Randomized Phase III Trial Evaluating Spartalizumab Plus Dabrafenib and Trametinib for BRAF V600-Mutant Unresectable or Metastatic Melanoma

Multiple Options: How to Choose Therapy in Frontline Metastatic Melanoma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Given the rapid development of multiple targeted and immune therapies for patients with advanced melanoma, it can be challenging to select a therapy based on currently available data. This review aims to provide an overview of frontline options for metastatic melanoma, with practical guidance for selecting a treatment regimen.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recently reported data from randomized trials suggests that the majority of patients with unresectable melanoma should receive a PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor as part of their first line therapy, irrespective of BRAF mutation status. Additional data also suggests that combination immunotherapies result in improved outcomes compared to single agent, albeit at the cost of increased toxicity, though to date no biomarker exists to help guide treatment selection. As the number therapeutic options continue to grow for patients with advanced melanoma, there is likely to be a continued focus on combination strategies. Defining the optimal treatment approach in order to maximize efficacy while minimizing toxicity remains an area of active investigation.

A phase 1 trial of the MEK inhibitor selumetinib in combination with pembrolizumab for advanced or metastatic solid tumors

MEK inhibitors have immunomodulatory activity and potential for synergistic activity when combined with PD-1 inhibitors. We evaluated selumetinib (inhibitor of MEK1/2) plus pembrolizumab (anti‒PD-1 antibody) in patients with advanced/metastatic solid tumors. In this phase 1b study, adults with previously treated advanced/metastatic solid tumors received pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks plus selumetinib on days 1‒14 per 3-week cycle (2 weeks on/1 week off); selumetinib dosing began at 50 mg orally twice daily with escalation in 25 mg increments for ≤ 35 cycles. Primary endpoints were dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), adverse events (AEs), and treatment discontinuations due to AEs. Thirty-two patients were enrolled. Dose escalation was completed up to selumetinib 125 mg twice daily. The target DLT rate of 30% was not reached at any dose level. In the selumetinib 100 mg group, 2/11 patients (18.2%) experienced DLTs (n = 1 grade 3 diarrhea, n = 1 grade 3 fatigue). In the selumetinib 125 mg group, 3/14 (21.4%) experienced DLTs (n = 1 grade 2 retinal detachment, n = 1 grade 3 retinopathy, n = 1 grade 3 stomatitis). Dose-related changes in pharmacokinetic exposures were observed for selumetinib and N-desmethyl selumetinib up to 100 mg (saturation at 125 mg). Two patients achieved partial responses (1 each with selumetinib 75 mg and 125 mg) for an objective response rate of 6%. The study was stopped early because of insufficient efficacy. Although the target DLT rate was not reached at any dose level and no new safety signals were identified, selumetinib plus pembrolizumab had limited antitumor activity in this population. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03833427.

Curing Stage IV Melanoma: Where Have We Been and Where Are We?

Little more than 10 years ago, metastatic melanoma was considered to have one of the poorest cancer outcomes, associated with a median overall survival of 6-8 months. Cytotoxic chemotherapy offered modest response rates of 20%-30%, but no clear survival benefit. Patients were routinely enrolled in clinical trials as their first-line therapy in the search for effective novel therapeutics. Remarkable developments in molecular biology, cancer genomics, immunology, and drug discovery have dominated the early part of the 21st century, and nowhere have the benefits been better realized than in the transformation of outcomes for patients with metastatic melanoma: since 2011, 14 new agents have been approved that significantly increase survival, with long-term remissions and, possibly now, potential for cure. Even so, there is still much work to be done, given that most treated patients still die of their disease. Although most survival gains have so far been realized for cutaneous melanoma, improving treatment options for those 10% of patients with rarer, noncutaneous melanomas is a high priority. Key novel therapeutic approaches aimed at improving outcomes with potential for curing patients with melanoma are considered.

Immunotherapy combination approaches: mechanisms, biomarkers and clinical observations

The approval of the first immune checkpoint inhibitors provided a paradigm shift for the treatment of malignancies across a broad range of indications. Whereas initially, single-agent immune checkpoint inhibition was used, increasing numbers of patients are now treated with combination immune checkpoint blockade, where non-redundant mechanisms of action of the individual agents generally lead to higher response rates. Furthermore, immune checkpoint therapy has been combined with various other therapeutic modalities, including chemotherapy, radiotherapy and other immunotherapeutics such as vaccines, adoptive cellular therapies, cytokines and others, in an effort to maximize clinical efficacy. Currently, a large number of clinical trials test combination therapies with an immune checkpoint inhibitor as a backbone. However, proceeding without inclusion of broad, if initially exploratory, biomarker investigations may ultimately slow progress, as so far, few combinations have yielded clinical successes based on clinical data alone. Here, we present the rationale for combination therapies and discuss clinical data from clinical trials across the immuno-oncology spectrum. Moreover, we discuss the evolution of biomarker approaches and highlight the potential new directions that comprehensive biomarker studies can yield.

Novel RAF-directed approaches to overcome current clinical limits and block the RAS/RAF node

Mutations in the RAS-RAF-MEK-ERK pathway are frequent alterations in cancer and RASopathies, and while RAS oncogene activation alone affects 19% of all patients and accounts for approximately 3.4 million new cases every year, less frequent alterations in the cascade's downstream effectors are also involved in cancer etiology. RAS proteins initiate the signaling cascade by promoting the dimerization of RAF kinases, which can act as oncoproteins as well: BRAFV600E is the most common oncogenic driver, mutated in the 8% of all malignancies. Research in this field led to the development of drugs that target the BRAFV600-like mutations (Class I), which are now utilized in clinics, but cause paradoxical activation of the pathway and resistance development. Furthermore, they are ineffective against non-BRAFV600E malignancies that dimerize and could be either RTK/RAS independent or dependent (Class II and III, respectively), which are still lacking an effective treatment. This review discusses the recent advances in anti-RAF therapies, including paradox breakers, dimer-inhibitors, immunotherapies, and other novel approaches, critically evaluating their efficacy in overcoming the therapeutic limitations, and their putative role in blocking the RAS pathway.

Anti-PD-(L)1 plus BRAF/MEK inhibitors (triplet therapy) after failure of immune checkpoint inhibition and targeted therapy in patients with advanced melanoma

BACKGROUND

Effective treatment options are limited for patients with advanced melanoma who have progressed on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and targeted therapies (TT). Preclinical models support the combination of ICI with TT; however, clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of triplet combinations in first-line setting showed limited advantage compared to TT only.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, multicenter study, that included patients with advanced melanoma who were treated with BRAF/MEK inhibitors in combination with an anti-PD-(L)1 antibody (triplet therapy) after failure of at least one anti-PD-(L)1-based therapy and one TT in seven major melanoma centers between February 2016 and July 2022.

RESULTS

A total of 48 patients were included, of which 32 patients, 66.7% had brain metastases, 37 patients (77.1%) had three or more metastatic organs and 21 patients (43.8%) had three or more treatment lines. The median follow-up time was 31.4 months (IQR, 22.27-40.45 months). The treatment with triplet therapy resulted in an ORR of 35.4% (n = 17) and a DCR of 47.9% (n = 23). The median DOR was 5.9 months (range, 3.39-14.27 months). Patients treated with BRAF/MEK inhibitors as the last treatment line showed a slightly lower ORR (29.6%) compared to patients who received ICI or chemotherapy last (ORR: 42.9%). Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 25% of patients (n = 12), with seven patients (14.6%) requiring discontinuation of treatment with both or either drug.

