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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma have limited treatment options. Hedgehog pathway signalling is aberrantly activated in around 95% of tumours. We assessed the antitumour activity of sonidegib, a Hedgehog signalling inhibitor, in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma. BOLT is an ongoing multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 2 trial. Eligible patients had locally advanced basal cell carcinoma not amenable to curative surgery or radiation or metastatic basal cell carcinoma. Patients were randomised via an automated system in a 1:2 ratio to receive 200 mg or 800 mg oral sonidegib daily, stratified by disease, histological subtype, and geographical region. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response, assessed in the primary efficacy analysis population (patients with fully assessable locally advanced disease and all those with metastatic disease) with data collected up to 6 months after randomisation of the last patient. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01327053. Between July 20, 2011, and Jan 10, 2013, we enrolled 230 patients, 79 in the 200 mg sonidegib group, and 151 in the 800 mg sonidegib group. Median follow-up was 13·9 months (IQR 10·1–17·3). In the primary efficacy analysis population, 20 (36%, 95% CI 24–50) of 55 patients receiving 200 mg sonidegib and 39 (34%, 25–43) of 116 receiving 800 mg sonidegib achieved an objective response. In the 200 mg sonidegib group, 18 (43%, 95% CI 28–59) patients who achieved an objective response, as assessed by central review, were noted among the 42 with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma and two (15%, 2–45) among the 13 with metastatic disease. In the 800 mg group, 35 (38%, 95% CI 28–48) of 93 patients with locally advanced disease had an objective response, as assessed by central review, as did four (17%, 5–39) of 23 with metastatic disease. Fewer adverse events leading to dose interruptions or reductions (25 [32%] of 79 patients vs 90 [60%] of 150) or treatment discontinuation (17 [22%] vs 54 [36%]) occurred in patients in the 200 mg group than in the 800 mg group. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were raised creatine kinase (five [6%] in the 200 mg group vs 19 [13%] in the 800 mg group) and lipase concentration (four [5%] vs eight [5%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 11 (14%) of 79 patients in the 200 mg group and 45 (30%) of 150 patients in the 800 mg group. The benefit-to-risk profile of 200 mg sonidegib might offer a new treatment option for patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma, a population that is difficult to treat. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Background The BOLT study for sonidegib, a Hedgehog pathway inhibitor (HHI) approved for patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma (laBCC) not amenable to curative surgery or radiotherapy, used modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) for laBCC tumor evaluation. The ERIVANCE study for vismodegib, another HHI, used a composite RECIST endpoint of ≥30% reduction in externally visible tumor or radiographic dimension, or complete ulceration resolution. This preplanned sensitivity BOLT analysis evaluated efficacy outcomes using ERIVANCE-like criteria in patients with laBCC who received sonidegib 200 mg once daily. Methods This phase 2, double-blind study randomized patients 1:2 to sonidegib 200:800 mg daily, respectively. Key endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD). laBCC tumors were assessed by both mRECIST and ERIVANCE-like criteria. Per mRECIST, an overall response of CR was based on negative histology; photographic assessment of CR, PR (scar/fibrosis only), SD (scar/fibrosis only), or not available (NA); and a magnetic resonance imaging response of CR or NA. An overall response of CR was primarily based on negative histology using ERIVANCE-like criteria. Results Per mRECIST criteria, ORR (95% confidence interval [CI]) by central and investigator review for patients with laBCC ( n  = 66) was 56.1% (43.3–68.3%) and 71.2% (58.7–81.7%), respectively. CR per central review was achieved in 3 (4.5%) patients and PR, SD, and PD occurred in 34 (51.5%), 23 (34.8%), and 1 (1.5%) patient, respectively. Median (95% CI) DOR was 26.1 months (not estimable [NE]). Using ERIVANCE-like criteria, efficacy outcomes per central and investigator review were higher, with an ORR (95% CI) of 60.6% (47.8–72.4%) and 74.2% (62.0–84.2%), respectively. CR per central review was reached in 14 (21.2%) patients and PR, SD, and PD occurred in 26 (39.4%), 20 (30.3%), and 1 (1.5%) patient, respectively. DOR was unchanged with a median (95% CI) of 26.1 months (NE). Conclusions Overall, applying ERIVANCE-like criteria to patients with laBCC receiving sonidegib 200 mg daily yielded higher response rates vs mRECIST criteria. Trial registration BOLT registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01327053 ) on March 30, 2011.

BackgroundCemiplimab, a high-affinity, potent human immunoglobulin G4 monoclonal antibody to programmed cell death-1 demonstrated antitumor activity in a Phase 1 advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) expansion cohort (NCT02383212) and the pivotal Phase 2 study (NCT02760498). Here we report the primary analysis of fixed dose cemiplimab 350 mg intravenously every 3 weeks (Q3W) (Group 3) and provide a longer-term update after the primary analysis of weight-based cemiplimab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks (Q2W) (Group 1) among metastatic CSCC (mCSCC) patients in the pivotal study (NCT02760498).MethodsThe primary objective for each group was objective response rate (ORR) per independent central review (ICR). Secondary endpoints included ORR by investigator review (INV), duration of response (DOR) per ICR and INV, and safety and tolerability.ResultsFor Group 3 (n=56) and Group 1 (n=59), median follow-up was 8.1 (range, 0.6 to 14.1) and 16.5 (range, 1.1 to 26.6) months, respectively. ORR per ICR was 41.1% (95% CI, 28.1% to 55.0%) in Group 3, 49.2% (95% CI, 35.9% to 62.5%) in Group 1, and 45.2% (95% CI, 35.9% to 54.8%) in both groups combined. Per ICR, Kaplan–Meier estimate for DOR at 8 months was 95.0% (95% CI, 69.5% to 99. 3%) in responding patients in Group 3, and at 12 months was 88.9% (95% CI, 69.3% to 96.3%) in responding patients in Group 1. Per INV, ORR was 51.8% (95% CI, 38.0% to 65.3%) in Group 3, 49.2% (95% CI, 35.9% to 62.5%) in Group 1, and 50.4% (95% CI, 41.0% to 59.9%) in both groups combined. Overall, the most common adverse events regardless of attribution were fatigue (27.0%) and diarrhea (23.5%).ConclusionIn patients with mCSCC, cemiplimab 350 mg intravenously Q3W produced substantial antitumor activity with durable response and an acceptable safety profile. Follow-up data of cemiplimab 3 mg/kg intravenously Q2W demonstrate ongoing durability of responses.Trial registration numberClinicaltrials.gov, NCT02760498. Registered May 3, 2016, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02760498