Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"Dani Moonstar, Karma and Wolfsbane -- the former X-Men-in-training who helped define a generation -- are back to pass their wisdom on to the next one! But how will the New Mutants react to Professor X's up-and-coming students, who think of them as \"Old Mutants\"? Find out as a new class debuts at the Xavier School -- including Prodigy, Wallflower, Wither, Surge, Elixir, Wind Dancer and more! They may be the future of their species -- if they can survive threats like the Reavers and the hate group Purity! As the latest squad comes into its own, the originals settle into new roles as mentors -- but will Wolfsbane's desire to regain her powers cause her to cross a line?\"--Back cover.

Previously, findings from CheckMate 238, a double-blind, phase 3 adjuvant trial in patients with resected stage IIIB–C or stage IV melanoma, showed significant improvements in recurrence-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival with nivolumab versus ipilimumab. This report provides updated 4-year efficacy, initial overall survival, and late-emergent safety results. This multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial was done in 130 academic centres, community hospitals, and cancer centres across 25 countries. Patients aged 15 years or older with resected stage IIIB–C or IV melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive nivolumab or ipilimumab via an interactive voice response system and stratified according to disease stage and baseline PD-L1 status of tumour cells. Patients received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or intravenous ipilimumab 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, and then every 12 weeks until 1 year of treatment, disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival by investigator assessment, and overall survival was a key secondary endpoint. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned patients). All patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included in the safety analysis. The results presented in this report reflect the 4-year update of the ongoing study with a database lock date of Jan 30, 2020. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02388906. Between March 30 and Nov 30, 2015, 906 patients were assigned to nivolumab (n=453) or ipilimumab (n=453). Median follow-up was 51·1 months (IQR 41·6–52·7) with nivolumab and 50·9 months (36·2–52·3) with ipilimumab; 4-year recurrence-free survival was 51·7% (95% CI 46·8–56·3) in the nivolumab group and 41·2% (36·4–45·9) in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·71 [95% CI 0·60–0·86]; p=0·0003). With 211 (100 [22%] of 453 patients in the nivolumab group and 111 [25%] of 453 patients in the ipilimumab group) of 302 anticipated deaths observed (about 73% of the originally planned 88% power needed for significance), 4-year overall survival was 77·9% (95% CI 73·7–81·5) with nivolumab and 76·6% (72·2–80·3) with ipilimumab (HR 0·87 [95% CI 0·66–1·14]; p=0·31). Late-emergent grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in three (1%) of 452 and seven (2%) of 453 patients. The most common late-emergent treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events reported were diarrhoea, diabetic ketoacidosis, and pneumonitis (one patient each) in the nivolumab group, and colitis (two patients) in the ipilimumab group. Two previously reported treatment-related deaths in the ipilimumab group were attributed to study drug toxicity (marrow aplasia in one patient and colitis in one patient); no further treatment-related deaths were reported. At a minimum of 4 years' follow-up, nivolumab demonstrated sustained recurrence-free survival benefit versus ipilimumab in resected stage IIIB–C or IV melanoma indicating a long-term treatment benefit with nivolumab. With fewer deaths than anticipated, overall survival was similar in both groups. Nivolumab remains an efficacious adjuvant treatment for patients with resected high-risk melanoma, with a safety profile that is more tolerable than that of ipilimumab. Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical.

Increasing knowledge about the biology of melanoma and of immunology has led to the development and regulatory approval of the immune checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab, which are indicated for the treatment of melanoma irrespective of the B-Raf proto-oncogene mutation status of the tumour. Only a subset of patients will respond, but those who do can expect long-lasting, previously unheard-of responses. Long-term survival results for the registration trials, including CheckMate 067, Keynote-006, and Keynote-001, have recently been published. In particular, the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab showed an impressive 5-year overall survival of just over 50%. However, toxicity remains a significant concern, with some of the side effects being life threatening and/or life changing. In this review, we discuss the safety and efficacy data of all the agents currently approved for the first-line treatment of advanced melanoma, identifying factors that influence the choice of a single agent rather than combination therapy. We highlight the potential biomarkers of response, effects of long-term toxicity, and options after progression.