CONCLUSIONS

Triplet therapy has shown activity in heavily pretreated patients with advanced melanoma and may represent a potential treatment regimen after failure of ICI and TT.

Rapidly Evolving Pre- and Post-surgical Systemic Treatment of Melanoma

With the development of effective BRAF-targeted and immune-checkpoint immunotherapies for metastatic melanoma, clinical trials are moving these treatments into earlier adjuvant and perioperative settings. BRAF-targeted therapy is a standard of care in resected stage III-IV melanoma, while anti-programmed death-1 (PD1) immunotherapy is now a standard of care option in resected stage IIB through IV disease. With both modalities, recurrence-free survival and distant-metastasis-free survival are improved by a relative 35-50%, yet no improvement in overall survival has been demonstrated. Neoadjuvant anti-PD1 therapy improves event-free survival by approximately an absolute 23%, although improvements in overall survival have yet to be demonstrated. Understanding which patients are most likely to recur and which are most likely to benefit from treatment is now the highest priority question in the field. Biomarker analyses, such as gene expression profiling of the primary lesion and circulating DNA, are preliminarily exciting as potential biomarkers, though each has drawbacks. As in the setting of metastatic disease, markers that inform positive outcomes include interferon-γ gene expression, PD-L1, and high tumor mutational burden, while negative predictors of outcome include circulating factors such as lactate dehydrogenase, interleukin-8, and C-reactive protein. Integrating and validating these markers into clinically relevant models is thus a high priority. Melanoma therapeutics continues to advance with combination adjuvant approaches now investigating anti-PD1 with lymphocyte activation gene 3 (LAG3), T-cell immunoreceptor with Ig and ITIM domains (TIGIT), and individualized neoantigen therapies. How this progress will be integrated into the management of a unique patient to reduce recurrence, limit toxicity, and avoid over-treatment will dominate clinical research and patient care over the next decade.

The treatment of advanced melanoma: Current approaches and new challenges

In recent years, advances in melanoma treatment have renewed patient hope. This comprehensive review emphasizes the evolving treatment landscape, particularly highlighting first-line strategies and the interplay between immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and targeted therapies. Ipilimumab plus nivolumab has achieved the best median overall survival, exceeding 70 months. However, the introduction of new ICIs, like relatlimab, has added complexity to first-line therapy decisions. Our aim is to guide clinicians in making personalized treatment decisions. Various features, including brain metastases, PD-L1 expression, BRAF mutation, performance status, and prior adjuvant therapy, significantly impact the direction of advanced melanoma treatment. We also provide the latest insights into the treatment of rare melanoma subtypes, such as uveal melanoma, where tebentafusp has shown promising improvements in overall survival for metastatic uveal melanoma patients. This review provides invaluable insights for clinicians, enabling informed treatment choices and deepening our understanding of the multifaceted challenges associated with advanced melanoma management.

The more the merrier? Evidence and efficacy of immune checkpoint- and tyrosine kinase inhibitor combinations in advanced solid cancers

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) have gained therapeutical significance in cancer therapy over the last years. Due to the high efficacy of each substance group, additive or complementary effects are considered, and combinations are the subject of multiple prospective trials in different tumor entities. The majority of available data results from clinical phase I and II trials. Although regarded as well-tolerated therapies ICI-TKI combinations have higher toxicities compared to monotherapies of one of the substance classes and some combinations were shown to be excessively toxic leading to discontinuation of trials. So far, ICI-TKI combinations with nivolumab + cabozantinib, pembrolizumab + axitinib, avelumab + axitinib, pembrolizumab + lenvatinib have been approved in advanced renal cell (RCC), with pembrolizumab + lenvatinib in endometrial carcinoma and with camrelizumab + rivoceranib in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Several ICI-TKI combinations are currently investigated in phase I to III trials in various other cancer entities. Further, the optimal sequence of ICI-TKI combinations is an important subject of investigation, as cross-resistances between the substance classes were observed. This review reports on clinical trials with ICI-TKI combinations in different cancer entities, their efficacy and toxicity.

Neo-Adjuvant Therapy for Metastatic Melanoma

Melanoma treatment is leading the neo-adjuvant systemic (NAS) therapy field. It is hypothesized that having the entire tumor in situ, with all of the heterogeneous tumor antigens, allows the patient's immune system to have a broader response to the tumor in all its shapes and forms. This translates into a higher clinical efficacy. Another benefit of NAS therapy potentially includes identifying patients who have a favorable response, which could offer an opportunity for the de-escalation of the extent of surgery and the need for adjuvant radiotherapy and/or adjuvant systemic therapy, as well as tailoring the follow-up in terms of the frequency of visits and cross-sectional imaging. In this paper, we will review the rationale for NAS therapy in resectable metastatic melanoma and the results obtained so far, both for immunotherapy and for BRAF/MEKi therapy, and discuss the response assessment and interpretation, toxicity and surgical considerations. All the trials that have been reported up to now have been investigator-initiated phase I/II trials with either single-agent anti-PD-1, combination anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 or BRAF/MEK inhibition. The results have been good but are especially encouraging for immunotherapies, showing high durable recurrence-free survival rates. Combination immunotherapy seems superior, with a higher rate of pathologic responses, particularly in patients with a major pathologic response (MPR = pathologic complete response [pCR] + near-pCR [max 10% viable tumor cells]) of 60% vs. 25-30%. The SWOG S1801 trial has recently shown a 23% improvement in event-free survival (EFS) after 2 years for pembrolizumab when giving 3 doses as NAS therapy and 15 as adjuvant versus 18 as adjuvant only. The community is keen to see the first results (expected in 2024) of the phase 3 NADINA trial (NCT04949113), which randomized patients between surgery + adjuvant anti-PD-1 and two NAS therapy courses of a combination of ipilimumab + nivolumab, followed by surgery and a response-driven adjuvant regimen or follow-up. We are on the eve of neo-adjuvant systemic (NAS) therapy, particularly immunotherapy, becoming the novel standard of care for macroscopic stage III melanoma.

The outcome in patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma treated with anti-programmed death receptor-1 monotherapy or targeted therapy in the real-world setting

BACKGROUND

Immunotherapy and targeted therapy are currently two alternative backbones in the therapy of BRAF-mutated malignant melanoma. However, predictive biomarkers that would help with treatment selection are lacking.

METHODS

This retrospective study investigated outcomes of anti-programmed death receptor-1 monotherapy and targeted therapy in the first-line setting in patients with metastatic BRAF-mutated melanoma, focusing on clinical and laboratory parameters associated with treatment outcome.

RESULTS

Data from 174 patients were analysed. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 17.0 months (95% CI; 8-39) and 12.5 months (95% CI; 9-14.2) for immunotherapy and targeted therapy, respectively. The 3-year PFS rate was 39% for immunotherapy and 25% for targeted therapy. The objective response rate was 72% and 51% for targeted therapy and immunotherapy. The median overall (OS) survival for immunotherapy has not been reached and was 23.6 months (95% CI; 16.1-38.2) for targeted therapy, with a 3-year survival rate of 63% and 40%, respectively. In a univariate analysis, age < 70 years, a higher number of metastatic sites, elevated serum LDH and a neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio above the cut-off value were associated with inferior PFS regardless of the therapy received, but only serum LDH level and the presence of lung metastases remained significant predictors of PFS in a multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Present real-world data document the high effectiveness of immunotherapy and targeted therapy. Although targeted therapy had higher response rates, immunotherapy improved PFS and OS. While the prognostic value of LDH was confirmed, the potential use of blood cell count-derived parameters to predict outcomes needs further investigation.

