Primer for Current Melanoma Treatments - New and Improved Version 2022!!!!

Originally posted in 2017, sadly, this primer has needed little in the way of updates since.  Still, there have been a few FDA approvals, meds I didn't include in the first rendition, and some news in the research so it is getting a reboot. Initially created to save re-writes for those in need, I still answer melanoma questions on boards or via email at least every other week, but want to emphasize that this is not an all inclusive listing.  Rather, this is a basic guide to use in starting your research or discussions with your provider regarding melanoma care.  As recently, as 2010, NONE of the current, most effective treatments for melanoma were FDA approved.  Since then, doctors have become more knowledgeable about consistently offering and better skilled in managing these treatments.  Still, it is essential that you be seen by an oncologist who specializes in, or at the very least, has treated many patients with melanoma.  Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words ~ 

Here we go:

SURGERY

Surgery remains a good choice for many melanoma patients.  Clearly this is the case for a new cutaneous lesion.  Surgery results in an immediate decrease in your tumor burden - almost always a good thing.  However, with data showing good results in NEO-adjuvant treatment, the possibility of using intralesional therapy, or if you are looking for a clinical trial, there are times when measurable disease is needed, so a discussion of these things before surgery is important.  However, for patients with advanced disease decreasing tumor burden through surgery remains an important option for increased survival.  This 2019 report addresses some of the conundrum:  Cut it out!!! Prolonged overall survival following metastasectomy in Stage IV melanoma 

RADIATION

Radiation, when combined with immunotherapy or targeted therapy, can be a very good treatment option for melanoma.  Together, radiation and systemic therapy can illicit responses that are greater than either treatment used as a single agent.  However, targeted radiation (SRS - stereotactic radiation or Gamma Knife) is the most effective whether you are talking about brain tumors or lesions in the body.  We have learned that whole brain radiation (WBR) is not the most effective way to treat melanoma and can lead to debilitation.  While there are those who must avail themselves of this treatment due to extreme circumstances, it should not be the first recommendation right out of the box for those with brain tumors.  Even multiple brain mets can be treated simultaneously with SRS.   Here are zillions of reports regarding the effectiveness of using radiation WITH immunotherapy: Radiation WITH immunotherapy  Here is a report from 2019 regarding the use of radiation prior to targeted therapy:  Better melanoma results with radiation BEFORE BRAFi (at least in this report)

IMMUNOTHERAPY

These are treatments that push our immune systems into action.  Side effects (as you might imagine) are usually related to an 'over activation' of the immune system.  Common side effects include - fatigue, rashes, joint pain.  More complicated side effects are inflammation of the lungs (pneumonitis) and colon (colitis) with difficulty breathing and wheeze or diarrhea and abdominal discomfort, respectively.  Patients can experience problems with thyroid function and other glands of the endocrine system.  Responses take time.  Experts are known to advise other docs to be 'patient with the patient!'  Immunotherapy works best with the lowest tumor burden.

Old school immunotherapy

Interferon

Discovered in 1957, interferons are a type of signaling proteins released by cells in response to viruses, bacteria, parasites, and tumors that help rally the immune response of the body against these invaders. In the early 1980's researchers and pharma were finally able to produce interferon for use as a medical therapy. There are many forms, used in treating various conditions (some more effectively than others) from multiple sclerosis to leukemia to melanoma. Often given as subcutaneous injections (though there are eye drops and inhalation forms), interferon causes significant side effects with fatigue, flu-like symptoms, hair loss, pain, depression and increased risk of infection due to neutropenia (decreased white cells) being common. Unfortunately, we have learned that in melanoma, interferon has a clinically insignificant effect on progression free survival as well as overall survival.

