The combination of axitinib followed by paclitaxel/carboplatin yields extended survival in advanced BRAF wild-type melanoma: results of a clinical/correlative prospective phase II clinical trial

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.

Recent advances in tyrosine kinase inhibitors VEGFR 1-3 for the treatment of advanced metastatic melanoma

INTRODUCTION

Increasing evidence from preclinical and clinical studies suggests the role of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling in melanoma progression, response to therapy, and overall survival. Moreover, the discovery of the potential involvement of the VEGF pathway in resistance to immunotherapy has led to new clinical trials with VEGFR inhibitors.

AREAS COVERED

We have reviewed recent literature, mainly published within the last 5 years, on VEGFR-targeted treatments for advanced melanoma, including mucosal, acral, and uveal melanoma. The VEGFR inhibitors were used as a single therapy or combined with either immunotherapy or chemotherapy, and they were employed in treatment for KIT-mutated cutaneous melanoma and for patients with brain metastases.

EXPERT OPINION

Trials involving monotherapy have been unsuccessful in demonstrating meaningful efficacy. Despite some activity, the combination of VEGFR-targeting tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in patients with ICI-resistant melanoma, the combination did not significantly improve outcomes compared to anti-PD-1 monotherapy in the first-line settings. On the contrary, some patients with mucosal, acral or KIT-mutant melanoma may benefit from TKI-based therapies. Further studies focused on biomarker discovery and randomized trials are necessary to better understand the role of VEGFR1-3 as a therapeutic target in melanoma.

Clinicopathological features, current status, and progress of primary central nervous system melanoma diagnosis and treatment

Primary central nervous system (CNS) melanoma is an extremely rare condition, with an incidence rate of 0.01 per 100,000 individuals per year. Despite its rarity, the etiology and pathogenesis of this disease are not yet fully understood. Primary CNS melanoma exhibits highly aggressive biological behavior and presents clinically in a distinct manner from other types of melanomas. It can develop at any age, predominantly affecting the meninges as the primary site, with clinical symptoms varying depending on the neoplasm's location. Due to the lack of specificity in its presentation and the challenging nature of imaging diagnosis, distinguishing primary CNS melanoma from other CNS diseases. The combination of challenges in early detection, heightened tumor aggressiveness, and the obscured location of its origin contribute to an unfavorable prognostic outcome. Furthermore, there has been currently no consensus on a standardized treatment approach for primary CNS melanoma. Despite recent advancements in targeted therapy and immunotherapy for CNS melanoma, patients with primary CNS melanoma have limited treatment options due to their inadequate response to these therapies. Here, we provided a comprehensive summary of the epidemiology, clinical features, molecular pathological manifestations, and available diagnostic and therapeutic approaches of primary CNS melanoma. Additionally, we proposed potential therapeutic strategies for it.

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.