Immunosurveillance in clinical cancer management

The progression of cancer involves a critical step in which malignant cells escape from control by the immune system. Antineoplastic agents are particularly efficient when they succeed in restoring such control (immunosurveillance) or at least establish an equilibrium state that slows down disease progression. This is true not only for immunotherapies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but also for conventional chemotherapy, targeted anticancer agents, and radiation therapy. Thus, therapeutics that stress and kill cancer cells while provoking a tumor-targeting immune response, referred to as immunogenic cell death, are particularly useful in combination with ICIs. Modern oncology regimens are increasingly using such combinations, which are referred to as chemoimmunotherapy, as well as combinations of multiple ICIs. However, the latter are generally associated with severe side effects compared with single-agent ICIs. Of note, the success of these combinatorial strategies against locally advanced or metastatic cancers is now spurring successful attempts to move them past the postoperative (adjuvant) setting to the preoperative (neoadjuvant) setting, even for patients with operable cancers. Here, the authors critically discuss the importance of immunosurveillance in modern clinical cancer management.

Long-term survival with systemic therapy in the last decade: Can melanoma be cured?

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have been shown to prolong survival of patients with several types of cancer, and the finding was first established in melanoma. Previously, systemic therapy for advanced melanoma aimed only at tumor control and palliation of symptoms. However, in recent years, some patients who received systemic therapy have achieved a complete response and survived without continuous treatment for more than several years. This review discusses the long-term survival rates achieved with currently used systemic therapies and their future perspectives. Long-term survival is currently most likely to be achieved with the use of the standard-dose combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab, however, this regimen is associated with a high frequency of serious or persistent immune-related adverse events. Several new anti-PD-1-based combination therapies with a better risk-benefit balance are currently under development. Although the acral and mucosal subtypes tend to be less responsive to immune checkpoint inhibitors, anti-PD-1-based combination therapy should continue to be investigated for these subtypes owing to its potential for better long-term survival. With the development of efficacious immunotherapy and targeted therapy, it is important to determine the optimal duration of systemic therapy to avoid unnecessary health and financial burdens as well as to improve efforts to support long-term cancer survivors. As the goal of systemic therapy shifts from tumor control to long-term survival, in future clinical trials, long-term clinical outcomes should be evaluated to assess the benefits of novel agents.

What Is the Timing and Role of Targeted Therapy in Metastatic Melanoma?

ABSTRACT

Melanoma is the most lethal cutaneous malignancy worldwide. The last 15 years have ushered in several regulatory approvals that have dramatically altered the landscape of treatment options for patients with melanoma. Many patients with melanoma harbor activating mutations in the BRAF proto-oncogene, a key component of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) intracellular signaling pathway. Therapies targeting BRAF have led to remarkable improvements in both response rates and survival in patients with metastatic disease. In parallel with these developments in MAPK-targeted therapy has been the clinical development of immune checkpoint inhibitors, which also have improved response rates and survival in patients with metastatic disease including randomized trials compared with MAPK-targeted therapy in patients with advanced, BRAF-mutant melanoma. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have become the preferred first-line standard-of-care treatment for patients with newly diagnosed metastatic disease in patients irrespective of BRAF mutational status. Given these developments, it is now less clear how to optimize the use of MAPK-targeted therapy regarding treatment setting and in sequence with immune checkpoint inhibitor.

A General Approach to Patients Presenting With Locally Advanced or Distant Metastatic Disease

ABSTRACT

The widespread adoption of immune checkpoint inhibitors and small molecule inhibitors of the MAP kinase pathway has transformed the management of locally advanced and metastatic melanoma. Here, we provide a broad overview on the use of these agents in the first-line setting, incorporating a review of the clinical literature as well as the practice patterns of our respective melanoma groups. Throughout, we highlight areas of uncertainty that provide opportunities for future clinical investigation and additional improvement in outcomes for patients with melanoma.

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.

Neoadjuvant cobimetinib and atezolizumab with or without vemurafenib for high-risk operable Stage III melanoma: the Phase II NeoACTIVATE trial

Both targeted therapies and immunotherapies provide benefit in resected Stage III melanoma. We hypothesized that the combination of targeted and immunotherapy given prior to therapeutic lymph node dissection (TLND) would be tolerable and drive robust pathologic responses. In NeoACTIVATE (NCT03554083), a Phase II trial, patients with clinically evident resectable Stage III melanoma received either 12 weeks of neoadjuvant vemurafenib, cobimetinib, and atezolizumab (BRAF-mutated, Cohort A, n = 15), or cobimetinib and atezolizumab (BRAF-wild-type, Cohort B, n = 15) followed by TLND and 24 weeks of adjuvant atezolizumab. Here, we report outcomes from the neoadjuvant portion of the trial. Based on intent to treat analysis, pathologic response (≤50% viable tumor) and major pathologic response (complete or near-complete, ≤10% viable tumor) were observed in 86.7% and 66.7% of BRAF-mutated and 53.3% and 33.3% of BRAF-wild-type patients, respectively (primary outcome); these exceeded pre-specified benchmarks of 50% and 30% for major pathologic response. Grade 3 and higher toxicities, primarily dermatologic, occurred in 63% during neoadjuvant treatment (secondary outcome). No surgical delays nor progression to regional unresectability occurred (secondary outcome). Peripheral blood CD8 + TCM cell expansion associated with favorable pathologic responses (exploratory outcome).

Molecular Targeting of the BRAF Proto-Oncogene/Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase (MAPK) Pathway across Cancers

The mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway is essential for cellular proliferation, growth, and survival. Constitutive activation of this pathway by BRAF mutations can cause downstream activation of kinases, leading to uncontrolled cellular growth and carcinogenesis. Therefore, inhibition of BRAF and the downstream substrate MEK has been shown to be effective in controlling tumor growth and proliferation. Over the last decade, several BRAF and MEK inhibitors have been investigated, ranging from primarily melanoma to various cancer types with BRAF alterations. This subsequently led to several Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for BRAF/MEK inhibitors for melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, anaplastic thyroid cancer, colorectal cancer, histiocytosis neoplasms, and finally, tumor-agnostic indications. Here, this comprehensive review will cover the developments of BRAF and MEK inhibitors from melanomas to tumor-agnostic indications, novel drugs, challenges, future directions, and the importance of those drugs in personalized medicine.

Targeting the EGFR/RAS/RAF signaling pathway in anticancer research: a recent update on inhibitor design and clinical trials (2020-2023)

INTRODUCTION

Recent years have seen significant strides in drug developmenttargeting the EGFR/RAS/RAF signaling pathway which is critical forcell growth and proliferation. Protein-protein interaction networksamong EGFR, RAS, and RAF proteins offer insights for drug discovery. This review discusses the drug design and development efforts ofinhibitors targeting these proteins over the past 3 years, detailingtheir structures, selectivity, efficacy, and combination therapy.Strategies to combat drug resistance and minimize toxicities areexplored, along with future research directions.

AREA COVERED

This review encompasses clinical trials and patents on EGFR, KRAS,and BRAF inhibitors from 2020 to 2023, including advancements indesign and synthesis of proteolysis targeting chimeras (PROTACs) forprotein degradation.