IL-2 (Interleukin 2) also known as aldesleukin, proleukin, and/or sylatron

Similarly, IL-2 is a signaling molecule that directs the actions of white blood cells in getting rid of invaders. Isolated in 1979, by the early 80's pharma (Ceta, Amgen, Roche) were in a mad dash to get a drug to market. It was FDA approved in 1992. It has been used in the treatment of HIV, renal cell carcinoma, and melanoma. Though it can be injected subcutaneously on an outpatient basis, in melanoma it is most often given in an IV infusion, with side effects (extreme swelling, rash/peeling skin, hallucinations, among other horrors) such that patients must be in the hospital, in an intensive care setting, for infusions that are given every 8 hours for up to 15 doses or as the patient can tolerate. It is also used in a low dose regimen with old school TIL therapy as a way to jump start the immune system after chemo has been given to eradicate existing regulatory T cells and new T cells grown from the patient's tumor have been infused.  See this 2021 report:  TIL - A report out of ASCO 2021 and incredible words from one of Melanoma's Most Fearless and Inspiring Leaders  It is also being studied as an intralesional (see below). Ultimately, we now know that the use of high dose IL-2 in melanoma can produce a complete response in about 5-6% of the patients, with some of those responses being durable (lasting).  

Current Immunotherapy (also referred to as Check Point Inhibitors)

Ipilimumab (Brand name = Yervoy, slang = 'ipi') – anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal anti-body

Ipilimumab is a monoclonal anti-body that is used to restart the immune system by targeting CTLA-4, a protein receptor that actually turns the immune response OFF!!! The concept of using anti-CTLA-4 antibodies to treat cancer was developed by Dr. James Allison, for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize in 2014.  It was approved for melanoma (Stage IV or unresectable Stage III) in 2011. It was approved as an adjuvant treatment for melanoma in 2015. However, we have since learned that melanoma patients with advanced disease respond much better to the ipi/nivo combo rather than ipi as a single agent and folks in need of adjuvant therapy do much better with one of the anti-PD-1 products.  Ipi as a single agent was administered via an IV infusion every 3 weeks, for a total of 4 doses, at 3mg/kg for Stage IV patients and 10mg/kg for adjuvant therapy. Some adjuvant treatment plans continued ipi at that same dosage but every 12 weeks for up to 3 years. Melanoma patients given ipi can attain a response rate of about 15%. Responses can be durable.   Patients experience more side effects with ipi than they do with anti-PD-1 products and ipi is the bad boy of side effects in the ipi/nivo combo.  Ipi at 10mg/kg produces more side effects than ipi at 3mg/kg.  The ipi/nivolumab combo was FDA approved in (2015).  In that treatment, patients are given an infusion of ipi at 3 mg/kg after nivo at 1mg/kg is given on the same day, every 3 weeks, for 4 doses, followed by one year of nivo as a single agent. 

Anti-PD-1 (Brand names = Opdivo and Keytruda, Nivolumab and Pembrolizumab respectively.)

      

Background:  PD-1, also called programmed cell death protein 1, is a membrane protein and a T cell regulator, first discovered to be an immune checkpoint in 2000.  PD-1 is expressed on the surface of activated T cells, B cells and macrophages (white cells that can be involved in tissue repair or digestion of debris or pathogens). Compared to CTLA-4, PD-1 is keyed to specific tissues with the PD-L1 ligand, while CTLA-4 is less specific.

PD-L-1 is a ligand present on the surface of melanoma tumors (as well as some others) that can bind to infiltrating t-cells and turn them off!!

  

ANTI-PD-1 (the drugs) are monoclonal antibodies that block the switch on T cells so that PD-L1, on the surface of melanoma tumor cells, does NOT bind with them and turn them off....thereby allowing these cells to carry on and destroy melanoma tumors.

Sometimes pictures tell the story better:

    Nivolumab: (Brand name = Opdivo, slang = 'nivo') - anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody

I wrote a little story about the development of nivo here, but basically, in 2014 Nivo was approved for the use in advanced melanoma patients only AFTER they had failed ipi and, if BRAF positive, BRAF inhibitors as well.  In November 2015 it was approved as a first line drug for unresectable or advanced melanoma BUT you had to be BRAF positive.  (A cosmically ridiculous judgement since we already had studies proving that BRAF status made little to no difference in response!!)  Finally, in 2016, based on the results of the  Checkpoint-067 study, nivo was approved for use alone or in combination with ipi, in advanced melanoma patients, no matter BRAF status.  And in 2017, it gained approval as an adjuvant treatment option.  This was seriously good news!!!  It meant even if you are Stage IV with all tumors removed (or zapped) - you can still take nivo.  Or, if you are Stage III with melanoma that went to your lymph nodes - you can take nivo!   Since then, nivo has also been approved for use in NSC lung cancer, urothelial and renal cell cancers, gastric and esophageal cancers, hepatocellular carcinoma as well as head and neck cancers.

