Explore the vast range of titles available.

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

Immune-checkpoint blockade (ICB) has demonstrated efficacy in many tumor types, but predictors of responsiveness to anti-PD1 ICB are incompletely characterized. In this study, we analyzed a clinically annotated cohort of patients with melanoma (n = 144) treated with anti-PD1 ICB, with whole-exome and whole-transcriptome sequencing of pre-treatment tumors. We found that tumor mutational burden as a predictor of response was confounded by melanoma subtype, whereas multiple novel genomic and transcriptomic features predicted selective response, including features associated with MHC-I and MHC-II antigen presentation. Furthermore, previous anti-CTLA4 ICB exposure was associated with different predictors of response compared to tumors that were naive to ICB, suggesting selective immune effects of previous exposure to anti-CTLA4 ICB. Finally, we developed parsimonious models integrating clinical, genomic and transcriptomic features to predict intrinsic resistance to anti-PD1 ICB in individual tumors, with validation in smaller independent cohorts limited by the availability of comprehensive data. Broadly, we present a framework to discover predictive features and build models of ICB therapeutic response.Analysis of fully clinically annotated and sequenced melanoma tumor samples collected before anti-PD1 treatment suggests that determinants of response differ on the basis of previous anti-CTLA4 therapy, and that tumor mutational burden may not be a strong predictor of response across melanoma subtypes.

Monoclonal antibodies directed against cytotoxic T lymphocyte–associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4), such as ipilimumab, yield considerable clinical benefit for patients with metastatic melanoma by inhibiting immune checkpoint activity, but clinical predictors of response to these therapies remain incompletely characterized. To investigate the roles of tumor-specific neoantigens and alterations in the tumor microenvironment in the response to ipilimumab, we analyzed whole exomes from pretreatment melanoma tumor biopsies and matching germline tissue samples from 110 patients. For 40 of these patients, we also obtained and analyzed transcriptome data from the pretreatment tumor samples. Overall mutational load, neoantigen load, and expression of cytolytic markers in the immune microenvironment were significantly associated with clinical benefit. However, no recurrent neoantigen peptide sequences predicted responder patient populations. Thus, detailed integrated molecular characterization of large patient cohorts may be needed to identify robust determinants of response and resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor antibody, can result in durable responses in patients with melanoma who have progressed after ipilimumab and BRAF inhibitors. We assessed the efficacy and safety of nivolumab compared with investigator's choice of chemotherapy (ICC) as a second-line or later-line treatment in patients with advanced melanoma. In this randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients at 90 sites in 14 countries. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, had unresectable or metastatic melanoma, and progressed after ipilimumab, or ipilimumab and a BRAF inhibitor if they were BRAFV 600 mutation-positive. Participating investigators randomly assigned (with an interactive voice response system) patients 2:1 to receive an intravenous infusion of nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or ICC (dacarbazine 1000 mg/m2 every 3 weeks or paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 combined with carboplatin area under the curve 6 every 3 weeks) until progression or unacceptable toxic effects. We stratified randomisation by BRAF mutation status, tumour expression of PD-L1, and previous best overall response to ipilimumab. We used permuted blocks (block size of six) within each stratum. Primary endpoints were the proportion of patients who had an objective response and overall survival. Treatment was given open-label, but those doing tumour assessments were masked to treatment assignment. We assessed objective responses per-protocol after 120 patients had been treated with nivolumab and had a minimum follow-up of 24 weeks, and safety in all patients who had had at least one dose of treatment. The trial is closed and this is the first interim analysis, reporting the objective response primary endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01721746. Between Dec 21, 2012, and Jan 10, 2014, we screened 631 patients, randomly allocating 272 patients to nivolumab and 133 to ICC. Confirmed objective responses were reported in 38 (31·7%, 95% CI 23·5–40·8) of the first 120 patients in the nivolumab group versus five (10·6%, 3·5–23·1) of 47 patients in the ICC group. Grade 3–4 adverse events related to nivolumab included increased lipase (three [1%] of 268 patients), increased alanine aminotransferase, anaemia, and fatigue (two [1%] each); for ICC, these included neutropenia (14 [14%] of 102), thrombocytopenia (six [6%]), and anaemia (five [5%]). We noted grade 3–4 drug-related serious adverse events in 12 (5%) nivolumab-treated patients and nine (9%) patients in the ICC group. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Nivolumab led to a greater proportion of patients achieving an objective response and fewer toxic effects than with alternative available chemotherapy regimens for patients with advanced melanoma that has progressed after ipilimumab or ipilimumab and a BRAF inhibitor. Nivolumab represents a new treatment option with clinically meaningful durable objective responses in a population of high unmet need. Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Globally, basal cell carcinoma is the most commonly diagnosed cancer. While most cases are amenable to surgery, treatment options for advanced basal cell carcinoma, including locally advanced basal cell carcinoma and metastatic basal cell carcinoma, have proved more difficult. Recent advances regarding the role of hedgehog signaling in the pathogenesis of basal cell carcinoma and the identification of hedgehog pathway inhibitors have facilitated the development of treatment options with improved clinical outcomes. The hedgehog signaling pathway regulates development, cell proliferation, and tissue repair. The pathway is tightly regulated under normal physiological conditions. However, dysregulated hedgehog signaling in human cancers was first described in patients with basal cell carcinoma nevus syndrome and sporadic basal cell carcinoma, in which germline or somatic mutations in pathway components (e.g., smoothened [Smo] and patched-1) lead to constant activation. Subsequently, inhibitors blocking hedgehog signaling either at the level of Smo (i.e., vismodegib, sonidegib, patidegib, and itraconazole) or via an unknown mode of action (arsenic trioxide) were identified. The hedgehog inhibitor vismodegib is approved for the treatment of locally advanced basal cell carcinoma and metastatic basal cell carcinoma while sonidegib is approved for the treatment of locally advanced basal cell carcinoma in the USA and Europe; and for locally advanced basal cell carcinoma and metastatic basal cell carcinoma in Switzerland and Australia. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events associated with approved hedgehog inhibitors include muscle spasms, dysgeusia, and alopecia. This review addresses the challenges associated with appropriately diagnosing locally advanced basal cell carcinoma, provides an overview of hedgehog signaling in basal cell carcinoma, and discusses the pharmacology of hedgehog inhibitors and their efficacy, and adverse events associated with hedgehog inhibitor use, and their management.

Melanoma treatment has been revolutionized by antibody-based immunotherapies. IFNγ secretion by CD8 + T cells is critical for therapy efficacy having anti-proliferative and pro-apoptotic effects on tumour cells. Our study demonstrates a genetic evolution of IFNγ resistance in different melanoma patient models. Chromosomal alterations and subsequent inactivating mutations in genes of the IFNγ signalling cascade, most often JAK1 or JAK2, protect melanoma cells from anti-tumour IFNγ activity. JAK1/2 mutants further evolve into T-cell-resistant HLA class I-negative lesions with genes involved in antigen presentation silenced and no longer inducible by IFNγ. Allelic JAK1/2 losses predisposing to IFNγ resistance development are frequent in melanoma. Subclones harbouring inactivating mutations emerge under various immunotherapies but are also detectable in pre-treatment biopsies. Our data demonstrate that JAK1/2 deficiency protects melanoma from anti-tumour IFNγ activity and results in T-cell-resistant HLA class I-negative lesions. Screening for mechanisms of IFNγ resistance should be considered in therapeutic decision-making. IFNγ secretion by CD8 + T cells is critical for immunotherapy efficacy. In this study, the authors show that melanoma patients can become resistant to immunotherapy by acquiring chromosomal alterations and subsequent inactivating mutations in genes of the IFNγ signalling cascade, most often JAK1 or JAK2.