EXPERT OPINION

To tackle drug resistance, designing allosteric fourth-generationEGFR inhibitors is vital. Covalent, allosteric, or combinationaltherapies, along with PROTAC degraders, are key methods to addressresistance and toxicity in KRAS and BRAF inhibitors.

First-in-human study of naporafenib (LXH254) with or without spartalizumab in adult patients with advanced solid tumors harboring MAPK signaling pathway alterations

BACKGROUND

We investigated naporafenib (LXH254), a pan-RAF kinase inhibitor, with or without spartalizumab, in patients with advanced solid tumors harboring MAPK pathway alterations.

METHODS

This first-in-human phase 1 study had two dose-escalation arms: single-agent naporafenib (starting at 100 mg once-daily [QD]) and naporafenib (starting at the recommended dose/regimen)/spartalizumab (400 mg every 4 weeks). The naporafenib/spartalizumab dose-expansion part enrolled patients with KRAS-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and NRAS-mutated melanoma. The primary objectives were to establish the maximum tolerated doses (MTD)/recommended doses for expansion (RDE) and evaluate tolerability and safety.

RESULTS

A total of 142 patients were included in the naporafenib dose-escalation (n = 87), naporafenib/spartalizumab dose-escalation (n = 12) and naporafenib/spartalizumab dose-expansion (n = 43) arms. The MTD/RDE of naporafenib was 600 mg twice-daily (BID). In naporafenib escalation, five patients experienced 7 dose-limiting toxicities: decreased platelet count (1200 mg QD); neuralgia, maculopapular rash, pruritus (600 mg BID); increased blood bilirubin, hyponatremia, peripheral sensory neuropathy (800 mg BID). No DLTs occurred in the naporafenib/spartalizumab arm: the RDE was established at 400 mg BID. The most common treatment-related adverse events were rash and dermatitis acneiform (each 24.1%; naporafenib), nausea and pruritus (each 33.3%; naporafenib/spartalizumab; escalation) and rash (39.5%; naporafenib/spartalizumab; expansion). Naporafenib reduced DUSP6 expression in tumors. Two partial responses (PRs) occurred in naporafenib escalation, and 1 complete response and 3 PRs in the naporafenib/spartalizumab NRAS-mutated melanoma and KRAS-mutated NSCLC arms, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Naporafenib, with or without spartalizumab, showed an acceptable safety profile, pharmacodynamic activity and limited antitumor activity. Additional naporafenib combination therapies are currently under investigation.

Predictive Factors in Metastatic Melanoma Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: From Clinical Practice to Future Perspective

The introduction of immunotherapy revolutionized the treatment landscape in metastatic melanoma. Despite the impressive results associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), only a portion of patients obtain a response to this treatment. In this scenario, the research of predictive factors is fundamental to identify patients who may have a response and to exclude patients with a low possibility to respond. These factors can be host-associated, immune system activation-related, and tumor-related. Patient-related factors can vary from data obtained by medical history (performance status, age, sex, body mass index, concomitant medications, and comorbidities) to analysis of the gut microbiome from fecal samples. Tumor-related factors can reflect tumor burden (metastatic sites, lactate dehydrogenase, C-reactive protein, and circulating tumor DNA) or can derive from the analysis of tumor samples (driver mutations, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, and myeloid cells). Biomarkers evaluating the immune system activation, such as IFN-gamma gene expression profile and analysis of circulating immune cell subsets, have emerged in recent years as significantly correlated with response to ICIs. In this manuscript, we critically reviewed the most updated literature data on the landscape of predictive factors in metastatic melanoma treated with ICIs. We focus on the principal limits and potentiality of different methods, shedding light on the more promising biomarkers.

Targeted therapeutic strategies for melanoma

ABSTRACT

Melanoma accounts for a small proportion of skin cancers diagnosed each year, but it has a high degree of malignancy and rapid progression, resulting in a short survival period for patients. The incidence of melanoma continues to rise, and now melanoma accounts for 1.7% of cancer diagnoses worldwide and is the fifth most common cancer in the United States. With the development of high-throughput sequencing technologies, the understanding of the pathophysiology of melanoma had also been improved. The most common activating mutations in melanoma cells are BRAF , NRAS , and KIT mutations, which disrupt cell signaling pathways related to tumor proliferation. The progress has led to the emergence of molecularly targeted drugs, which extends the survival of patients with advanced melanoma. A large number of clinical trials have been conducted to confirm that targeted therapy for patients with advanced melanoma can improve progression-free survival and overall survival, and for stage III patients after radical tumor resection targeted therapy can reduce the recurrence of melanoma. Patients who were originally stage III or IV inoperable have the opportunity to achieve tumor radical resection after targeted therapy. This article reviewed the clinical trial data and summarized the clinical benefits and limitations of these therapies.

Promising and Minimally Invasive Biomarkers: Targeting Melanoma

The therapeutic landscape of malignant melanoma has been radically reformed in recent years, with novel treatments emerging in both the field of cancer immunotherapy and signalling pathway inhibition. Large-scale tumour genomic characterization has accurately classified malignant melanoma into four different genomic subtypes so far. Despite this, only somatic mutations in BRAF oncogene, as assessed in tumour biopsies, has so far become a validated predictive biomarker of treatment with small molecule inhibitors. The biology of tumour evolution and heterogeneity has uncovered the current limitations associated with decoding genomic drivers based only on a single-site tumour biopsy. There is an urgent need to develop minimally invasive biomarkers that accurately reflect the real-time evolution of melanoma and that allow for streamlined collection, analysis, and interpretation. These will enable us to face challenges with tumour tissue attainment and process and will fulfil the vision of utilizing "liquid biopsy" to guide clinical decisions, in a manner akin to how it is used in the management of haematological malignancies. In this review, we will summarize the most recent published evidence on the role of minimally invasive biomarkers in melanoma, commenting on their future potential to lead to practice-changing discoveries.

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.

Atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib in patients with melanoma with CNS metastases (TRICOTEL): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study

BACKGROUND

Targeted therapy and immunotherapy have shown intracranial activity in melanoma with CNS metastases, but there remains an unmet need, particularly for patients with symptomatic CNS metastases. We aimed to evaluate atezolizumab in combination with cobimetinib or vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in patients with melanoma with CNS metastases.

METHODS

TRICOTEL was a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study done in two cohorts: a BRAFV600 wild-type cohort and a BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort, recruited at 21 hospitals and oncology centres in Brazil, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with previously untreated metastatic melanoma, brain metastases of 5 mm or larger in at least one dimension, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less. Patients in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort received intravenous atezolizumab (840 mg, days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle) plus oral cobimetinib (60 mg once daily, days 1-21). Patients in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort received intravenous atezolizumab (840 mg, days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle) plus oral vemurafenib (720 mg twice daily) plus oral cobimetinib (60 mg once daily, days 1-21); atezolizumab was withheld in cycle 1. Treatment was continued until progression, toxicity, or death. The primary outcome was intracranial objective response rate confirmed by assessments at least 4 weeks apart, as assessed by independent review committee (IRC) using modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1. Because of early closure of the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort, the primary endpoint of intracranial objective response rate by IRC assessment was not done in this cohort; intracranial objective response rate by investigator assessment was reported instead. Efficacy and safety were analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is closed to enrolment and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03625141.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 13, 2018, and Dec 7, 2020, 65 patients were enrolled in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort; the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort was closed early after enrolment of 15 patients. Median follow-up was 9·7 months (IQR 6·3-15·0) for the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort and 6·2 months (3·5-23·0) for the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort. Intracranial objective response rate was 42% (95% CI 29-54) by IRC assessment in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort and 27% (95% CI 8-55) by investigator assessment in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort. Treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 41 (68%) of 60 patients who received atezolizumab plus vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort, the most common of which were lipase increased (15 [25%] of 60 patients) and blood creatine phosphokinase increased (11 [18%]). Eight (53%) of 15 patients treated with atezolizumab plus cobimetinib in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort had treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events, most commonly anaemia (two [13%]) and dermatitis acneiform (two [13%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 14 (23%) of 60 patients who received triplet therapy in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort and two (13%) of 15 in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort. No treatment-related deaths occurred.