      Pembrolizumab: (Brand name = Keytruda, slang = 'pembro') - anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody

Pembro was similarly approved for advanced melanoma in 2014.  Since then it has been approved in various algorithms for NSCLC, head and neck squamous cell cancers, Hodgkins lymphoma, and endometrial cancers.  In 2019, it was approved for adjuvant treatment of Stage III melanoma and for Stage II adjuvant melanoma in December of 2021.

Response rate and side effects for advanced melanoma patients:

Both anti-PD-1 drugs as single agents effect about a 40% response rate in melanoma. They can work in the brain and the body.  Median time to response is about 3 months.  But, there are outliers, with documented responses, that do not occur until 6 - 9 months.  Here's a cool graph...

Here's a post with more info: Time to Response...Ipi vs Nivo and ipi 

Responses to immunotherapy have proven to be durable!!!   This post includes neat charts regarding response and durability to Pembro: Dr. Daud review from ASCO 2016   There is this from 2020:  Response after discontinuation of anti-PD-1 in melanoma patients whether due to disease progression, side effects or choice  And this from 2021:  ASCO 2021 - Outcomes of treatments on advanced disease - Reasons for HOPE!!!!!

Side effects are similar for both drugs and are those typical for immunotherapy, but less severe than those encountered with ipi.  As expected, the ipi/nivo combo has greater side effects than when nivo or pembro are used alone.  On the topic of side effects...they SHOULD be treated!!!  As quickly as possible.  At times, a break from medication and immunosuppressive drugs are required.  While oncologists not familiar with immunotherapy may fear decreased therapeutic response if steroids are used...the preponderance of the data indicates that THIS IS NOT THE CASE!!!!  Clearly, one should not take immunosuppresive drugs unless absolutely needed.  Many patients require varying doses of steroids in order to tolerate necessary, life saving melanoma treatments  and go on to do well!  Further, folks with pre-existing autoimmune disease can be managed on immunotherapy and gain a response as well.  Here are a zillion reports on all of that jazz:  What to do about immunotherapy if you need steroids or have a pre-existing autoimmune disease?

Dosing:

When Pembro is used as a single agent = is dosed at 2mg/kg with max of 200 mg IV every 3 weeks - for one year as adjuvant, end point undefined for advanced melanoma patient.  Nivo as single agent = is dosed at 240 mg IV every two weeks or 480mg IV every 4 weeks - for one year as adjuvant, endpoints vary for advanced melanoma patients. When ipi is combined with nivo, response rates in melanoma rise to 50+%, though side effects increase as well - mostly due to ipi.  For the combo, dosage is:  nivo at 1 mg/kg followed by ipi at 3 mg/kg on the same day, every 3 weeks for 4 doses, then nivo alone at 240 mg q 2 wks or 480 mg q 4 wks. endpoint varies. Many patients cannot tolerate all 4 doses of the ipi/nivo combo due to side effects.  However, outcomes can be good even if you have to stop early. Here's a report from ASCO 2016:  ASCO 2016 - Nivo plus ipi, CheckMate 069 trial....18 month OS similar even if you stop meds due to side effects!!!  Further, the ASCO 2021 data (link above) notes "Clinical benefit response (CBR) after 1 or 2 doses of I/N may be predictive of long-term survival in advanced stage melanoma. Patients who have CBR after 1 or 2 doses of I/N may achieve a similar survival benefit with fewer doses of I/N."  Finally, most folks who cannot tolerate the combo can go on to tolerate nivo alone, once their side effects are brought under control with a medication break and/or steroids.  

   Anti-PD-1 (Opdivo) plus Anti-LAG-3 (Relatlimab):

In March of 2022, Relatlimab (an anti-LAG-3 drug) was approved in combination with Nivolumab for advanced melanoma patients in the form of a new drug combo - Opdualag.  Here is a report that covers lots of pertinent data- FDA approves Relatlimab plus Nivolumab (Opdivo) for advanced melanoma patients - the down and dirty on Opdualag!!!!

