an additional 50 mucosal melanoma tumors and 189 cutaneous melanoma tumors. The most frequent mutations in mucosal melanoma were in SF3B1 (27%), KIT (18%), and NF1 (17%), a pattern that is distinct from cutaneous melanomas. In addition, there were genetic differences observed based upon the site of origin of the mucosal melanoma.

Our findings explore clinical features of response in patients with mucosal melanoma treated with ICB and demonstrate a low mutational burden that does not correlate with response. In addition, the lack of significant association between the genetic aberrations tested and response to ICB indicates the need for further exploration in this patient population.

Molecular targets for anticancer therapies in companion animals and humans: what can we learn from each other?

Despite clinical successes in the treatment of some early stage cancers, it is undeniable that novel and innovative approaches are needed to aid in the fight against cancer. Targeted therapies offer the desirable feature of tumor specificity while sparing healthy tissues, thereby minimizing side effects. However, the success rate of translation of these therapies from the preclinical setting to the clinic is dramatically low, highlighting an important point of necessary improvement in the drug development process in the oncology field. The practice of a comparative oncology approach can address some of the current issues, by introducing companion animals with spontaneous tumors in the linear drug development programs. In this way, animals from the veterinary clinic get access to novel/innovative therapies, otherwise inaccessible, while generating robust data to aid therapy refinement and increase translational success. In this review, we present an overview of targetable membrane proteins expressed in the most well-characterized canine and feline solid cancers, greatly resembling the counterpart human malignancies. We identified particular areas in which a closer collaboration between the human and veterinary clinic would benefit both human and veterinary patients. Considerations and challenges to implement comparative oncology in the development of anticancer targeted therapies are also discussed.

Druggable targets meet oncogenic drivers: opportunities and limitations of target-based classification of tumors and the role of Molecular Tumor Boards

The therapeutic landscape of cancer is changing rapidly due to the growing number of approved drugs capable of targeting specific genetic alterations. This aspect, together with the development of noninvasive methods for the assessment of somatic mutations in the peripheral blood of patients, generated a growing interest toward a new tumor-agnostic classification system based on ‘predictive’ biomarkers. The current review article discusses this emerging alternative approach to the classification of cancer and its implications for the selection of treatments. It is suggested that different types of cancers sharing the same molecular profiles could benefit from the same targeted drugs. Although recent clinical trials have demonstrated that this approach cannot be generalized, there are also specific examples that demonstrate the clinical utility of this alternative vision. In this rapidly evolving scenario, a multidisciplinary approach managed by institutional Molecular Tumor Boards is fundamental to interpret the biological and clinical relevance of genetic alterations and the complexity of their relationship with treatment response.

•

The identification of oncogenic drivers offers the opportunity to develop target-specific drugs.

•

The inhibition of crucial pathways realizes the principle of druggable target to exploit cancer vulnerability.

•

The approval of new anticancer agents based on target-based concept represents a paradigm shift in cancer therapy.

•

However, only few drugs have been approved so far on an agnostic basis and the concept of biomarker cannot be generalized.

•

Tumor Molecular Boards will have an increasing role in the identification of new therapeutic options in selected patients.

Non-BRAF Mutant Melanoma: Molecular Features and Therapeutical Implications

Melanoma is one of the most aggressive tumors of the skin, and its incidence is growing worldwide. Historically considered a drug resistant disease, since 2011 the therapeutic landscape of melanoma has radically changed. Indeed, the improved knowledge of the immune system and its interactions with the tumor, and the ever more thorough molecular characterization of the disease, has allowed the development of immunotherapy on the one hand, and molecular target therapies on the other. The increased availability of more performing technologies like Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS), and the availability of increasingly large genetic panels, allows the identification of several potential therapeutic targets. In light of this, numerous clinical and preclinical trials are ongoing, to identify new molecular targets. Here, we review the landscape of mutated non-BRAF skin melanoma, in light of recent data deriving from Whole-Exome Sequencing (WES) or Whole-Genome Sequencing (WGS) studies on melanoma cohorts for which information on the mutation rate of each gene was available, for a total of 10 NGS studies and 992 samples, focusing on available, or in experimentation, targeted therapies beyond those targeting mutated BRAF. Namely, we describe 33 established and candidate driver genes altered with frequency greater than 1.5%, and the current status of targeted therapy for each gene. Only 1.1% of the samples showed no coding mutations, whereas 30% showed at least one mutation in the RAS genes (mostly NRAS) and 70% showed mutations outside of the RAS genes, suggesting potential new roads for targeted therapy. Ongoing clinical trials are available for 33.3% of the most frequently altered genes.