INTERPRETATION

Atezolizumab plus vemurafenib and cobimetinib provided intracranial activity in patients with BRAFV600-mutated melanoma with CNS metastases.

FUNDING

F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Proteasome inhibition potentiates Kv1.3 potassium channel expression as therapeutic target in drug-sensitive and -resistant human melanoma cells

Primary and acquired therapy resistance is a major problem in patients with BRAF-mutant melanomas being treated with BRAF and MEK inhibitors (BRAFI, MEKi). Therefore, development of alternative therapy regimes is still required. In this regard, new drug combinations targeting different pathways to induce apoptosis could offer promising alternative approaches. Here, we investigated the combination of proteasome and Kv1.3 potassium channel inhibition on chemo-resistant, BRAF inhibitor-resistant as well as sensitive human melanoma cells. Our experiments demonstrated that all analyzed melanoma cell lines were sensitive to proteasome inhibitor treatment at concentrations that are not toxic to primary human fibroblasts. To further reduce proteasome inhibitor-associated side effects, and to foster apoptosis, potassium channels, which are other targets to induce pro-apoptotic effects in cancer cells, were blocked. In support, combined exposure of melanoma cells to proteasome and Kv1.3 channel inhibitor resulted in synergistic effects and significantly reduced cell viability. On the molecular level, enhanced apoptosis correlated with an increase of intracellular Kv1.3 channels and pro-apoptotic proteins such as Noxa and Bak and a reduction of anti-apoptotic proteins. Thus, use of combined therapeutic strategies triggering different apoptotic pathways may efficiently prevent the outgrowth of drug-resistant and -sensitive BRAF-mutant melanoma cells. In addition, this could be the basis for an alternative approach to treat other tumors expressing mutated BRAF such as non-small-cell lung cancer.

Systemic Therapy for Melanoma: ASCO Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To provide guidance to clinicians regarding the use of systemic therapy for melanoma.

METHODS

American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel and conducted an updated systematic review of the literature.

RESULTS

The updated review identified 21 additional randomized trials.

UPDATED RECOMMENDATIONS

Neoadjuvant pembrolizumab was newly recommended for patients with resectable stage IIIB to IV cutaneous melanoma. For patients with resected cutaneous melanoma, adjuvant nivolumab or pembrolizumab was newly recommended for stage IIB-C disease and adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab was added as a potential option for stage IV disease. For patients with unresectable or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, nivolumab plus relatlimab was added as a potential option regardless of BRAF mutation status and nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab was preferred over BRAF/MEK inhibitor therapy. Talimogene laherparepvec is no longer recommended as an option for patients with BRAF wild-type disease who have progressed on anti-PD-1 therapy. Ipilimumab- and ipilimumab-containing regimens are no longer recommended for patients with BRAF-mutated disease after progression on other therapies.This full update incorporates the new recommendations for uveal melanoma published in the 2022 Rapid Recommendation Update.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/melanoma-guidelines.

Tumor Cell Resistance to the Inhibition of BRAF and MEK1/2

BRAF is one of the most frequently mutated oncogenes, with an overall frequency of about 50%. Targeting BRAF and its effector mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase 1/2 (MEK1/2) is now a key therapeutic strategy for BRAF-mutant tumors, and therapies based on dual BRAF/MEK inhibition showed significant efficacy in a broad spectrum of BRAF tumors. Nonetheless, BRAF/MEK inhibition therapy is not always effective for BRAF tumor suppression, and significant challenges remain to improve its clinical outcomes. First, certain BRAF tumors have an intrinsic ability to rapidly adapt to the presence of BRAF and MEK1/2 inhibitors by bypassing drug effects via rewired signaling, metabolic, and regulatory networks. Second, almost all tumors initially responsive to BRAF and MEK1/2 inhibitors eventually acquire therapy resistance via an additional genetic or epigenetic alteration(s). Overcoming these challenges requires identifying the molecular mechanism underlying tumor cell resistance to BRAF and MEK inhibitors and analyzing their specificity in different BRAF tumors. This review aims to update this information.

Enhancing personalized immune checkpoint therapy by immune archetyping and pharmacological targeting

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are an expanding class of immunotherapeutic agents with the potential to cure cancer. Despite the outstanding clinical response in patient subsets, most individuals become refractory or develop resistance. Patient stratification and personalized immunotherapies are limited by the absence of predictive response markers. Recent findings show that dominant patterns of immune cell composition, T-cell status and heterogeneity, and spatiotemporal distribution of immune cells within the tumor microenvironment (TME) are becoming essential determinants of prognosis and therapeutic response. In this context, ICIs also function as investigational tools and proof of concept, allowing the validation of the identified mechanisms. After reviewing the current state of ICIs, this article will explore new comprehensive predictive markers for ICIs based on recent discoveries. We will discuss the recent establishment of a classification of TMEs into immune archetypes as a tool for personalized immune profiling, allowing patient stratification before ICI treatment. We will discuss the developing comprehension of T-cell diversity and its role in shaping the immune profile of patients. We describe the potential of strategies that score the mutual spatiotemporal modulation between T-cells and other cellular components of the TME. Additionally, we will provide an overview of a range of synthetic and naturally occurring or derived small molecules. We will compare compounds that were recently identified by in silico prediction to wet lab-validated drug candidates with the potential to function as ICIs and/or modulators of the cellular components of the TME.

Actionable Genetic Screens Unveil Targeting of AURKA, MEK, and Fatty Acid Metabolism as an Alternative Therapeutic Approach for Advanced Melanoma

Despite the remarkable improvements achieved in the management of metastatic melanoma, there are still unmet clinical needs. A considerable fraction of patients does not respond to immune and/or targeted therapies owing to primary and acquired resistance, high-grade immune-related adverse events, and a lack of alternative treatment options. To design effective combination therapies, we set up a functional ex vivo preclinical assay on the basis of a drop-out genetic screen in metastatic melanoma patient-derived xenografts. We showed that this approach can be used to isolate actionable vulnerabilities predictive of drug efficacy. In particular, we highlighted that the dual targeting of AURKA and MAPK/extracellular signal-regulated kinase kinase employing the combination of alisertib and trametinib is highly effective in a cohort of metastatic melanoma patient-derived xenografts, both ex vivo and in vivo. Alisertib and trametinib combination therapy outperforms standard-of-care therapy in both BRAF-mutant patient-derived xenografts and targeted therapy-resistant models. Furthermore, alisertib and trametinib treatment modulates several critical cancer pathways, including an early metabolic reprogramming that leads to the transcriptional upregulation of the fatty acid oxidation pathway. This acquired trait unveiled an additional point of intervention for pharmacological targeting, and indeed, the triple combination of alisertib and trametinib with the fatty acid oxidation inhibitor etomoxir proved to be further beneficial, inducing tumor regression and remarkably prolonging the overall survival of the mice.