Analysis of circulating tumour DNA could stratify cancer risk in symptomatic patients. We aimed to evaluate the performance of a methylation-based multicancer early detection (MCED) diagnostic test in symptomatic patients referred from primary care. We did a multicentre, prospective, observational study at National Health Service (NHS) hospital sites in England and Wales. Participants aged 18 or older referred with non-specific symptoms or symptoms potentially due to gynaecological, lung, or upper or lower gastrointestinal cancers were included and gave a blood sample when they attended for urgent investigation. Participants were excluded if they had a history of or had received treatment for an invasive or haematological malignancy diagnosed within the preceding 3 years, were taking cytotoxic or demethylating agents that might interfere with the test, or had participated in another study of a GRAIL MCED test. Patients were followed until diagnostic resolution or up to 9 months. Cell-free DNA was isolated and the MCED test performed blinded to the clinical outcome. MCED predictions were compared with the diagnosis obtained by standard care to establish the primary outcomes of overall positive and negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity. Outcomes were assessed in participants with a valid MCED test result and diagnostic resolution. SYMPLIFY is registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN10226380) and has completed follow-up at all sites. 6238 participants were recruited between July 7 and Nov 30, 2021, across 44 hospital sites. 387 were excluded due to staff being unable to draw blood, sample errors, participant withdrawal, or identification of ineligibility after enrolment. Of 5851 clinically evaluable participants, 376 had no MCED test result and 14 had no information as to final diagnosis, resulting in 5461 included in the final cohort for analysis with an evaluable MCED test result and diagnostic outcome (368 [6·7%] with a cancer diagnosis and 5093 [93·3%] without a cancer diagnosis). The median age of participants was 61·9 years (IQR 53·4–73·0), 3609 (66·1%) were female and 1852 (33·9%) were male. The MCED test detected a cancer signal in 323 cases, in whom 244 cancer was diagnosed, yielding a positive predictive value of 75·5% (95% CI 70·5–80·1), negative predictive value of 97·6% (97·1–98·0), sensitivity of 66·3% (61·2–71·1), and specificity of 98·4% (98·1–98·8). Sensitivity increased with increasing age and cancer stage, from 24·2% (95% CI 16·0–34·1) in stage I to 95·3% (88·5–98·7) in stage IV. For cases in which a cancer signal was detected among patients with cancer, the MCED test's prediction of the site of origin was accurate in 84·8% (95% CI 79·5–89·0) of cases. Sensitivity 80·4% (95% CI 66·1–90·6) and negative predictive value 99·1% (98·2–99·6) were highest for patients with symptoms mandating investigation for upper gastrointestinal cancer. This first large-scale prospective evaluation of an MCED diagnostic test in a symptomatic population demonstrates the feasibility of using an MCED test to assist clinicians with decisions regarding urgency and route of referral from primary care. Our data provide the basis for a prospective, interventional study in patients presenting to primary care with non-specific signs and symptoms. GRAIL Bio UK.

Background Talimogene laherparepvec is an oncolytic immunotherapy approved in the US, Europe, Australia and Switzerland. We report the final planned analysis of OPTiM, a randomized open-label phase III trial in patients with unresectable stage IIIB–IVM1c melanoma. Methods Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive intratumoral talimogene laherparepvec or subcutaneous recombinant GM-CSF. In addition to overall survival (OS), durable response rate (DRR), objective response rate (ORR), complete responses (CR), and safety are also reported. All final analyses are considered to be descriptive and treatment responses were assessed by the investigators. Results Of 436 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 295 were allocated to talimogene laherparepvec and 141 to GM-CSF. Median follow-up in the final OS analysis was 49 months. Median OS was 23.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 19.5–29.6) and 18.9 months (95% CI, 16.0–23.7) in the talimogene laherparepvec and GM-CSF arms, respectively (unstratified hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62–1.00; p  = 0.0494 [descriptive]). DRR was 19.0 and 1.4% (unadjusted odds ratio, 16.6; 95% CI, 4.0–69.2; p  < 0.0001); ORR was 31.5 and 6.4%. Fifty (16.9%) and 1 (0.7%) patient in the talimogene laherparepvec and GM-CSF arms, respectively, achieved CR. In talimogene laherparepvec-treated patients, median time to CR was 8.6 months; median CR duration was not reached. Among patients with a CR, 88.5% were estimated to survive at a 5-year landmark analysis. Talimogene laherparepvec efficacy was more pronounced in stage IIIB–IVM1a melanoma as already described in the primary analysis. The safety reporting was consistent with the primary OPTiM analysis. Conclusions In this final planned OPTiM analysis, talimogene laherparepvec continued to result in improved longer-term efficacy versus GM-CSF and remained well tolerated. The final analysis also confirms that talimogene laherparepvec was associated with durable CRs that were associated with prolonged survival. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00769704 .

Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) of PD-1 and CTLA-4 to treat metastatic melanoma (MM) has variable therapeutic benefit. To explore this in peripheral samples, we characterized CD8 + T cell gene expression across a cohort of patients with MM receiving anti-PD-1 alone (sICB) or in combination with anti-CTLA-4 (cICB). Whereas CD8 + transcriptional responses to sICB and cICB involve a shared gene set, the magnitude of cICB response is over fourfold greater, with preferential induction of mitosis- and interferon-related genes. Early samples from patients with durable clinical benefit demonstrated overexpression of T cell receptor–encoding genes. By mapping T cell receptor clonality, we find that responding patients have more large clones (those occupying >0.5% of repertoire) post-treatment than non-responding patients or controls, and this correlates with effector memory T cell percentage. Single-cell RNA-sequencing of eight post-treatment samples demonstrates that large clones overexpress genes implicated in cytotoxicity and characteristic of effector memory T cells, including CCL4 , GNLY and NKG7 . The 6-month clinical response to ICB in patients with MM is associated with the large CD8 + T cell clone count 21 d after treatment and agnostic to clonal specificity, suggesting that post-ICB peripheral CD8 + clonality can provide information regarding long-term treatment response and, potentially, facilitate treatment stratification. Transcriptomic analysis of peripheral CD8 + T cells in a cohort of patients with metastatic melanoma receiving checkpoint inhibitors shows that the number of large clones early post-treatment is strongly associated with six-month clinical outcome.

Previous preclinical research has shown that extracorporeal devices can be used to enhance the delivery and distribution of systemically administered anticancer drugs, resulting in increased intratumoural concentrations. We aimed to assess the safety and feasibility of targeted release and enhanced delivery of doxorubicin to solid tumours from thermosensitive liposomes triggered by mild hyperthermia, induced non-invasively by focused ultrasound. We did an open-label, single-centre, phase 1 trial in a single UK hospital. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable and non-ablatable primary or secondary liver tumours of any histological subtype were considered for the study. Patients received a single intravenous infusion (50 mg/m2) of lyso-thermosensitive liposomal doxorubicin (LTLD), followed by extracorporeal focused ultrasound exposure of a single target liver tumour. The trial had two parts: in part I, patients had a real-time thermometry device implanted intratumourally, whereas patients in part II proceeded without thermometry and we used a patient-specific model to predict optimal exposure parameters. We assessed tumour biopsies obtained before and after focused ultrasound exposure for doxorubicin concentration and distribution. The primary endpoint was at least a doubling of total intratumoural doxorubicin concentration in at least half of the patients treated, on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02181075, and is now closed to recruitment. Between March 13, 2015, and March 27, 2017, ten patients were enrolled in the study (six patients in part I and four in part II), and received a dose of LTLD followed by focused ultrasound exposure. The treatment resulted in an average increase of 3·7 times in intratumoural biopsy doxorubicin concentrations, from an estimate of 2·34 μg/g (SD 0·93) immediately after drug infusion to 8·56 μg/g (5·69) after focused ultrasound. Increases of two to ten times were observed in seven (70%) of ten patients, satisfying the primary endpoint. Serious adverse events registered were expected grade 4 transient neutropenia in five patients and prolonged hospital stay due to unexpected grade 1 confusion in one patient. Grade 3–4 adverse events recorded were neutropenia (grade 3 in one patient and grade 4 in five patients), and grade 3 anaemia in one patient. No treatment-related deaths occurred. The combined treatment of LTLD and non-invasive focused ultrasound hyperthermia in this study seemed to be clinically feasible, safe, and able to enhance intratumoural drug delivery, providing targeted chemo-ablative response in human liver tumours that were refractory to standard chemotherapy. Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, National Institute for Health Research.