Antitumor Activity of a Novel Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor AIU2001 Due to Abrogation of the DNA Damage Repair in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Cells

Class III receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) inhibitors targeting mainly FLT3 or c-KIT have not been well studied in lung cancer. To identify a small molecule potentially targeting class III RTK, we synthesized novel small molecule compounds and identified 5-(4-bromophenyl)-N-(naphthalen-1-yl) oxazol-2-amine (AIU2001) as a novel class III RKT inhibitor. In an in vitro kinase profiling assay, AIU2001 inhibited the activities of FLT3, mutated FLT3, FLT4, and c-KIT of class III RTK, and the proliferation of NSCLC cells in vitro and in vivo. AIU2001 induced DNA damage, reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation, and cell cycle arrest in the G2/M phase. Furthermore, AIU2001 suppressed the DNA damage repair genes, resulting in the ‘BRCAness’/‘DNA-PKness’ phenotype. The mRNA expression level of STAT5 was downregulated by AIU2001 treatment and knockdown of STAT5 inhibited the DNA repair genes. Our results show that compared to either drug alone, the combination of AIU2001 with a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib or irradiation showed synergistic efficacy in H1299 and A549 cells. Hence, our findings demonstrate that AIU2001 is a candidate therapeutic agent for NSCLC and combination therapies with AIU2001 and a PARP inhibitor or radiotherapy may be used to increase the therapeutic efficacy of AIU2001 due to inhibition of DNA damage repair.

Receptor tyrosine kinases in PI3K signaling: The therapeutic targets in cancer

The phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) pathway, one of the most commonly activated signaling pathways in human cancers, plays a crucial role in the regulation of cell proliferation, differentiation, and survival. This pathway is usually activated by receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs), whose constitutive and aberrant activation is via gain-of-function mutations, chromosomal rearrangement, gene amplification and autocrine. Blockage of PI3K pathway by targeted therapy on RTKs with tyrosine kinases inhibitors (TKIs) and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) has achieved great progress in past decades; however, there still remain big challenges during their clinical application. In this review, we provide an overview about the most frequently encountered alterations in RTKs and focus on current therapeutic agents developed to counteract their aberrant functions, accompanied with discussions of two major challenges to the RTKs-targeted therapy in cancer - resistance and toxicity.

Melanoma

Cutaneous melanoma causes 55 500 deaths annually. The incidence and mortality rates of the disease differ widely across the globe depending on access to early detection and primary care. Once melanoma has spread, this type of cancer rapidly becomes life-threatening. For more than 40 years, few treatment options were available, and clinical trials during that time were all unsuccessful. Over the past 10 years, increased biological understanding and access to innovative therapeutic substances have transformed advanced melanoma into a new oncological model for treating solid cancers. Treatments that target B-Raf proto-oncogene serine/threonine-kinase (BRAF)V600 (Val600) mutations using selected BRAF inhibitors combined with mitogen-activated protein kinase inhibitors have significantly improved response and overall survival. Furthermore, advanced cutaneous melanoma has developed into a prototype for testing checkpoint-modulating agents, which has increased hope for long-term tumour containment and a potential cure. These expectations have been sustained by clinical success with targeted agents and antibodies that block programmed cell-death protein 1 in locoregional disease, which induces prolongation of relapse-free, distant-metastasis-free, and overall survival times.

Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma

BACKGROUND

The prognosis of people with metastatic cutaneous melanoma, a skin cancer, is generally poor. Recently, new classes of drugs (e.g. immune checkpoint inhibitors and small-molecule targeted drugs) have significantly improved patient prognosis, which has drastically changed the landscape of melanoma therapeutic management. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2000.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to October 2017: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers and the ASCO database in February 2017, and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered RCTs of systemic therapies for people with unresectable lymph node metastasis and distant metastatic cutaneous melanoma compared to any other treatment. We checked the reference lists of selected articles to identify further references to relevant trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data, and a third review author independently verified extracted data. We implemented a network meta-analysis approach to make indirect comparisons and rank treatments according to their effectiveness (as measured by the impact on survival) and harm (as measured by occurrence of high-grade toxicity). The same two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of eligible studies according to Cochrane standards and assessed evidence quality based on the GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 122 RCTs (28,561 participants). Of these, 83 RCTs, encompassing 21 different comparisons, were included in meta-analyses. Included participants were men and women with a mean age of 57.5 years who were recruited from hospital settings. Twenty-nine studies included people whose cancer had spread to their brains. Interventions were categorised into five groups: conventional chemotherapy (including single agent and polychemotherapy), biochemotherapy (combining chemotherapy with cytokines such as interleukin-2 and interferon-alpha), immune checkpoint inhibitors (such as anti-CTLA4 and anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies), small-molecule targeted drugs used for melanomas with specific gene changes (such as BRAF inhibitors and MEK inhibitors), and other agents (such as anti-angiogenic drugs). Most interventions were compared with chemotherapy. In many cases, trials were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies producing the tested drug: this was especially true for new classes of drugs, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors and small-molecule targeted drugs.When compared to single agent chemotherapy, the combination of multiple chemotherapeutic agents (polychemotherapy) did not translate into significantly better survival (overall survival: HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.16, 6 studies, 594 participants; high-quality evidence; progression-free survival: HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.25, 5 studies, 398 participants; high-quality evidence. Those who received combined treatment are probably burdened by higher toxicity rates (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.71, 3 studies, 390 participants; moderate-quality evidence). (We defined toxicity as the occurrence of grade 3 (G3) or higher adverse events according to the World Health Organization scale.)Compared to chemotherapy, biochemotherapy (chemotherapy combined with both interferon-alpha and interleukin-2) improved progression-free survival (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99, 6 studies, 964 participants; high-quality evidence), but did not significantly improve overall survival (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.06, 7 studies, 1317 participants; high-quality evidence). Biochemotherapy had higher toxicity rates (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.61, 2 studies, 631 participants; high-quality evidence).With regard to immune checkpoint inhibitors, anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies plus chemotherapy probably increased the chance of progression-free survival compared to chemotherapy alone (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.92, 1 study, 502 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but may not significantly improve overall survival (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.01, 2 studies, 1157 participants; low-quality evidence). Compared to chemotherapy alone, anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies is likely to be associated with higher toxicity rates (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.42, 2 studies, 1142 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Compared to chemotherapy, anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies (immune checkpoint inhibitors) improved overall survival (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.48, 1 study, 418 participants; high-quality evidence) and probably improved progression-free survival (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.61, 2 studies, 957 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies may also result in less toxicity than chemotherapy (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.97, 3 studies, 1360 participants; low-quality evidence).Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies performed better than anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies in terms of overall survival (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.66, 1 study, 764 participants; high-quality evidence) and progression-free survival (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.60, 2 studies, 1465 participants; high-quality evidence). Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies may result in better toxicity outcomes than anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.91, 2 studies, 1465 participants; low-quality evidence).Compared to anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies alone, the combination of anti-CTLA4 plus anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies was associated with better progression-free survival (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.46, 2 studies, 738 participants; high-quality evidence). There may be no significant difference in toxicity outcomes (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.92, 2 studies, 764 participants; low-quality evidence) (no data for overall survival were available).The class of small-molecule targeted drugs, BRAF inhibitors (which are active exclusively against BRAF-mutated melanoma), performed better than chemotherapy in terms of overall survival (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.57, 2 studies, 925 participants; high-quality evidence) and progression-free survival (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.34, 2 studies, 925 participants; high-quality evidence), and there may be no significant difference in toxicity (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.33, 2 studies, 408 participants; low-quality evidence).Compared to chemotherapy, MEK inhibitors (which are active exclusively against BRAF-mutated melanoma) may not significantly improve overall survival (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.25, 3 studies, 496 participants; low-quality evidence), but they probably lead to better progression-free