Explore the vast range of titles available.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) targeting CTLA-4 and the PD-1/PD-L1 axis have shown unprecedented clinical activity in several types of cancer and are rapidly transforming the practice of medical oncology. Whereas cytotoxic chemotherapy and small molecule inhibitors ('targeted therapies') largely act on cancer cells directly, immune checkpoint inhibitors reinvigorate anti-tumour immune responses by disrupting co-inhibitory T-cell signalling. While resistance routinely develops in patients treated with conventional cancer therapies and targeted therapies, durable responses suggestive of long-lasting immunologic memory are commonly seen in large subsets of patients treated with ICI. However, initial response appears to be a binary event, with most non-responders to single-agent ICI therapy progressing at a rate consistent with the natural history of disease. In addition, late relapses are now emerging with longer follow-up of clinical trial populations, suggesting the emergence of acquired resistance. As robust biomarkers to predict clinical response and/or resistance remain elusive, the mechanisms underlying innate (primary) and acquired (secondary) resistance are largely inferred from pre-clinical studies and correlative clinical data. Improved understanding of molecular and immunologic mechanisms of ICI response (and resistance) may not only identify novel predictive and/or prognostic biomarkers, but also ultimately guide optimal combination/sequencing of ICI therapy in the clinic. Here we review the emerging clinical and pre-clinical data identifying novel mechanisms of innate and acquired resistance to immune checkpoint inhibition.

Key Points Clinical therapeutics for advanced-stage melanoma have improved dramatically with the development of BRAF and MEK inhibitors, cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed cell-death protein 1 (PD-1) blocking antibodies, and a modified oncolytic herpes virus that is delivered intratumourally The overall survival of patients with advanced-stage melanoma has improved from ∼9 months before 2011 to an as yet undefined timeframe, with a subset of patients having ongoing long-term tumour control Melanoma, particularly cutaneous melanoma, is amendable to immunotherapy for various reasons, including extensive tumour infiltration by T cells, a high mutational load, and crosstalk between oncogenic signalling pathways and immunobiology Resistance mechanisms to BRAF-targeted treatments and immunotherapies are being elucidated; reactivation of the MAPK pathway is common after BRAF inhibition, whereas the effectiveness of both approaches might be limited by loss of tumour antigen presentation and T-cell trafficking To move the field of clinical therapeutics forward, a greater focus on specific patient populations (based on serum lactose dehydrogenase levels, ECOG performance status, and number of metastases), as well as on landmark progression-free and overall survival measures, will be required in clinical trials In less than a decade, the treatment landscape of metastatic melanoma has changed dramatically. Novel targeted agents and immunotherapies are revolutionizing patient outcomes, but the range of available drugs complicates clinical decision-making. Herein, the authors chart the therapeutic advances and review the current evidence that can be used to guide therapeutic decisions for individual patients with metastatic melanoma, highlighting knowledge gaps. Treatment options for patients with metastatic melanoma, and especially BRAF -mutant melanoma, have changed dramatically in the past 5 years, with the FDA approval of eight new therapeutic agents. During this period, the treatment paradigm for BRAF -mutant disease has evolved rapidly: the standard-of-care BRAF-targeted approach has shifted from single-agent BRAF inhibition to combination therapy with a BRAF and a MEK inhibitor. Concurrently, immunotherapy has transitioned from cytokine-based treatment to antibody-mediated blockade of the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4) and, now, the programmed cell-death protein 1 (PD-1) immune checkpoints. These changes in the treatment landscape have dramatically improved patient outcomes, with the median overall survival of patients with advanced-stage melanoma increasing from approximately 9 months before 2011 to at least 2 years — and probably longer for those with BRAF -V600-mutant disease. Herein, we review the clinical trial data that established the standard-of-care treatment approaches for advanced-stage melanoma. Mechanisms of resistance and biomarkers of response to BRAF-targeted treatments and immunotherapies are discussed, and the contrasting clinical benefits and limitations of these therapies are explored. We summarize the state of the field and outline a rational approach to frontline-treatment selection for each individual patient with BRAF -mutant melanoma.

In August 2011 vemurafenib (Zelboraf; Daiichi Sankyo/Roche), an inhibitor of BRAF kinase, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma with the BRAF V600E mutation.