Classification of the tumor immune microenvironment and associations with outcomes in patients with metastatic melanoma treated with immunotherapies

BACKGROUND

Tumor microenvironment (TME) characteristics are potential biomarkers of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic melanoma. This study developed a method to perform unsupervised classification of TME of metastatic melanoma.

METHODS

We used multiplex immunohistochemical and quantitative pathology-derived assessment of immune cell compositions of intratumoral and peritumoral regions of metastatic melanoma baseline biopsies to classify TME in relation to response to anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) monotherapy or in combination with anti-cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4 (ipilimumab (IPI)+PD-1).

RESULTS

Spatial profiling of CD8+T cells, macrophages, and melanoma cells, as well as phenotypic PD-1 receptor ligand (PD-L1) and CD16 proportions, were used to identify and classify patients into one of three mutually exclusive TME classes: immune-scarce, immune-intermediate, and immune-rich tumors. Patients with immune-rich tumors were characterized by a lower proportion of melanoma cells and higher proportions of immune cells, including higher PD-L1 expression. These patients had higher response rates and longer progression-free survival (PFS) than those with immune-intermediate and immune-scarce tumors. At a median follow-up of 18 months (95% CI: 6.7 to 49 months), the 1-year PFS was 76% (95% CI: 64% to 90%) for patients with an immune-rich tumor, 56% (95% CI: 44% to 72%) for those with an immune-intermediate tumor, and 33% (95% CI: 23% to 47%) for patients with an immune-scarce tumor. A higher response rate was observed in patients with an immune-scarce or immune-intermediate tumor when treated with IPI+PD-1 compared with those treated with PD-1 alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study provides an automatic TME classification method that may predict the clinical efficacy of immunotherapy for patients with metastatic melanoma.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of combination therapy versus monotherapy in malignant melanoma

BACKGROUND

Until 2010, stage III or IV malignant melanoma (MM) had a poor prognosis. The discovery of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in 2011 changed the treatment landscape. Promising results in patient survival with a checkpoint inhibitor prompted research into combination therapies. In 2016, the first combination therapy has been approved as first-line therapy for advanced MM.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this work is to investigate to what extent combination therapy is (cost-)effective compared to monotherapy in stage III or IV MM.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed (Web of Science, PubMed, PubPharm, EconLit, and Cochrane Library); searching for publications published over the past decade that examine the cost-effectiveness in terms of cost/QALY and the effectiveness in terms of survival and response of combination therapy in comparison to monotherapy in stage III or IV MM patients.

RESULTS

A total of 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five cost-utility analyses met our inclusion criteria. Nine clinical trials demonstrated superiority of combination therapy over monotherapy. The combination of B-rapidly accelerated fibrosarcoma (BRAF) protein and mitogen-activated kinase (MEK) protein inhibitors is not cost-effective in any country. Three analyses demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of combination therapy with ICI compared to monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Combination therapy is more effective compared to monotherapy. While combined ICIs are cost-effective compared to monotherapy, this is not the case for the combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors.

Prediction of survival and immunotherapy response by the combined classifier of G protein-coupled receptors and tumor microenvironment in melanoma

BACKGROUND

Melanoma is the deadliest form of skin tumor, and G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) play crucial roles in its carcinogenesis. Furthermore, the tumor microenvironment (TME) affects the overall survival (OS) and the response to immunotherapy. The combination of GPCRs and TME from a multi-omics perspective may help to predict the survival of the melanoma patients and their response to immunotherapy.

METHODS

Bulk-seq, single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq), gene mutations, immunotherapy responses, and clinicopathologic feature data were downloaded from public databases, and prognostic GPCRs and immune cells were screened using multiple machine learning algorithms. The expression levels of GPCRs were detected using real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) in A375 and HaCaT cell lines. The GPCR-TME classifier was constructed and verified using different cohorts and multi-omics. Gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA), weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA), and tracking tumor immunophenotype (TIP) were used to identify the key biological pathways among the GPCR-TME subgroups. Then, tumor mutational burden (TMB), vital mutant genes, antigen presentation genes, and immune checkpoints were compared among the subgroups. Finally, the differences in immunotherapy response rates among the GPCR-TME subgroups were investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 12 GPCRs and five immune cell types were screened to establish the GPCR-TME classifier. No significant differences in the expression levels of the 12 GPCRs were found in the two cell lines. Patients with high GPCR score or low TME score had a poor OS; thus, the GPCRlow/TMEhigh subgroup had the most favorable OS. The scRNA-seq result revealed that immune cells had a higher GPCR score than tumor and stromal cells. The GPCR-TME classifier acted as an independent prognostic factor for melanoma. GSEA, WGCNA, and TIP demonstrated that the GPCRlow/TMEhigh subgroup was related to the activation and recruitment of anti-tumor immune cells and the positive regulation of the immune response. From a genomic perspective, the GPCRlow/TMEhigh subgroup had higher TMB, and different mutant genes. Ultimately, higher expression levels of antigen presentation genes and immune checkpoints were observed in the GPCRlow/TMEhigh subgroup, and the melanoma immunotherapy cohorts confirmed that the response rate was highest in the GPCRlow/TMEhigh cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

We have developed a GPCR-TME classifier that could predict the OS and immunotherapy response of patients with melanoma highly effectively based on multi-omics analysis.

Immunotherapy in Melanoma: Recent Advancements and Future Directions

Immune checkpoint inhibition has fundamentally altered the treatment paradigm of resectable and unresectable melanoma, resulting in dramatic improvements in patient outcomes. With these advances, the five-year overall survival in patients with newly diagnosed unresectable disease has eclipsed 50%. Ongoing research is focused on improving outcomes further, with a considerable emphasis on preventing de novo and acquired resistance and personalizing therapeutic options. Here, we review the ongoing advancements in the treatment of malignant melanoma, focusing on novel combination strategies that aim to build upon the successes of the last decade.

Current Treatment of Melanoma Brain Metastases

Melanoma is a type of skin cancer in which there is a strong correlation between its occurrence and exposure to ultraviolet radiation. Although it is not the most common skin cancer, it has the highest mortality rate of all skin cancers. The prognosis of patients is significantly worsened by melanoma metastasis to the brain, which often occurs in patients with advanced disease. The formation and development of melanoma metastases to the brain involve a very complex process, and their mechanisms are not fully understood. One of the ways for metastatic melanoma cells to survive and develop cancer in the brain environment is the presence of oncogenic BRAF mutation, which occurs in up to 50% of metastatic melanoma cases. Before discovering new methods of treating metastases, the overall survival of patients with this disease was 6 months. Currently, research is being conducted on new drugs using immunotherapy (immune checkpoint inhibitors: anti-PD-1, anti-CTLA-4) and targeted therapy (BRAF and MEK inhibitors) to improve the prognosis of patients. In this article, we summarize the current state of knowledge about the results of treating brain metastases with new systemic therapies.

Development and Validation of a Predictive Model for Metastatic Melanoma Patients Treated with Pembrolizumab Based on Automated Analysis of Whole-Body [18F]FDG PET/CT Imaging and Clinical Features

BACKGROUND

Antibodies that inhibit the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) receptor offer a significant survival benefit, potentially cure (i.e., durable disease-free survival following treatment discontinuation), a substantial proportion of patients with advanced melanoma. Most patients however fail to respond to such treatment or acquire resistance. Previously, we reported that baseline total metabolic tumour volume (TMTV) determined by whole-body [18F]FDG PET/CT was independently correlated with survival and able to predict the futility of treatment. Manual delineation of [18F]FDG-avid lesions is however labour intensive and not suitable for routine use. A predictive survival model is proposed based on automated analysis of baseline, whole-body [18F]FDG images.