Neoadjuvant treatment for stage III and IV cutaneous melanoma

BACKGROUND

Cutaneous melanoma is amongst the most aggressive of all skin cancers. Neoadjuvant treatment is a form of induction therapy, given to shrink a cancerous tumour prior to the main treatment (usually surgery). The purpose is to improve survival and surgical outcomes. This review systematically appraises the literature investigating the use of neoadjuvant treatment for stage III and IV cutaneous melanoma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of neoadjuvant treatment in adults with stage III or stage IV melanoma according to the seventh edition American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to 10 August 2021 inclusive: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and four trials registers, together with reference checking and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We also handsearched proceedings from specific conferences from 2016 to 2020 inclusive.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people with stage III and IV melanoma, comparing neoadjuvant treatment strategies (using targeted treatments, immunotherapies, radiotherapy, topical treatments or chemotherapy) with any of these agents or current standard of care (SOC), were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and adverse effects (AEs). Secondary outcomes included time to recurrence (TTR), quality of life (QOL), and overall response rate (ORR). We used GRADE to evaluate the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight RCTs involving 402 participants. Studies enrolled adults, mostly with stage III melanoma, investigated immunotherapies, chemotherapy, or targeted treatments, and compared these with surgical excision with or without adjuvant treatment. Duration of follow-up and therapeutic regimens varied, which, combined with heterogeneity in the population and definitions of the endpoints, precluded meta-analysis of all identified studies. We performed a meta-analysis including three studies. We are very uncertain if neoadjuvant treatment increases OS when compared to no neoadjuvant treatment (hazard ratio (HR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 1.21; 2 studies, 171 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Neoadjuvant treatment may increase the rate of AEs, but the evidence is very uncertain (26% versus 16%, risk ratio (RR) 1.58, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.55; 2 studies, 162 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain if neoadjuvant treatment increases TTR (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.17; 2 studies, 171 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Studies did not report ORR as a comparative outcome or measure QOL data. We are very uncertain whether neoadjuvant targeted treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib increases OS (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.25; 1 study, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or TTR (HR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.22; 1 study, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence) when compared to surgery. The study did not report comparative rates of AEs and overall response, and did not measure QOL. We are very uncertain if neoadjuvant immunotherapy with talimogene laherparepvec increases OS when compared to no neoadjuvant treatment (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.64; 1 study, 150 participants, very low-certainty evidence). It may have a higher rate of AEs, but the evidence is very uncertain (16.5% versus 5.8%, RR 2.84, 95% CI 0.96 to 8.37; 1 study, 142 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain if it increases TTR (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.79; 1 study, 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report comparative ORRs or measure QOL. OS was not reported for neoadjuvant immunotherapy (combined ipilimumab and nivolumab) when compared to the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab as adjuvant treatment. There may be little or no difference in the rate of AEs between these treatments (9%, RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.34; 1 study, 20 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not report comparative ORRs or measure TTR and QOL. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy (combined ipilimumab and nivolumab) likely results in little to no difference in OS when compared to neoadjuvant nivolumab monotherapy (P = 0.18; 1 study, 23 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It may increase the rate of AEs, but the certainty of this evidence is very low (72.8% versus 8.3%, RR 8.73, 95% CI 1.29 to 59; 1 study, 23 participants); this trial was halted early due to observation of disease progression preventing surgical resection in the monotherapy arm and the high rate of treatment-related AEs in the combination arm. Neoadjuvant combination treatment may lead to higher ORR, but the evidence is very uncertain (72.8% versus 25%, RR 2.91, 95% CI 1.02 to 8.27; 1 study, 23 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It likely results in little to no difference in TTR (P = 0.19; 1 study, 23 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure QOL. OS was not reported for neoadjuvant immunotherapy (combined ipilimumab and nivolumab) when compared to neoadjuvant sequential immunotherapy (ipilimumab then nivolumab). Only Grade 3 to 4 immune-related AEs were reported; fewer were reported with combination treatment, and the sequential treatment arm closed early due to a high incidence of severe AEs. The neoadjuvant combination likely results in a higher ORR compared to sequential neoadjuvant treatment (60.1% versus 42.3%, RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.32; 1 study, 86 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure TTR and QOL. No data were reported on OS, AEs, TTR, or QOL for the comparison of neoadjuvant interferon (HDI) plus chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Neoadjuvant HDI plus chemotherapy may have little to no effect on ORR, but the evidence is very uncertain (33% versus 22%, RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.62 to 4.95; 1 study, 36 participants; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain if neoadjuvant treatment increases OS or TTR compared with no neoadjuvant treatment, and it may be associated with a slightly higher rate of AEs. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of neoadjuvant treatment in clinical practice. Priorities for research include the development of a core outcome set for neoadjuvant trials that are adequately powered, with validation of pathological and radiological responses as intermediate endpoints, to investigate the relative benefits of neoadjuvant treatment compared with adjuvant treatment with immunotherapies or targeted therapies.