Genome-based cancer therapeutic matching is limited by incomplete biological understanding of the relationship between phenotype and cancer genotype. This Opinion article proposes that this limitation can be addressed by functional testing of live patient tumour cells exposed to potential therapies. Precision medicine is about matching the right drugs to the right patients. Although this approach is technology agnostic, in cancer there is a tendency to make precision medicine synonymous with genomics. However, genome-based cancer therapeutic matching is limited by incomplete biological understanding of the relationship between phenotype and cancer genotype. This limitation can be addressed by functional testing of live patient tumour cells exposed to potential therapies. Recently, several 'next-generation' functional diagnostic technologies have been reported, including novel methods for tumour manipulation, molecularly precise assays of tumour responses and device-based in situ approaches; these address the limitations of the older generation of chemosensitivity tests. The promise of these new technologies suggests a future diagnostic strategy that integrates functional testing with next-generation sequencing and immunoprofiling to precisely match combination therapies to individual cancer patients.

Therapeutic advances in melanoma seem on the horizon, with the identification of BRAF as a principal therapeutic target. The authors describe the scientific basis for the targeting of BRAF mutations in cancer, the early clinical data with BRAF inhibitors, and how combinatorial therapies may address the current limitations of their use in the clinic. After decades of stagnation, recent therapeutic advances in melanoma seem on the horizon. The discovery of the genetic underpinnings of this historically refractory disease has exposed potential targets for therapy, BRAF mutations being principal among them. In the 8 years following the discovery of BRAF mutations in 50–60% of advanced melanomas, only recently have potent and selective inhibitors of this intracellular signaling molecule shown efficacy from early clinical testing. Vemurafenib (PLX4032) and GSK2118436, two orally available and well tolerated agents are on the verge of transforming the landscape of melanoma therapy based on the promising results of their respective phase I, II, and III trials. Key Points BRAF is the most frequently mutated oncogene in melanoma Selective BRAF inhibitors have produced tumor regression in the vast majority of patients with metastatic melanoma whose tumors harbor activating BRAF mutations Selective BRAF inhibitors are associated with the appearance of keratinocyte proliferations in patients; upregulation of the MAPK pathway in normal cells observed in vitro may explain this observation Additional oncogenic events are associated with BRAF mutations and may provide rational additional targets for combination therapy Preliminary evidence suggests that selective BRAF inhibitors may complement immunotherapy by upregulating antigen expression but without inhibiting T-cell function

Targeted therapy and immunotherapy have greatly improved the prognosis of patients with metastatic melanoma, but resistance to these therapeutic modalities limits the percentage of patients with long-lasting responses. Accumulating evidence indicates that a persisting subpopulation of melanoma cells contributes to resistance to targeted therapy or immunotherapy, even in patients who initially have a therapeutic response; however, the root mechanism of resistance remains elusive. To address this problem, we propose a new model, in which dynamic fluctuations of protein expression at the single-cell level and longitudinal reshaping of the cellular state at the cell-population level explain the whole process of therapeutic resistance development. Conceptually, we focused on two different pivotal signalling pathways (mediated by microphthalmia-associated transcription factor (MITF) and IFNγ) to construct the evolving trajectories of melanoma and described each of the cell states. Accordingly, the development of therapeutic resistance could be divided into three main phases: early survival of cell populations, reversal of senescence, and the establishment of new homeostatic states and development of irreversible resistance. On the basis of existing data, we propose future directions in both translational research and the design of therapeutic strategies that incorporate this emerging understanding of resistance.The authors of this Review propose a new model in which dynamic fluctuations of protein expression at the single-cell level and longitudinal reshaping of the cellular state at the cell-population level explain the process of therapeutic resistance development in patients with melanoma.

Growing evidence suggests that microbes can influence the efficacy of cancer therapies. By studying colon cancer models, we found that bacteria can metabolize the chemotherapeutic drug gemcitabine (2′,2′-difluorodeoxycytidine) into its inactive form, 2′,2′-difluorodeoxyuridine. Metabolism was dependent on the expression of a long isoform of the bacterial enzyme cytidine deaminase (CDDL), seen primarily in Gammaproteobacteria. In a colon cancer mouse model, gemcitabine resistance was induced by intratumor Gammaproteobacteria, dependent on bacterial CDDL expression, and abrogated by cotreatment with the antibiotic ciprofloxacin. Gemcitabine is commonly used to treat pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), and we hypothesized that intratumor bacteria might contribute to drug resistance of these tumors. Consistent with this possibility, we found that of the 113 human PDACs that were tested, 86 (76%) were positive for bacteria, mainly Gammaproteobacteria.