METHODS

Lesions were segmented on [18F]FDG PET/CT using a deep-learning approach and derived features were investigated through Kaplan-Meier survival estimates with univariate logrank test and Cox regression analyses. Selected parameters were evaluated in multivariate Cox survival regressors.

RESULTS

In the development set of 69 patients, overall survival prediction based on TMTV, lactate dehydrogenase levels and presence of brain metastases achieved an area under the curve of 0.78 at one year, 0.70 at two years. No statistically significant difference was observed with respect to using manually segmented lesions. Internal validation on 31 patients yielded scores of 0.76 for one year and 0.74 for two years.

CONCLUSIONS

Automatically extracted TMTV based on whole-body [18F]FDG PET/CT can aid in building predictive models that can support therapeutic decisions in patients treated with immune-checkpoint blockade.

The role of triple therapy and therapy sequence in treatment of BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma. Response to overall survival with first-line atezolizumab in combination with vemurafenib and cobimetinib in BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma (IMspire150): second interim analysis of a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 study

Novel therapies have achieved unprecedented benefit in survival of advanced melanoma patients. While immunotherapy (ICI) can be administered independent of mutational status, BRAF and MEK kinase inhibitors represent another effective treatment option for patients with BRAF mutant melanoma. Given the benefits these therapies demonstrate, the natural instinct was to combine. Three studies have investigated the benefit of combination of ICI using anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 antibody and targeted therapy (TT) with BRAF and MEK inhibitors over TT and placebo. Among these studies, statistically significantly superior duration of response was observed, however overall and progression-free survival were only numerically superior, if at all. One triple combination was approved for BRAF mutant metastatic melanoma; however, the expected synergistic effect of triple therapy could not be universally confirmed and the observed benefits with triple seem to depend on statistical considerations rather than a biological reason. As patients with BRAF mutant melanoma have both ICI and TT as their first-line treatment options, the question whether the sequence matters was addressed. Two prospective trials compared first-line ICI, followed by TT at progression, or vice-versa, with additional "sandwich" approach (8 weeks of TT followed by ICI until progression, then TT again) in the Secombit study. The benefit of first-line ICI was demonstrated in both studies with Secombit study showing the "sandwich" approach to have similar effect. Current data advices for immunotherapy based regiments in patients with BRAF mutant melanoma or, possibly, sandwich approach. Whether triple therapy is superior to ICI monotherapy still needs to be addressed considering not only efficacy, but also safety.

Perspectives in Melanoma: meeting report from the Melanoma Bridge (December 1st-3rd, 2022-Naples, Italy)

Outcomes for patients with melanoma have improved over the past decade with the clinical development and approval of immunotherapies targeting immune checkpoint receptors such as programmed death-1 (PD-1), programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) or cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4). Combinations of these checkpoint therapies with other agents are now being explored to improve outcomes and enhance benefit-risk profiles of treatment. Alternative inhibitory receptors have been identified that may be targeted for anti-tumor immune therapy, such as lymphocyte-activation gene-3 (LAG-3), as have several potential target oncogenes for molecularly targeted therapy, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Unfortunately, many patients still progress and acquire resistance to immunotherapy and molecularly targeted therapies. To bypass resistance, combination treatment with immunotherapies and single or multiple TKIs have been shown to improve prognosis compared to monotherapy. The number of new combinations treatment under development for melanoma provides options for the number of patients to achieve a therapeutic benefit. Many diagnostic and prognostic assays have begun to show clinical applicability providing additional tools to optimize and individualize treatments. However, the question on the optimal algorithm of first- and later-line therapies and the search for biomarkers to guide these decisions are still under investigation. This year, the Melanoma Bridge Congress (Dec 1st-3rd, 2022, Naples, Italy) addressed the latest advances in melanoma research, focusing on themes of paramount importance for melanoma prevention, diagnosis and treatment. This included sessions dedicated to systems biology on immunotherapy, immunogenicity and gene expression profiling, biomarkers, and combination treatment strategies.

Cutaneous melanoma

Cutaneous melanoma is a malignancy arising from melanocytes of the skin. Incidence rates are rising, particularly in White populations. Cutaneous melanoma is typically driven by exposure to ultraviolet radiation from natural sunlight and indoor tanning, although there are several subtypes that are not related to ultraviolet radiation exposure. Primary melanomas are often darkly pigmented, but can be amelanotic, with diagnosis based on a combination of clinical and histopathological findings. Primary melanoma is treated with wide excision, with margins determined by tumour thickness. Further treatment depends on the disease stage (following histopathological examination and, where appropriate, sentinel lymph node biopsy) and can include surgery, checkpoint immunotherapy, targeted therapy, or radiotherapy. Systemic drug therapies are recommended as an adjunct to surgery in patients with resectable locoregional metastases and are the mainstay of treatment in advanced melanoma. Management of advanced melanoma is complex, particularly in those with cerebral metastasis. Multidisciplinary care is essential. Systemic drug therapies, particularly immune checkpoint inhibitors, have substantially increased melanoma survival following a series of landmark approvals from 2011 onward.

IMPemBra: a phase 2 study comparing pembrolizumab with intermittent/short-term dual MAPK pathway inhibition plus pembrolizumab in patients with melanoma harboring the BRAFV600 mutation

BACKGROUND

Continuous combination of MAPK pathway inhibition (MAPKi) and anti-programmed death-(ligand) 1 (PD-(L)1) showed high response rates, but only limited improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) at the cost of a high frequency of treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) in patients with BRAF^V600-mutated melanoma. Short-term MAPKi induces T-cell infiltration in patients and is synergistic with anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) in a preclinical melanoma mouse model. The aim of this phase 2b trial was to identify an optimal regimen of short-term MAPKi with dabrafenib plus trametinib in combination with pembrolizumab.

METHODS

Patients with treatment-naïve BRAF^V600E/K-mutant advanced melanoma started pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks. In week 6, patients were randomized to continue pembrolizumab only (cohort 1), or to receive, in addition, intermittent dabrafenib 150 mg two times per day plus trametinib 2 mg one time per day for two cycles of 1 week (cohort 2), two cycles of 2 weeks (cohort 3), or continuously for 6 weeks (cohort 4). All cohorts continued pembrolizumab for up to 2 years. Primary endpoints were safety and treatment-adherence. Secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) at week 6, 12, 18 and PFS.

RESULTS

Between June 2016 and August 2018, 33 patients with advanced melanoma have been included and 32 were randomized. Grade 3-4 TRAE were observed in 12%, 12%, 50%, and 63% of patients in cohort 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. All planned targeted therapy was given in 88%, 63%, and 38% of patients in cohort 2, 3, and 4. ORR at week 6, 12, and 18 were 38%, 63%, and 63% in cohort 1; 25%, 63%, and 75% in cohort 2; 25%, 50%, and 75% in cohort 3; and 0%, 63%, and 50% in cohort 4. After a median follow-up of 43.5 months, median PFS was 10.6 months for pembrolizumab monotherapy and not reached for patients treated with pembrolizumab and intermittent dabrafenib and trametinib (p=0.17). The 2-year and 3-year landmark PFS were both 25% for cohort 1, both 63% for cohort 2, 50% and 38% for cohort 3 and 75% and 60% for cohort 4.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of pembrolizumab plus intermittent dabrafenib and trametinib seems more feasible and tolerable than continuous triple therapy. The efficacy is promising and appears to be favorable over pembrolizumab monotherapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02625337.