survival (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.80, 3 studies, 496 participants; moderate-quality evidence). However, MEK inhibitors probably have higher toxicity rates (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.41, 1 study, 91 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Compared to BRAF inhibitors, the combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors was associated with better overall survival (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.82, 4 studies, 1784 participants; high-quality evidence). BRAF plus MEK inhibitors was also probably better in terms of progression-free survival (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.71, 4 studies, 1784 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and there appears likely to be no significant difference in toxicity (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.20, 4 studies, 1774 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Compared to chemotherapy, the combination of chemotherapy plus anti-angiogenic drugs was probably associated with better overall survival (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.81; moderate-quality evidence) and progression-free survival (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.92; moderate-quality evidence). There may be no difference in terms of toxicity (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.09 to 5.32; low-quality evidence). All results for this comparison were based on 324 participants from 2 studies.Network meta-analysis focused on chemotherapy as the common comparator and currently approved treatments for which high- to moderate-quality evidence of efficacy (as represented by treatment effect on progression-free survival) was available (based on the above results) for: biochemotherapy (with both interferon-alpha and interleukin-2); anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies; anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies; anti-CTLA4 plus anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies; BRAF inhibitors; MEK inhibitors, and BRAF plus MEK inhibitors. Analysis (which included 19 RCTs and 7632 participants) generated 21 indirect comparisons.The best evidence (moderate-quality evidence) for progression-free survival was found for the following indirect comparisons:• both combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.51) and small-molecule targeted drugs (HR 0.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.26) probably improved progression-free survival compared to chemotherapy;• both BRAF inhibitors (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.68) and combinations of small-molecule targeted drugs (HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.39) were probably associated with better progression-free survival compared to anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies;• biochemotherapy (HR 2.81, 95% CI 1.76 to 4.51) probably lead to worse progression-free survival compared to BRAF inhibitors;• the combination of small-molecule targeted drugs probably improved progression-free survival (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.68) compared to anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies;• both biochemotherapy (HR 5.05, 95% CI 3.01 to 8.45) and MEK inhibitors (HR 3.16, 95% CI 1.77 to 5.65) were probably associated with worse progression-free survival compared to the combination of small-molecule targeted drugs; and• biochemotherapy was probably associated with worse progression-free survival (HR 2.81, 95% CI 1.54 to 5.11) compared to the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors.The best evidence (moderate-quality evidence) for toxicity was found for the following indirect comparisons:• combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (RR 3.49, 95% CI 2.12 to 5.77) probably increased toxicity compared to chemotherapy;• combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors probably increased toxicity (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.20 to 5.20) compared to BRAF inhibitors;• the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors probably increased toxicity (RR 3.83, 95% CI 2.59 to 5.68) compared to anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies; and• biochemotherapy was probably associated with lower toxicity (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.71) compared to the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors.Network meta-analysis-based ranking suggested that the combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors is the most effective strategy in terms of progression-free survival, whereas anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies are associated with the lowest toxicity.Overall, the risk of bias of the included trials can be considered as limited. When considering the 122 trials included in this review and the seven types of bias we assessed, we performed 854 evaluations only seven of which (< 1%) assigned high risk to six trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found high-quality evidence that many treatments offer better efficacy than chemotherapy, especially recently implemented treatments, such as small-molecule targeted drugs, which are used to treat melanoma with specific gene mutations. Compared with chemotherapy, biochemotherapy (in this case, chemotherapy combined with both interferon-alpha and interleukin-2) and BRAF inhibitors improved progression-free survival; BRAF inhibitors (for BRAF-mutated melanoma) and anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies improved overall survival. However, there was no difference between polychemotherapy and monochemotherapy in terms of achieving progression-free survival and overall survival. Biochemotherapy did not significantly improve overall survival and has higher toxicity rates compared with chemotherapy.There was some evidence that combined treatments worked better than single treatments: anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies, alone or with anti-CTLA4, improved progression-free survival compared with anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies alone. Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies performed better than anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies in terms of overall survival, and a combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors was associated with better overall survival for BRAF-mutated melanoma, compared to BRAF inhibitors alone.The combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors (which can only be administered to people with BRAF-mutated melanoma) appeared to be the most effective treatment (based on results for progression-free survival), whereas anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies appeared to be the least toxic, and most acceptable, treatment.Evidence quality was reduced due to imprecision, between-study heterogeneity, and substandard reporting of trials. Future research should ensure that those diminishing influences are addressed. Clinical areas of future investigation should include the longer-term effect of new therapeutic agents (i.e. immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies) on overall survival, as well as the combination of drugs used in melanoma treatment; research should also investigate the potential influence of biomarkers.