Dabrafenib plus trametinib improves clinical outcomes in BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma without brain metastases; however, the activity of dabrafenib plus trametinib has not been studied in active melanoma brain metastases. Here, we report results from the phase 2 COMBI-MB trial. Our aim was to build on the current body of evidence of targeted therapy in melanoma brain metastases through an evaluation of dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma brain metastases. This ongoing, multicentre, multicohort, open-label, phase 2 study evaluated oral dabrafenib (150 mg twice per day) plus oral trametinib (2 mg once per day) in four patient cohorts with melanoma brain metastases enrolled from 32 hospitals and institutions in Europe, North America, and Australia: (A) BRAFV600E-positive, asymptomatic melanoma brain metastases, with no previous local brain therapy, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1; (B) BRAFV600E-positive, asymptomatic melanoma brain metastases, with previous local brain therapy, and an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1; (C) BRAFV600D/K/R-positive, asymptomatic melanoma brain metastases, with or without previous local brain therapy, and an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1; and (D) BRAFV600D/E/K/R-positive, symptomatic melanoma brain metastases, with or without previous local brain therapy, and an ECOG performance status of 0, 1, or 2. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed intracranial response in cohort A in the all-treated-patients population. Secondary endpoints included intracranial response in cohorts B, C, and D. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02039947. Between Feb 28, 2014, and Aug 5, 2016, 125 patients were enrolled in the study: 76 patients in cohort A; 16 patients in cohort B; 16 patients in cohort C; and 17 patients in cohort D. At the data cutoff (Nov 28, 2016) after a median follow-up of 8·5 months (IQR 5·5–14·0), 44 (58%; 95% CI 46–69) of 76 patients in cohort A achieved an intracranial response. Intracranial response by investigator assessment was also achieved in nine (56%; 95% CI 30–80) of 16 patients in cohort B, seven (44%; 20–70) of 16 patients in cohort C, and ten (59%; 33–82) of 17 patients in cohort D. The most common serious adverse events related to study treatment were pyrexia for dabrafenib (eight [6%] of 125 patients) and decreased ejection fraction (five [4%]) for trametinib. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events, regardless of study drug relationship, were pyrexia (four [3%] of 125) and headache (three [2%]). Dabrafenib plus trametinib was active with a manageable safety profile in this melanoma population that was consistent with previous dabrafenib plus trametinib studies in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma without brain metastases, but the median duration of response was relatively short. These results provide evidence of clinical benefit with dabrafenib plus trametinib and support the need for additional research to further improve outcomes in patients with melanoma brain metastases. Novartis.

Renal-cell carcinoma is highly vascular, and proliferates primarily through dysregulation of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway. We tested sunitinib and sorafenib, two oral anti-angiogenic agents that are effective in advanced renal-cell carcinoma, in patients with resected local disease at high risk for recurrence. In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients at 226 study centres in the USA and Canada. Eligible patients had pathological stage high-grade T1b or greater with completely resected non-metastatic renal-cell carcinoma and adequate cardiac, renal, and hepatic function. Patients were stratified by recurrence risk, histology, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, and surgical approach, and computerised double-blind randomisation was done centrally with permuted blocks. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive 54 weeks of sunitinib 50 mg per day orally throughout the first 4 weeks of each 6 week cycle, sorafenib 400 mg twice per day orally throughout each cycle, or placebo. Placebo could be sunitinib placebo given continuously for 4 weeks of every 6 week cycle or sorafenib placebo given twice per day throughout the study. The primary objective was to compare disease-free survival between each experimental group and placebo in the intention-to-treat population. All treated patients with at least one follow-up assessment were included in the safety analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00326898. Between April 24, 2006, and Sept 1, 2010, 1943 patients from the National Clinical Trials Network were randomly assigned to sunitinib (n=647), sorafenib (n=649), or placebo (n=647). Following high rates of toxicity-related discontinuation after 1323 patients had enrolled (treatment discontinued by 193 [44%] of 438 patients on sunitinib, 199 [45%] of 441 patients on sorafenib), the starting dose of each drug was reduced and then individually titrated up to the original full doses. On Oct 16, 2014, because of low conditional power for the primary endpoint, the ECOG-ACRIN Data Safety Monitoring Committee recommended that blinded follow-up cease and the results be released. The primary analysis showed no significant differences in disease-free survival. Median disease-free survival was 5·8 years (IQR 1·6–8·2) for sunitinib (hazard ratio [HR] 1·02, 97·5% CI 0·85–1·23, p=0·8038), 6·1 years (IQR 1·7–not estimable [NE]) for sorafenib (HR 0·97, 97·5% CI 0·80–1·17, p=0·7184), and 6·6 years (IQR 1·5–NE) for placebo. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were hypertension (105 [17%] patients on sunitinib and 102 [16%] patients on sorafenib), hand-foot syndrome (94 [15%] patients on sunitinib and 208 [33%] patients on sorafenib), rash (15 [2%] patients on sunitinib and 95 [15%] patients on sorafenib), and fatigue (110 [18%] patients on sunitinib and 44 [7%] patients on sorafenib). There were five deaths related to treatment or occurring within 30 days of the end of treatment; one patient receiving sorafenib died from infectious colitis while on treatment and four patients receiving sunitinib died, with one death due to each of neurological sequelae, sequelae of gastric perforation, pulmonary embolus, and disease progression. Revised dosing still resulted in high toxicity. Adjuvant treatment with the VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors sorafenib or sunitinib showed no survival benefit relative to placebo in a definitive phase 3 study. Furthermore, substantial treatment discontinuation occurred because of excessive toxicity, despite dose reductions. These results provide a strong rationale against the use of these drugs for high-risk kidney cancer in the adjuvant setting and suggest that the biology of cancer recurrence might be independent of angiogenesis. US National Cancer Institute and ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group, Pfizer, and Bayer.