Activity and safety of first-line treatments for advanced melanoma: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Treatment options for advanced melanoma have increased with the US Food and Drug Administration approval of the anti-LAG3 plus anti-PD-1 relatlimab/nivolumab combination. To date, ipilimumab/nivolumab is the benchmark of overall survival, despite a high toxicity profile. Furthermore, in BRAF-mutant patients, BRAF/MEK inhibitors and the atezolizumab/vemurafenib/cobimetinib triplet are also available treatments, making the first-line therapy selection more complex. To address this issue, we conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of the available first-line treatment options in advanced melanoma.

METHODS

Randomised clinical trials of previously untreated, advanced melanoma were included if at least one intervention arm contained a BRAF/MEK or an immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI). The aim was to indirectly compare the ICIs combinations ipilimumab/nivolumab and relatlimab/nivolumab, and these combinations with all the other first-line treatment options for advanced melanoma (irrespective of BRAF status) in terms of activity and safety. The coprimary end-points were progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (≥ G3 TRAEs) rate, defined according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events.

RESULTS

A total of 9070 metastatic melanoma patients treated in 18 randomised clinical trials were included in the network meta-analysis. No difference in PFS and ORR was observed between ipilimumab/nivolumab and relatlimab/nivolumab (HR = 0.99 [95% CI 0.75-1.31] and RR = 0.99 [95% CI 0.78-1.27], respectively). The PD-(L)1/BRAF/MEK inhibitors triplet combinations were superior to ipilimumab/nivolumab in terms of both PFS (HR = 0.56 [95% CI 0.37-0.84]) and ORR (RR = 3.07 [95% CI 1.61-5.85]). Ipilimumab/nivolumab showed the highest risk of developing ≥ G3 TRAEs. Relatlimab/nivolumab trended to a lower risk of ≥ G3 TRAEs (RR = 0.71 [95% CI 0.30-1.67]) versus ipilimumab/nivolumab.

CONCLUSION

Relatlimab/nivolumab showed similar PFS and ORR compared to ipilimumab/nivolumab, with a trend for a better safety profile.

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.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Combined with Targeted Therapy: The Recent Advances and Future Potentials

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized the therapeutic landscape of cancer and have been widely approved for use in the treatment of diverse solid tumors. Targeted therapy has been an essential part of cancer treatment for decades, and in most cases, a special drug target is required. Numerous studies have confirmed the synergistic effect of combining ICIs with targeted therapy. For example, triple therapy of PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab plus BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib and MEK inhibitor cobimetinib has been approved as the first-line treatment in advanced melanoma patients with BRAF^V600 mutations. However, not all combinations of ICIs and targeted therapy work. Combining ICIs with EGFR inhibitors in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutations only triggered toxicities and did not improve efficacy. Therefore, the efficacies of combinations of ICIs and different targeted agents are distinct. This review firstly and comprehensively covered the current status of studies on the combination of ICIs mainly referring to PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors and targeted drugs, including angiogenesis inhibitors, EGFR/HER2 inhibitors, PARP inhibitors and MAPK/ERK signaling pathway inhibitors, in the treatment of solid tumors. We discussed the underlying mechanisms, clinical efficacies, side effects, and potential predictive biomarkers to give an integrated view of the combination strategy and provide perspectives for future directions in solid tumors.

Clinical and molecular overview of immunotherapeutic approaches for malignant skin melanoma: Past, present and future

Traditional therapeutic approaches for malignant melanoma, have proved to be limited and/or ineffective, especially with respect to their role in improving patient survival and tumor recurrence. In this regard, immunotherapy has been demonstrated to be a promising therapeutic alternative, boosting antitumor responses through the modulation of cell signaling pathways involved in the effector mechanisms of the immune system, particularly, the so-called "immunological checkpoints". Clinical studies on the efficacy and safety of immunotherapeutic regimens, alone or in combination with other antitumor approaches, have increased dramatically in recent decades, with very encouraging results. Hence, this review will discuss the current immunotherapeutic regimens used to treat malignant melanoma, as well as the molecular and cellular mechanisms involved. In addition, current clinical studies that have investigated the use, efficacy, and adverse events of immunotherapy in melanoma will also be discussed.

In situ administration of temperature-sensitive hydrogel composite loading paclitaxel microspheres and cisplatin for the treatment of melanoma

Chemotherapy is one of the main therapeutic strategies for the treatment of malignant melanoma. Conventional chemotherapeutic agents often lack targeting abilities, and efficacy is hampered by their high toxic effects to normal tissues and rapid clearance from the circulation. In this study, porous paclitaxel (PTX)-loaded polylactide (PLA) microspheres (PPMSs) were prepared by a modified double-emulsion-solvent evaporation method. In addition, PPMSs and cisplatin (DDP) were co-embedded in a thermosensitive hydrogel to construct a dual-drug co-delivery hydrogel system (PPMSs/DDP@Gel) for in-situ chemotherapy to treat melanoma by means of an intra-tumoral injection. The system allows for the sustained release of two drugs and exhibits good temperature-sensitive properties. In vitro antitumor activity showed that this hydrogel composite can induce B16 cell apoptosis and inhibit its migration. In vivo, anti-tumor studies have shown that the PPMSs/DDP@Gel significantly inhibited tumor growth, prolonged the survival of tumor-bearing mice, and had no obvious toxic side effects on major organs. Furthermore, immunohistochemical analysis revealed that PPMSs/DDP@Gel significantly inhibited tumor cell proliferation and promoted apoptosis of tumor cells. Taken together, the injectable temperature-sensitive PPMSs/DDP@Gel is a promising candidate for the local treatment of melanoma.

The therapeutic potential of targeting minimal residual disease in melanoma

Background

Cutaneous melanoma is a lethal form of skin cancer with morbidity and mortality rates highest amongst European, North American and Australasian populations. The developments of targeted therapies (TTs) directed at the oncogene BRAF and its downstream mediator MEK, and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), have revolutionized the treatment of metastatic melanoma, improving patient outcomes. However, both TT and ICI have their limitations. Although TTs are associated with high initial response rates, these are typically short‐lived due to resistance. Conversely, although ICIs provide more durable responses, they have lower initial response rates. Due to these distinct yet complementary response profiles, it has been proposed that sequencing ICI with TT could lead to a high frequency of durable responses whilst circumventing the toxicity associated with combined ICI + TT treatment. However, several questions remain unanswered, including the mechanisms underpinning this synergy and the optimal sequencing strategy. The key to determining this is to uncover the biology of each phase of the therapeutic response.

Aims and methods

In this review, we show that melanoma responds to TT and ICI in three phases: early response, minimal residual disease (MRD) and disease progression. We explore the effects of ICI and TT on melanoma cells and the tumour immune microenvironment, with a particular focus on MRD which is predicted to underpin the development of acquired resistance in the third phase of response.

Conclusion

In doing so, we provide a new framework which may inform novel therapeutic approaches for melanoma, including optimal sequencing strategies and agents that target MRD, thereby ultimately improving clinical outcomes for patients.