TARGETED THERAPY

At this point in melanoma, the only approved targeted therapy is for patients whose tumor is positive for the BRAF V600 mutation.  About 50% of melanomas are.  However, researchers are looking at drugs that could target other points in the molecular pathway of melanoma.  This diagram shows what I mean by "pathway"...

A Melanoma Molecular Disease Model (See the link below for credit and more info)

Here's just one example from March of this year:  What tangled 'paths' we weave: Nilotinib for KIT mutated melanoma and Buparlisib for the PI3K pathway in melanoma brain mets

But....for current purposes....I am focusing on the BRAF mutation.  Here's a post I made a bit ago that really breaks down what BRAF is, what it means in melanoma, and how the drugs work:  BRAF inhibitors for melanoma: Dabrafenib, Vemurafenib, Dabrafenib/trametinib combo. Answers!!!!!

Usually when we combine drugs, we end up with increased side effects. However, in the case of BRAF targeted therapy we now know that BRAF inhibitors should ALWAYS be given with a MEK inhibitor.  Strangely enough, when the combo is given, patients experience better response rates, DECREASED side effects, and DECREASED rates of tumor work-around.  The only exception is when MEK inhibitors are used as a single agent in specially mutated patients.

DRUGS, administration, and side effects:

BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi) drugs include:  Vemurafenib (Zelboraf), Dabrafenib (Tafinlar), Sorafenib (Nexavar), and Encorafenib (Braftovi)
MEK inhibitors (MEKi) include:  Trametinib (Mekinist), Cobimetinib (Cotellic) and Binimetinib (Mektovi)

These drugs are administered orally.  So that's super cool.  Dosing depends on the particular drug.
Side effects include joint pain, rashes, extreme sun sensitivity, development of benign skin cancers, fevers and sometimes liver toxicity.

EFFECTIVENESS and tumor work-around:

For patients who are BRAF positive, BRAF inhibitors combined with a MEK inhibitor have impressive response rates, clearing tumors rapidly, and often completely, in about 70-80% of patients and are effective in the brain and body. However, those responses are not very durable, with most tumors learning to work around the inhibition in about 7-9 months. BUT!!!!  By using an "alternate dosing schedule" (one that is varied, rather than absolute with an 'every so many hours daily' dosing pattern), combining BRAFi with MEKi, as well as the development of the newer drugs that time can be stretched out a bit.  Furthermore, despite the statistics, there are some melanoma peeps whose melanoma has been successfully managed for years on BRAF/MEK combo's!!  Finally, some melanoma specialists use BRAF/MEK combo's in BRAF positive patients, to rapidly decrease the tumor burden, then switch the patient to slower acting, but more durable immunotherapy.  Picking which targeted therapy to use can be difficult.  Here are two posts that attempt to pull response rates and PFS out of the data ~

From 2018:   Well, okie dokie!!! BRAFTOVI/MEKTOVI (Seriously guys??? That's the name???!!!) Encorafenib with Binimetinib approved for melanoma.

From 2019:  BRAF/MEK combo's for melanoma analyzed ~

IMMUNOTHERAPY COMBINED WITH TARGETED THERAPY -

In 2020, the PD-L1 blocking antibody Atezolizumab (Tecentriq) combined with Cobimetinib (Cotellic) and Vemurafinib (Zelboraf) was FDA approved.  Here is a report from 2019 that links to other reports on combining targeted and immunotherapies and includes data from the early atezo/BRAFi/MEKi trials - Treating melanoma by COMBINING targeted therapy AND immunotherapy!

INTRALSIONAL (also referred to as 'intratumoral') THERAPY

Intralesional drugs include (but are not limited to):

T-VEC - also called OncoVEX, Imlygic, or Talimogene Laherparepvec - uses the herpes virus with GM-CSF and is the only intralesional currently FDA approved (2015)  However, the following (and others) have been used in clinical trials:
CAVATAK - derived from the Coxsackievirus
T-VEC - also called OncoVEX, Imlygic,  or Talimogene Laherparepvec - uses the herpes virus with GM-CSF
PV-10 - derived from Rose Bengal
HF10 - also derived from HSV
SD101 - a TLR9 agonist
IL-2 - see note above, is also being used

These drugs are injected directly into a relatively superficial melanoma tumor.  They have been found to be effective in not only eradicating the tumor into which they have been injected, but 'by-stander' lesions as well. Researchers feel that they have the most promise when they are combined with a systemic treatment like immunotherapy.  I summarized response rates, side effects, and pretty much everything else current about these drugs in these posts which include many links within them: 

From 2021 - Intralesionals for melanoma - some new reports

Out of ASCO that year - Intratumoral or Intralesional therapy for melanoma - again. Yep, AGAIN!!! ASCO 2021, here we go!