Propranolol enhanced the anti-tumor effect of sunitinib by inhibiting proliferation and inducing G0/G1/S phase arrest in malignant melanoma

Both sunitinib, a multi-target tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) and propranolol, a non-selective β-blocker, have proven therapeutic effects on malignant melanoma (MM). This study reports a synergistic effect of propranolol and sunitinib upon A375, P8 MM cell lines and mice xenografts. Cell viability assays detected a significant decrease of sunitinib IC50 in combination with propranolol, which was confirmed by a colony formation assay. Western blot showed that propranolol and sunitinib combination significantly down-regulated phospho-Rb, phospho-ERK, Cyclin D1, and Cyclin E, but had no effect on Bax, Bcl-2, or cleaved PARP expression. The average tumor size of propranolol and low-dose sunitinib (Sun L) combination treated mice was reduced and similar to high-dose sunitinib treated A375 xenografts. The Ki67 index was significantly reduced in propranolol and Sun L combination treated group compared with single Sun L treated group. This synergistic effect between propranolol and sunitinib to inhibit MM proliferation was through suppressing ERK/Cyclin D1/Rb/Cyclin E pathways and inducing G0/G1/S phase arrest, rather than by inducing tumor cell apoptosis.

From Resistance to Sensitivity: Insights and Implications of Biphasic Modulation of Autophagy by Sunitinib

Sunitinib, a multityrosine kinase inhibitor, is currently the standard first-line therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and is also used in treating patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine and imatinib-resistant gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST). Nevertheless, most patients eventually relapse secondary to intrinsic or acquired sunitinib resistance. Autophagy has been reported to contribute to both chemo-sensitivity and -resistance. However, over the last few years, controversial regulatory effects of sunitinib on autophagy have been reported. Since gaining insights into the underlying molecular insights and clinical implications is indispensible for achieving optimum therapeutic response, this minireview article sheds light on the role of a network of prosurvival signaling pathways recently identified as key mediators of sunitinib resistance with established and emerging functions as autophagy regulators. Furthermore, we underscore putative prognostic biomarkers of sunitinib responsiveness that could guide clinicians toward patient stratification and more individualized therapy. Importantly, innovative therapeutic strategies/approaches to overcome sunitinib resistance both evaluated in preclinical studies and perspective clinical trials are discussed which could ultimately be translated to better clinical outcome.

Somatic mutation analysis in melanoma using targeted next generation sequencing

Advanced stage malignant melanoma often responds poorly to therapy with low survival rates. New therapeutic approaches are based upon a growing understanding of the underlying molecular abnormalities. We demonstrate the feasibility of a next generation sequencing (NGS) assay, which targets hotspots in 50 cancer genes, to assess genotypes that may influence therapeutic selection and response. DNA was extracted from formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) melanoma specimens to create multiplexed libraries which were sequenced. Of the 121 cases, BRAF mutations were present in 48 cases (40%) and NRAS mutations in 24 cases (20%). We identified other gene variants in 20 BRAF-mutated cases. Additional gene variants were also identified in the 57 BRAF wild-type cases. Four patients harbored different gene mutations at metastatic sites as compared to their primary lesions or metastasis from different sites. Concurrent gene variants may provide additional targets for future therapies and may suggest alternative mechanisms of secondary resistance.