A phase 2 trial suggested increased overall survival and increased incidence of treatment-related grade 3–4 adverse events with ipilimumab 10 mg/kg compared with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg in patients with advanced melanoma. We report a phase 3 trial comparing the benefit–risk profile of ipilimumab 10 mg/kg versus 3 mg/kg. This randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial was done in 87 centres in 21 countries worldwide. Patients with untreated or previously treated unresectable stage III or IV melanoma, without previous treatment with BRAF inhibitors or immune checkpoint inhibitors, were randomly assigned (1:1) with an interactive voice response system by the permuted block method using block size 4 to ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or 3 mg/kg, administered by intravenous infusion for 90 min every 3 weeks for four doses. Patients were stratified by metastasis stage, previous treatment for metastatic melanoma, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. The patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population and safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is completed and was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01515189. Between Feb 29, and July 9, 2012, 727 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to ipilimumab 10 mg/kg (365 patients; 364 treated) or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (362 patients; all treated). Median follow-up was 14·5 months (IQR 4·6–42·3) for the ipilimumab 10 mg/kg group and 11·2 months (4·9–29·4) for the ipilimumab 3 mg/kg group. Median overall survival was 15·7 months (95% CI 11·6–17·8) for ipilimumab 10 mg/kg compared with 11·5 months (9·9–13·3) for ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (hazard ratio 0·84, 95% CI 0·70–0·99; p=0·04). The most common grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea (37 [10%] of 364 patients in the 10 mg/kg group vs 21 [6%] of 362 patients in the 3 mg/kg group), colitis (19 [5%] vs nine [2%]), increased alanine aminotransferase (12 [3%] vs two [1%]), and hypophysitis (ten [3%] vs seven [2%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 133 (37%) patients in the 10 mg/kg group and 66 (18%) patients in the 3 mg/kg group; four (1%) versus two (<1%) patients died from treatment-related adverse events. In patients with advanced melanoma, ipilimumab 10 mg/kg resulted in significantly longer overall survival than did ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, but with increased treatment-related adverse events. Although the treatment landscape for advanced melanoma has changed since this study was initiated, the clinical use of ipilimumab in refractory patients with unmet medical needs could warrant further assessment. Bristol-Myers Squibb.

There are no established therapies specific for NRAS-mutant melanoma despite the emergence of immunotherapy. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the MEK inhibitor binimetinib versus that of dacarbazine in patients with advanced NRAS-mutant melanoma. NEMO is an ongoing, randomised, open-label phase 3 study done at 118 hospitals in 26 countries. Patients with advanced, unresectable, American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IIIC or stage IV NRAS-mutant melanoma who were previously untreated or had progressed on or after previous immunotherapy were randomised (2:1) to receive either binimetinib 45 mg orally twice daily or dacarbazine 1000 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by stage, performance status, and previous immunotherapy. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by blinded central review in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the safety population, consisting of all patients who received at least one study drug dose and one post-baseline safety assessment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01763164 and with EudraCT, number 2012-003593-51. Between Aug 19, 2013, and April 28, 2015, 402 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 269 to binimetinib and 133 to dacarbazine. Median follow-up was 1·7 months (IQR 1·4–4·1). Median progression-free survival was 2·8 months (95% CI 2·8–3·6) in the binimetinib group and 1·5 months (1·5–1·7) in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio 0·62 [95% CI 0·47–0·80]; one-sided p<0·001). Grade 3–4 adverse events seen in at least 5% of patients the safety population in either group were increased creatine phosphokinase (52 [19%] of 269 patients in the binimetinib group vs none of 114 in the dacarbazine group), hypertension (20 [7%] vs two [2%]), anaemia (five [2%] vs six [5%]), and neutropenia (two [1%] vs ten [9%]). Serious adverse events (all grades) occurred in 91 (34%) patients in the binimetinib group and 25 (22%) patients in the dacarbazine group. Binimetinib improved progression-free survival compared with dacarbazine and was tolerable. Binimetinib might represent a new treatment option for patients with NRAS-mutant melanoma after failure of immunotherapy. Array BioPharma and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Primary analysis of the phase 3 IMspire150 study showed improved investigator-assessed progression-free survival with first-line atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (atezolizumab group) versus placebo, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (control group) in patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma. With a median follow-up of 18·9 months (IQR 10·4–23·8) at the primary analysis, overall survival data were immature. Here, we report the results from the second, prespecified, interim overall survival analysis. The multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 IMspire150 study was done at 108 academic and