                                     -------------------------------------------
I hope this primer will continue to be a helpful jumping off point for those in need.  What has served me best in attaining effective treatment for my melanoma has been seeking out a melanoma specialist (or at least an oncologist who cares for many melanoma patients) and never being afraid to ask questions. Asking this question of my doctor may have been the most beneficial:  "What treatment would you recommend if it were YOU or your brother, sister, wife, father, mother.... in need?"

I wish you all my very best. Hang in there.  And as ever, with enduring thanks to the ratties! - love, c

P.S. If all the acronyms are driving you crazy, here's a post that defines at least some of them:  Melanoma abbreviations ~ and random thoughts on posting melanoma crap-ola....
P.S.S.  A sense of humor really does help!!  AND FINALLY - while not all inclusive, this post from 2019 includes a list of world class melanoma specialists:   Internationally renowned melanoma specialists:  - c

FDA approves Relatlimab plus Nivolumab (Opdivo) for advanced melanoma patients - the down and dirty on Opdualag!!!!

Finally, an additional FDA approved treatment for melanoma!!  With FDA approvals for the first immunotherapy and targeted therapy in melanoma in 2011, the addition of Nivo and Pembro in 2014, a few additional BRAF/MEK combo's in 2013 and 2018, T-VEC approved as an intralesional in 2015, immunotherapy approved as adjuvant in 2017, targeted as such in 2018 - that's been about it for new melanoma therapies.  I recently reported on study results for Relatlimab combined with Nivolumab (Opdivo) for treatment of advanced melanoma in February:  Relatlimab plus Nivolumab in advanced melanoma patients - better than Nivo (Opdivo) alone!  The main take-away from the data being:

1.  The combination of the anti-LAG-3 product relatlimab with anti-PD-1 agent Nivolumab provided better progression free survival than when melanoma patients with advanced disease were treated with nivo alone - "The median progression-free survival was 10.1 months (6.4 to 15.7) with relatlimab-nivolumab as compared with 4.6 months (3.4 to 5.6) with nivolumab. Progression-free survival at 12 months was 47.7% (41.8 to 53.2) with relatlimab-nivolumab as compared with 36.0% (30.5 to 41.6) with nivolumab. Progression-free survival across key subgroups favored relatlimab-nivolumab over nivolumab."

2.  Nivo and Pembro when used as single agents are both known (through data collection over many years) to have an approximate response rate of 40%.  The second article in the link above addressing relatlimab combined with nivo notes (though tallied as PFS):  "Median progression-free survival was 10.1 months in the combination arm and 4.6 months in the monotherapy arm. After 12 months’ follow-up, progression-free survival rates were 47.7% in the combination arm versus 36% in the monotherapy arm..."  The ipi/nivo combo is recognized to have a response rate of 50%+.  The fourth article in this 2021 post - ASCO 2021 - Outcomes of treatments on advanced disease - Reasons for HOPE!!!!! - notes:  "In the phase 3 CheckMate 067 trial, a durable and sustained clinical benefit was achieved with nivolumab (NIVO) + ipilimumab (IPI) and NIVO alone vs IPI at 5-y of follow-up (overall survival [OS] and progression-free survival [PFS] rates: 52%, 44%, 26% and 36%, 29%, 8%, respectively)."  But, we know that PFS and OS is higher earlier on after treatment, so in the first article from this 2017 report - Do melanoma peeps with side effects to immunotherapy have a better response? - it notes:  " The 3-year OS rate of 63% is the highest observed for this patient population and provides additional evidence for the durable clinical activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of advanced melanoma."

3.  Though the combo had greater side effects than when nivo was taken alone - "Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 18.9% of patients in the relatlimab-nivolumab group and in 9.7% of patients in the nivolumab group."  - we know that about 40% of patients on ipi/nivo have to stop the combo due to side effects, with about 55% experiencing grade 3/4 adverse events. 