Emerging growth factor receptor antagonists for the treatment of advanced melanoma

INTRODUCTION

Therapy for metastatic melanoma has undergone a rapid transformation over the past 5-10 years. Advances in immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors, including both anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1/PD-L1, have led to durable responses in up to 50% of patients. As our understanding of the processes driving the transformation of melanocytes has improved, progress in targeted therapies has also continued. Areas covered: Angiogenesis and the tumor's dependence on an expanded vascular supply has been a target for novel therapies since the 1970's, as this tissue is derived from endothelial cells that are genetically stable in adults. A phase II trial studying combined therapy with bevacizumab (an inhibitor of angiogenesis) and ipilimumab found promising results. Other agents such as sorafenib have not been as successful, failing to extend progression free or overall survival in clinical trials. In this paper other targeted growth factor inhibitors will also be discussed. Expert opinion: Ultimately, melanoma may not be vulnerable solely to chemotherapy or targeted therapy, but may be efficaciously treated with immunotherapy due to its high mutational rate resulting in the expression of numerous neo-antigens. Therapies with combinations of agents including growth factor receptor and either other targeted therapies or immunotherapy may be a promising complimentary approach.

Improving the diagnosis and treatment of acral melanocytic lesions

Melanocytic lesions of acral sites are common, with an estimated prevalence of 28-36% in the USA. While the majority of these lesions are benign, differentiation from acral melanoma (AM) is often challenging. AM is a unique subtype of melanoma, with distinct molecular characteristics that are thought to contribute to its high rate of locoregional recurrence and worse prognosis. The advent of dermoscopy has since improved the diagnostic accuracy of AM, resulting in earlier detection and arguably improved survival. Additionally, the identification of unique genomic amplifications in AM invites the potential for future AM-specific targeted therapies. Herein, we discuss the importance of dermoscopy in the diagnosis of acral melanocytic lesions and review the treatment strategies for AM.

The pharmacogenomics of drug resistance to protein kinase inhibitors

Dysregulation of growth factor cell signaling is a major driver of most human cancers. This has led to development of numerous drugs targeting protein kinases, with demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of a wide spectrum of cancers. Despite their high initial response rates and survival benefits, the majority of patients eventually develop resistance to these targeted therapies. This review article discusses examples of established mechanisms of drug resistance to anticancer therapies, including drug target mutations or gene amplifications, emergence of alternate signaling pathways, and pharmacokinetic variation. This reveals a role for pharmacogenomic analysis to identify and monitor for resistance, with possible therapeutic strategies to combat chemoresistance.

Biomarkers in Melanoma: Lessons from Translational Medicine

The treatment landscape for advanced melanoma has been rapidly evolving. As new therapies become available, there is a need for better biomarkers to detect disease, guide patient selection, and monitor for response. The use of tumor genetics has been able to predict responses to targeted therapy in melanoma. However, the role of biomarkers in melanoma detection, monitoring, and immunotherapy has been less successful and is still being defined. Translational studies in many areas of melanoma are being performed to identify biomarkers and validate their clinical role. In this review, we examine the status of biomarkers in melanoma and areas of future development.

The impact of sequencing on diagnosis and treatment of malignant melanoma

Melanoma is one of the clinically most important cancer types considering its high mortality rate and that it is commonly diagnosed in relatively young people. With the advent of targeted therapies and, more recently, immune checkpoint inhibitors, more treatment options are available resulting in higher patient survival rates. However, the successful application of these targeted therapies critically depends on the reliable detection of molecular aberrations. Today, massively parallel sequencing techniques enable us to analyze large sets of genes in a relatively short time. It has allowed increased knowledge of acquired somatic mutations in melanoma and has helped to identify new targets for personalized therapy, and potentially may help to predict response to immune therapies. Described here are the development of sequencing techniques, how their improvement has changed diagnosis, prognosis and management of malignant melanoma and the future perspectives of melanoma diagnostics in the routine clinical setting.

[What's new in oncodermatology in 2015?]

Oncodermatology is the topic of constant innovation since 5 years. These innovations have drammatically modified the prognostic of skin cancers and induced a change in the paradigm that drives the whole oncology. Once again in 2015, melanoma is the key topic of scientific communication, with promising results. However, unmet clinical needs must be kept in light. Some diseases, such as squamous cell carcinoma or cutaneous lymphoma remain poorly evaluated. This article was designed as a review of litterature. All keywords of oncodermatology were searched in the main journals of dermatology, oncology and internal medicine. Despite methodologic restrictions, the number of articles imposed a choice based on opinion. The final goal was to transmit author's enthousiasm and the most important results.