Targeted Therapy for Melanomas Without BRAF V600 Mutation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized the treatment paradigm for patients with metastatic melanoma; however, there remains an unmet clinical need for alternative treatment options for those patients who are either intolerant or refractory to immunotherapy. Here we review the role and clinical efficacy of targeted therapies for BRAF^V600 wild-type melanoma.

RECENT FINDINGS

Genomic analyses in BRAF^V600 wild-type melanoma have previously identified driver mutations along the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) and phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K)-AKT pathways that can be targeted with small molecule inhibitors. New drugs such as bispecific antibodies and antibody drug conjugates may have significant clinical activity even in rare subtypes of melanoma that are less responsive to ICIs. Historically, molecular-targeted therapies have modest clinical success in treating BRAF^V600 wild-type melanoma; nevertheless, they may have a significant clinical role in select, genetically distinct groups of patients. Next-generation immunotherapies or immunomodulators may represent the latest breakthrough in the treatment of melanoma. Additional studies are needed to identify novel drug targets and synergistic drug combinations to expand treatment options and optimize clinical outcomes.

Melanoma Tumour Vascularization and Tissue-Resident Endothelial Progenitor Cells

Simple Summary

Melanoma is the most aggressive and potentially lethal form of skin cancer. Research over recent decades has highlighted the role of tumour vasculature in altering the metabolic function of cancer cells, infiltration of immune cells, and cancer cell dissemination. However, variations in the modes of vessel formation in melanoma have made this process difficult to target. In particular, the role of endothelial progenitor cells in melanoma vascularization-promoting vasculogenesis begins to be understood. Progenitor recruitment, vessel formation, and paracrine activity are among the steps contributing to tumour metastasis and affecting the impact of anti-angiogenic drugs, as detailed in this review.

Abstract

The aggressiveness of solid cancers, such as melanoma, relies on their metastatic potential. It has become evident that this key cause of mortality is largely conferred by the tumour-associated stromal cells, especially endothelial cells. In addition to their essential role in the formation of the tumour vasculature, endothelial cells significantly contribute to the establishment of the tumour microenvironment, thus enabling the dissemination of cancer cells. Melanoma tumour vascularization occurs through diverse biological processes. Vasculogenesis is the formation of de novo blood vessels from endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs), and recent research has shown the role of EPCs in melanoma tumour vascularization. A more detailed understanding of the complex role of EPCs and how they contribute to the abnormal vessel structures in tumours is of importance. Moreover, anti-angiogenic drugs have a limited effect on melanoma tumour vascularization, and the role of these drugs on EPCs remains to be clarified. Overall, targeting cancer vasculature remains a challenge, and the role of anti-angiogenic drugs and combination therapies in melanoma, a focus of this review, is an area of extensive exploration.

Treatment of Metastatic Melanoma with a Combination of Immunotherapies and Molecularly Targeted Therapies

Simple Summary

Immunotherapies and molecularly targeted therapies have drastically changed the therapeutic approach for unresectable advanced or metastatic melanoma. The majority of melanoma patients have benefitted from these therapies; however, some patients acquire resistance to them. Novel combinations of immunotherapies and molecularly targeted therapies may be more efficient in treating these patients. In this review, we discuss various combination therapies under pre-clinical and clinical development which can reduce toxicity, enhance efficacy, and prevent recurrences in patients with metastatic melanoma.

Abstract

Melanoma possesses invasive metastatic growth patterns and is one of the most aggressive types of skin cancer. In 2021, it is estimated that 7180 deaths were attributed to melanoma in the United States alone. Once melanoma metastasizes, traditional therapies are no longer effective. Instead, immunotherapies, such as ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab, are the treatment options for malignant melanoma. Several biomarkers involved in tumorigenesis have been identified as potential targets for molecularly targeted melanoma therapy, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Unfortunately, melanoma quickly acquires resistance to these molecularly targeted therapies. To bypass resistance, combination treatment with immunotherapies and single or multiple TKIs have been employed and have been shown to improve the prognosis of melanoma patients compared to monotherapy. This review discusses several combination therapies that target melanoma biomarkers, such as BRAF, MEK, RAS, c-KIT, VEGFR, c-MET and PI3K. Several of these regimens are already FDA-approved for treating metastatic melanoma, while others are still in clinical trials. Continued research into the causes of resistance and factors influencing the efficacy of these combination treatments, such as specific mutations in oncogenic proteins, may further improve the effectiveness of combination therapies, providing a better prognosis for melanoma patients.