community hospitals in 20 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated unresectable stage IIIc or stage IV melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either atezolizumab (840 mg intravenously on day 1 and 15) or placebo plus vemurafenib (960 mg or 720 mg twice daily orally) and cobimetinib (60 mg once daily orally; 21 days on and 7 days off) in 28-day cycles. Atezolizumab and placebo were added to treatment regimens from cycle two onwards. Randomisation was done centrally (Durham, NC, USA) based on a permuted block randomisation scheme (block size of 4) using an interactive web-based response system and was stratified by geographical region and baseline lactate dehydrogenase concentration. Overall survival was analysed in the intention-to-treat population and safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug according to actual treatment received. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, which was previously reported. Here, we report the second, prespecified, interim overall survival analysis, which was planned after about 270 overall survival events had occurred. The trial is ongoing, but is no longer enrolling patients, and it is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02908672. Between Jan 13, 2017, and April 26, 2018, 514 patients (median age 54 years [IQR 43–63]; 299 [58%] men and 215 [42%] women) were enrolled in the trial and randomly assigned to the atezolizumab group (256 [50%] patients) or the control group (258 [50%] patients). At the data cutoff (Sept 8, 2021), 273 patients had died (126 in the atezolizumab group and 147 in the control group). Median follow-up was 29·1 months (IQR 10·1–45·4) for the atezolizumab group versus 22·8 months (10·6–44·1) for the control group. Median overall survival was 39·0 months (95% CI 29·9–not estimable) in the atezolizumab group versus 25·8 months (22·0–34·6) in the control group (HR 0·84 [95% CI 0·66–1·06]; p=0·14). The most common adverse events of any grade in the atezolizumab group were blood creatine phosphokinase increased (123 [53%] of 231 patients), diarrhoea (116 [50%]), and pyrexia (115 [50%]). The most common adverse events of any grade in the control group were diarrhoea (157 [56%] of 280 patients), blood creatine phosphokinase increased (135 [48%]), and rash (119 [43%]). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were increased lipase (54 [23%] of 231 patients in the atezolizumab group vs 62 [22%] of 280 patients in the control group), increased blood creatine phosphokinase (51 [22%] vs 50 [18%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase (32 [14%] vs 26 [9%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 112 (48%) patients in the atezolizumab group and 117 (42%) patients in the control group. Grade 5 adverse events were reported in eight (3%) patients in the atezolizumab group versus six (2%) patients in the control group. Two grade 5 adverse events (hepatitis fulminant and hepatic failure) in the atezolizumab group were considered to be associated with the triplet combination, and one event in the control group (pulmonary haemorrhage) was considered to be associated with cobimetinib. Additional follow-up of the IMspire150 trial showed that overall survival was not significantly improved with atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib compared with placebo, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib in patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma. Results of the final analysis are awaited to establish whether a significant improvement in overall survival can be achieved with long-term treatment with this triplet combination versus vemurafenib plus cobimetinib. F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Dabrafenib, an inhibitor of mutated BRAF, has clinical activity with a manageable safety profile in studies of phase 1 and 2 in patients with BRAFV600-mutated metastatic melanoma. We studied the efficacy of dabrafenib in patients with BRAFV600E-mutated metastatic melanoma. We enrolled patients in this open-label phase 3 trial between Dec 23, 2010, and Sept 1, 2011. This report is based on a data cutoff date of Dec 19, 2011. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated, stage IV or unresectable stage III BRAFV600E mutation-positive melanoma were randomly assigned (3:1) to receive dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily, orally) or dacarbazine (1000 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks). Patients were stratified according to American Joint Committee on Cancer stage (unresectable III+IVM1a+IVM1b vs IVM1c). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival and was analysed by intention to treat; safety was assessed per protocol. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01227889. Of the 733 patients screened, 250 were randomly assigned to receive either dabrafenib (187 patients) or dacarbazine (63 patients). Median progression-free survival was 5·1 months for dabrafenib and 2·7 months for dacarbazine, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·30 (95% CI 0·18–0·51; p<0·0001). At data cutoff, 107 (57%) patients in the dabrafenib group and 14 (22%) in the dacarbazine group remained on randomised treatment. Treatment-related adverse events (grade 2 or higher) occurred in 100 (53%) of the 187 patients who received dabrafenib and in 26 (44%) of the 59 patients who received dacarbazine. The most common adverse events with dabrafenib were skin-related toxic effects, fever, fatigue, arthralgia, and headache. The most common adverse events with dacarbazine were nausea, vomiting, neutropenia, fatigue, and asthenia. Grade 3–4 adverse events were uncommon in both groups. Dabrafenib significantly improved progression-free survival compared with dacarbazine. GlaxoSmithKline.