Obesity has been linked to increased mortality in several cancer types; however, the relation between obesity and survival outcomes in metastatic melanoma is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between body-mass index (BMI) and progression-free survival or overall survival in patients with metastatic melanoma who received targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or chemotherapy. This retrospective study analysed independent cohorts of patients with metastatic melanoma assigned to treatment with targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or chemotherapy in randomised clinical trials and one retrospective study of patients treated with immunotherapy. Patients were classified according to BMI, following the WHO definitions, as underweight, normal, overweight, or obese. Patients without BMI and underweight patients were excluded. The primary outcomes were the associations between BMI and progression-free survival or overall survival, stratified by treatment type and sex. We did multivariable analyses in the independent cohorts, and combined adjusted hazard ratios in a mixed-effects meta-analysis to provide a precise estimate of the association between BMI and survival outcomes; heterogeneity was assessed with meta-regression analyses. Analyses were done on the predefined intention-to-treat population in the randomised controlled trials and on all patients included in the retrospective study. The six cohorts consisted of a total of 2046 patients with metastatic melanoma treated with targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or chemotherapy between Aug 8, 2006, and Jan 15, 2016. 1918 patients were included in the analysis. Two cohorts containing patients from randomised controlled trials treated with targeted therapy (dabrafenib plus trametinib [n=599] and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib [n=240]), two cohorts containing patients treated with immunotherapy (one randomised controlled trial of ipilimumab plus dacarbazine [n=207] and a retrospective cohort treated with pembrolizumab, nivolumab, or atezolizumab [n=331]), and two cohorts containing patients treated with chemotherapy (two randomised controlled trials of dacarbazine [n=320 and n=221]) were classified according to BMI as normal (694 [36%] patients), overweight (711 [37%]), or obese (513 [27%]). In the pooled analysis, obesity, compared with normal BMI, was associated with improved survival in patients with metastatic melanoma (average adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·77 [95% CI 0·66–0·90] for progression-free survival and 0·74 [0·58–0·95] for overall survival). The survival benefit associated with obesity was restricted to patients treated with targeted therapy (HR 0·72 [0·57–0·91] for progression-free survival and 0·60 [0·45–0·79] for overall survival) and immunotherapy (HR 0·75 [0·56–1·00] and 0·64 [0·47–0·86]). No associations were observed with chemotherapy (HR 0·87 [0·65–1·17, pinteraction=0·61] for progression-free survival and 1·03 [0·80–1·34, pinteraction=0·01] for overall survival). The association of BMI with overall survival for patients treated with targeted and immune therapies differed by sex, with inverse associations in men (HR 0·53 [0·40–0·70]), but no associations observed in women (HR 0·85 [0·61–1·18, pinteraction=0·03]). Our results suggest that in patients with metastatic melanoma, obesity is associated with improved progression-free survival and overall survival compared with those outcomes in patients with normal BMI, and that this association is mainly seen in male patients treated with targeted or immune therapy. These results have implications for the design of future clinical trials for patients with metastatic melanoma and the magnitude of the benefit found supports further investigation of the underlying mechanism of these associations. ASCO/CCF Young Investigator Award, ASCO/CCF Career Development Award, MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) Melanoma Moonshot Program, MDACC Melanoma SPORE, and the Dr Miriam and Sheldon G Adelson Medical Research Foundation.