Current Perspectives and Novel Strategies of NRAS-Mutant Melanoma

Melanoma is the deadliest cutaneous cancer. Activating mutations in NRAS are found in 20% of melanomas. NRAS-mutant melanoma is more aggressive and, therefore, has poorer outcomes, compared to non-NRAS-mutant melanoma. Despite promising preclinical data, to date immune checkpoint inhibitors remain the standard of care for locally advanced unresectable or metastatic NRAS melanoma. Data for efficacy of immunotherapy for NRAS melanoma mainly come from retrospective cohorts with divergent conclusions. MEK inhibitors have been the most developed targeted therapy approach. Although associated with an increase in progression-free survival, MEK inhibitors do not provide any benefit in terms of overall survival. Combination strategies with PI3K-AKT-mTOR pathway and CDK4/6 inhibitors seem to increase MEK inhibitors' benefit. Nevertheless, results from clinical trials are still prelaminar. A greater comprehension of the biology and intracellular interactions of NRAS-mutant melanoma will outline novel impactful strategies which could improve prognosis of these subgroup of patients.

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.

PET/CT-Based Response Evaluation in Cancer-a Systematic Review of Design Issues

Positron emission tomography/x-ray computed tomography (PET/CT) has long been discussed as a promising modality for response evaluation in cancer. When designing respective clinical trials, several design issues have to be addressed, especially the number/timing of PET/CT scans, the approach for quantifying metabolic activity, and the final translation of measurements into a rule. It is unclear how well these issues have been tackled in quest of an optimised use of PET/CT in response evaluation. Medline via Ovid and Science Citation Index via Web of Science were systematically searched for articles from 2015 on cancer patients scanned with PET/CT before and during/after treatment. Reports were categorised as being either developmental or evaluative, i.e. focusing on either the establishment or the evaluation of a rule discriminating responders from non-responders. Of 124 included papers, 112 (90 %) were accuracy and/or prognostic studies; the remainder were response-curve studies. No randomised controlled trials were found. Most studies were prospective (62 %) and from single centres (85 %); median number of patients was 38.5 (range 5-354). Most (69 %) of the studies employed only one post-baseline scan. Quantification was mainly based on SUVmax (91 %), while change over time was most frequently used to combine measurements into a rule (79 %). Half of the reports were categorised as developmental, the other half evaluative. Most development studies assessed only one element (35/62, 56 %), most frequently the choice of cut-off points (25/62, 40 %). In summary, the majority of studies did not address the essential open issues in establishing PET/CT for response evaluation. Reasonably sized multicentre studies are needed to systematically compare the many different options when using PET/CT for response evaluation.

BRAF mutational status as a prognostic marker for survival in malignant melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The analysis of the BRAF mutational status has been established as a standard procedure during diagnosis of advanced malignant melanoma due to the fact that BRAF inhibitors constitute a cornerstone in the treatment of metastatic disease. However, the general impact of BRAF mutational status on survival remains unclear. Our study aimed to assess the underlying prognostic significance of BRAF mutant versus wild type (WT) malignant melanoma on overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and progression-free survival (PFS).Material and methods: A systematic literature search in EMBASE, Medline and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed. Studies were included if they reported survival outcomes for BRAF mutant versus WT patients as hazard ratios (HR) or in Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves. Random-effects meta-analysis models were used to pool HRs across the studies.Results: Data from 52 studies, representing 7519 patients, were pooled for analysis of OS. The presence of a BRAF mutation was statistically significantly associated with a reduced OS (HR [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 1.23 [1.09-1.38]), however, with substantial heterogeneity between the studies (I²: 58.0%). Meta-regression and sensitivity analyses showed that age, sex and BRAF mutation testing method did not have a significant effect on the OS HR. BRAF mutant melanoma showed comparable effect on DFS to non-BRAF mutant melanoma in stage I-III melanoma (combined HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.92-1.46), and on PFS in stage III-IV (HR: 0.98 (95% CI: 0.68-1.40)).Conclusion: Although there was substantial heterogeneity between the studies, the overall results demonstrated a poorer prognosis and OS in patients harbouring BRAF mutations. Future studies should take this into account when evaluating epidemiological data and treatment effects of new interventions in patients with malignant melanoma.