Background Berzosertib (formerly M6620, VX-970) is a highly potent and selective, first-in-class inhibitor of ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related protein kinase (ATR). We assessed multiple ascending doses of berzosertib + gemcitabine ± cisplatin in patients with resistant/refractory advanced solid tumours. Methods We evaluated the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK) and preliminary efficacy of intravenous berzosertib + gemcitabine ± cisplatin using a standard 3 + 3 dose-escalation design. The starting doses were berzosertib 18 mg/m 2 , gemcitabine 875 mg/m 2 and cisplatin 60 mg/m 2 . Results Fifty-two patients received berzosertib + gemcitabine and eight received berzosertib + gemcitabine + cisplatin. Four patients receiving berzosertib + gemcitabine had a total of seven dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and three receiving berzosertib + gemcitabine + cisplatin had a total of three DLTs. Berzosertib 210 mg/m 2 (days 2 and 9) + gemcitabine 1000 mg/m 2 (days 1 and 8) Q3W was established as the recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D); no RP2D was determined for berzosertib + gemcitabine + cisplatin. Neither gemcitabine nor cisplatin affected berzosertib PK. Most patients in both arms achieved a best response of either partial response or stable disease. Conclusions Berzosertib + gemcitabine was well tolerated in patients with advanced solid tumours and showed preliminary efficacy signs. Clinical trial identifier NCT02157792.

Checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy has transformed the treatment of melanoma in the past 7 years, and can even lead to durable long-term survival outcomes in some patients with metastatic disease.1 However, we still have much to learn about how best to use these drugs and how to mitigate their side-effects. The report by Frank Stephen Hodi and colleagues in The Lancet Oncology2 of updated results from the Checkmate 067 trial amply demonstrates why the Nobel committee recognised Drs James Allison and Tasuku Honjo's work opening up the field of immune checkpoint inhibition for cancer therapy.3 Half the patients with metastatic melanoma in this study who were treated with the anti-PD1 inhibitor nivolumab in combination with the anti-CTLA-4 inhibitor ipilimumab were alive 4 years later in a disease setting where only 10 years ago median overall survival extended to just a few months.4 The trial results also show that the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab seems to offer better survival outcomes than either nivolumab or ipilimumab alone: median overall survival has not yet been reached with the combination (95% CI 38·2–not reached) and stands at 36·9 months (28·3–not reached) with nivolumab alone and 19·9 months (16·9–24·6) with ipilimumab alone. NCI Center for Cancer Research/National Cancer Institute/Science Photo Library I have received grants and personal fees from Roche; institutional grants from AstraZeneca; personal fees from Novartis, Eisai, and BiolineRx; institutional study fees from Millennium, BMS, Vertex, Rigontec, Regeneron, TCBiopharma, Replimune, and Array Biopharma; personal fees, institutional study fees, and non-financial support from Immunocore; institutional study fees and non-finanicial support from Merck; have participated in advisory boards for Novartis, Immunocore, BMS, Merck, Rigontec, BiolineRx, and Array Biopharma; and I am a member of an independent data and safety monitoring committee for Eisai.

PurposeGenomic alterations of BRAF and NRAS are oncogenic drivers in malignant melanoma and other solid tumors. Tovorafenib is an investigational, oral, selective, CNS-penetrant, small molecule, type II pan‑RAF inhibitor. This first-in-human phase 1 study explored the safety and antitumor activity of tovorafenib.MethodsThis two-part study in adult patients with relapsed or refractory advanced solid tumors included a dose escalation phase and a dose expansion phase including molecularly defined cohorts of patients with melanoma. Primary objectives were to evaluate the safety of tovorafenib administered once every other day (Q2D) or once weekly (QW), and to determine the maximum-tolerated and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) on these schedules. Secondary objectives included evaluation of antitumor activity and tovorafenib pharmacokinetics.ResultsTovorafenib was administered to 149 patients (Q2D n = 110, QW n = 39). The RP2D of tovorafenib was defined as 200 mg Q2D or 600 mg QW. In the dose expansion phase, 58 (73%) of 80 patients in Q2D cohorts and 9 (47%) of 19 in the QW cohort had grade ≥ 3 adverse events. The most common of these overall were anemia (14 patients, 14%) and maculo-papular rash (8 patients, 8%). Responses were seen in 10 (15%) of 68 evaluable patients in the Q2D expansion phase, including in 8 of 16 (50%) patients with BRAF mutation-positive melanoma naïve to RAF and MEK inhibitors. In the QW dose expansion phase, there were no responses in 17 evaluable patients with NRAS mutation-positive melanoma naïve to RAF and MEK inhibitors; 9 patients (53%) had a best response of stable disease. QW dose administration was associated with minimal accumulation of tovorafenib in systemic circulation in the dose range of 400–800 mg.ConclusionsThe safety profile of both schedules was acceptable, with QW dosing at the RP2D of 600 mg QW preferred for future clinical studies. Antitumor activity of tovorafenib in BRAF-mutated melanoma was promising and justifies continued clinical development across multiple settings.ClinicalTrials.gov identifierNCT01425008.