Hypertension in malignancy-an underappreciated problem

Hypertension is one of the most common comorbidities in cancer patients with malignancy, in particular, in the elderly. On the other hand, hypertension is a long-term consequence of antineoplastic treatment, including both chemotherapy and targeted agents. Several chemotherapeutics and targeted drugs may be responsible for development or worsening of the hypertension. The most common side effect of anti-VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor) treatment is hypertension. However, pathogenesis of hypertension in patients receiving this therapy appears to be associated with multiple pathways and is not yet fully understood. Development of hypertension was associated with improved antitumor efficacy in patients treated with anti-antiangiogenic drugs in some but not in all studies. Drugs used commonly as adjuvants such as steroids, erythropoietin stimulating agents etc, may also cause rise in blood pressure or exacerbate preexisiting hypertension. Hypotensive therapy is crucial to manage hypertension during certain antineoplastic treatment. The choice and dose of antihypertensive drugs depend upon the presence of organ dysfunction, comorbidities, and/or adverse effects. In addition, severity of the hypertension and the urgency of blood pressure control should also be taken into consideration. As there are no specific guidelines on the hypertension treatment in cancer patients we should follow the available guidelines to obtain the best possible outcomes and pay the attention to the individualization of the therapy according to the actual situation.

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.

Treatment of NRAS-mutated advanced or metastatic melanoma: rationale, current trials and evidence to date

The disease course of BRAF (v-raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1)-mutant melanoma has been drastically improved by the arrival of targeted therapies. NRAS (neuroblastoma RAS viral oncogene homolog)-mutated melanoma represents 15–25% of all metastatic melanoma patients. It currently does not have an approved targeted therapy. Metastatic patients receive immune-based therapies as first-line treatments, then cytotoxic chemotherapy like carboplatin/paclitaxel (C/P), dacarbazine (DTIC) or temozolomide (TMZ) as a second-line treatment. We will review current preclinical and clinical developments in NRAS-mutated melanoma, and analyze ongoing clinical trials that are evaluating the benefit of different targeted and immune-based therapies, either tested as single agents or in combination, in NRAS-mutant melanoma.

Molecular Targeted Therapy Approaches for BRAF Wild-Type Melanoma

Patients with metastatic melanoma have historically had dismal outcomes. The last several years has seen the emergence of effective immune and targeted therapies for metastatic melanoma. Targeted therapies have primarily impacted the 40-50% of patients with BRAF(V600) mutated melanoma. The remainder of patients with advanced melanoma harbor a wide spectrum of mutations other than BRAF(V600) that are associated with unique pathophysiological, prognostic, and therapeutic implications. The treatment of this subset of patients is a challenging problem. In recent years, preclinical and early clinical studies have suggested that inhibitors of mitogen activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway and parallel signaling networks may have activity in treatment of BRAF(V600) wild-type (WT) melanoma. In this review, we will discuss available and developing therapies for BRAF WT patients with metastatic melanoma, particularly focusing on molecular targeted options for various genetically defined melanoma subsets.

Searching for the Chokehold of NRAS Mutant Melanoma

Up to 18% of melanomas harbor mutations in the neuroblastoma rat-sarcoma homolog (NRAS). Yet, decades of research aimed to interfere with oncogenic RAS signaling have been largely disappointing and have not resulted in meaningful clinical outputs. Recent advances in disease modeling, structural biology, and an improved understanding of RAS cycling as well as RAS signaling networks have renewed hope for developing strategies to selectively block hyperactive RAS function. This review discusses direct and indirect blocking of activated RAS with a focus on current and potential future therapeutic approaches for NRAS mutant melanoma.

Intratumoral delivery of mTORC2-deficient dendritic cells inhibits B16 melanoma growth by promoting CD8(+) effector T cell responses

Dendritic cells (DC) play a pivotal role in the induction and regulation of immune responses. In cancer, DC-based vaccines have proven to be safe and to elicit protective and therapeutic immunological responses. Recently, we showed that specific mTORC2 (mechanistic target of rapamycin complex 2) deficiency in DC enhances their ability to promote Th1 and Th17 responses after LPS stimulation. In the present study, bone marrow-derived mTORC2-deficient (Rictor(-/-)) DC were evaluated as a therapeutic modality in the murine B16 melanoma model. Consistent with their pro-inflammatory profile (enhanced IL-12p70 production and low PD-L1 expression versus control DC), intratumoral (i.t.) injection of LPS-activated Rictor(-/-) DC slowed B16 melanoma growth markedly in WT C57BL/6 recipient mice. This antitumor effect was abrogated when Rictor(-/-) DC were injected i.t. into B16-bearing Rag(-/-) mice, and also after selective CD8(+) T cell depletion in wild-type hosts in vivo, indicating that CD8(+) T cells were the principal regulators of tumor growth after Rictor(-/-) DC injection. I.t. administration of Rictor(-/-) DC also reduced the frequency of myeloid-derived suppressor cells within tumors, and enhanced numbers of IFNγ(+) and granzyme-B(+) cytotoxic CD8(+) T cells both in the spleens and tumors of treated animals. These data suggest that selective inhibition of mTORC2 activity in activated DC augments their pro-inflammatory and T cell stimulatory profile, in association with their enhanced capacity to promote protective CD8(+) T cell responses in vivo, leading to slowed B16 melanoma progression. These novel findings may contribute to the design of more effective DC-based vaccines for cancer immunotherapy.

Spheroid-plug model as a tool to study tumor development, angiogenesis, and heterogeneity in vivo

Subcutaneous injection of the tumor cell suspension is a simple and commonly used tool for studying tumor development in vivo. However, subcutaneous models poorly resemble tumor complexity due to the fast growth not reflecting the natural course. Here, we describe an application of the new spheroid-plug model to combine the simplicity of subcutaneous injection with improved resemblance to natural tumor progression. Spheroid-plug model relies on in vitro formation of tumor spheroids, followed by injection of single tumor spheroid subcutaneously in Matrigel matrix. In spheroid-plug model, tumors grow slower in comparison to tumors formed by injection of cell suspension as assessed by 3D ultrasonography (USG) and in vivo bioluminescence measurements. The slower tumor growth rate in spheroid-plug model is accompanied by reduced necrosis. The spheroid-plug model ensures increased and more stable vascularization of tumor than classical subcutaneous tumor model as demonstrated by 3D USG Power Doppler examination. Flow cytometry analysis showed that tumors formed from spheroids have enhanced infiltration of endothelial cells as well as hematopoietic and progenitor cells with stem cell phenotype (c-Kit(+) and Sca-1(+)). They also contain more tumor cells expressing cancer stem cell marker CXCR4. Here, we show that spheroid-plug model allows investigating efficiency of anticancer drugs. Treatment of spheroid-plug tumors with known antiangiogenic agent axitinib decreased their size and viability. The antiangiogenic activity of axitinib was higher in spheroid-plug model than in classical model. Our results indicate that spheroid-plug model imitates natural tumor growth and can become a valuable tool for cancer research.