4.  This post reviewed the Relativity trial of relatlimab and nivo in 2021 - Something "new" in melanoma treatment???? Anti-LAG-3! Again....  Despite the new data and having been reporting on anti-LAG-3 since 2014, I think my summation there still stands:

My take:  It seems that the combination of relatlimab and nivolumab (Opdivo) has a response rate that is slightly less than that of the ipi/nivo (Ipilimumab/Yervoy and Nivolumab/Opdivo) combo which has proven to be around 50+ percent, but one that is possibly better than the 40% response rate when anti-PD-1 (nivo or pembro) is used alone. Perhaps the two most important things these (still preliminary - after all these years) reports tell us is that ~

1.  Side effects, that can be so devastating and difficult in the ipi/nivo combo may be much decreased in the relatlimab/nivo combo.

2.  For reasons we don't fully understand, melanoma responds differently to the same treatment in different folks.  For me, thus far, nivolumab alone was 100% effective.  Obviously that is not the case for most melanoma patients.  So having another effective immunotherapy combination, that may well be far less than 100% effective in all of us, may still be completely effective in some.

And, finally, as ever - the drug company did not see fit to configure the trial such that the new combo went up against the old one directly.  Why not BMS?  Why not????  Why not three arms?  One with nivo alone.  One with the ipi/nivo combo? And the third with relatimab/nivo?  WHY???

5.  We still don't have durability of response data to this combo - but I would presume (given the durability we know about responses to nivo) they would be good.

SOooooooooooooooo - there you have it - a newly FDA approved combo for melanoma dubbed - OPDUALAG!!!!  (Seriously, these names!  My word!)

Now, this:

FDA Approves Relatlimab Plus Nivolumab for Unresectable or Metastatic Melanoma

March 18, 2022  Krista Rosa OncLive

The FDA has approved the fixed-dose combination of relatlimab plus nivolumab (Opdualag) for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients who are 12 years of age or older and who have unresectable or metastatic melanoma.1

The regulatory decision is based on data from the phase 2/3 RELATIVITY-047 trial (NCT03470922), which showed that the doublet (n = 355) resulted in a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 10.1 months vs 4.6 months with single-agent nivolumab (n = 359; P = .0055).

“Since the approval of the first immune checkpoint inhibitor more than 10 years ago, we’ve seen immunotherapy, alone and in combination, revolutionize the treatment of patients with advanced melanoma,” F. Stephen Hodi, MD, director of the Melanoma Center and the Center for Immuno-Oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, stated in a press release. “Today’s approval is particularly significant, as it introduces an entirely new combination of two immunotherapies that may act together to help improve anti-tumor response by targeting two different immune checkpoints — LAG-3 and PD-1.”

To be eligible for enrollment to RELATIVITY-047, patients had to have previously untreated, unresectable, or metastatic melanoma and an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1.

A total of 714 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive the fixed-dose combination of relatlimab at 160 mg and nivolumab at 480 mg administered every 4 weeks vs single-agent nivolumab at the same dose and schedule.

Patients were stratified by LAG-3 expression on immune cells in the tumor microenvironment, PD-L1 expression on tumor cells, BRAF mutational status, and AJCC v8 M stage.

The primary end point of the trial was PFS per blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and ORR per BICR. End points were tested in hierarchy, with PFS evaluated first, followed by OS, and then objective response rate (ORR).

Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the arms. The median age of participants was 63 years, 41.7% were female, and 66.9% had an ECOG performance status of 0. The serum lactate dehydrogenase level was above the upper limit of normal in 36.1% of patients.

LAG-3 expression was 1% or higher in 75.2% of patients, and it was lower than 1% in 24.8% of patients. PD-L1 expression was at least 1% in 41.0% of patients, and lower than 1% in 59.0% of patients. Moreover, 38.5% of patients had BRAF-mutated disease, and 61.5% had BRAF wild-type disease. Lastly, 65.7% of patients had AJCC M stage of M0/M1any[0], and 34.3% had M1any[1].

Data presented during the March 2022 ASCO Plenary Series showed that at a median follow-up of 19.3 months, the median OS with the doublet had not yet been reached vs 34.10 months with nivolumab monotherapy.  Although this benefit was not found to be statistically significant, it was considered to be clinically meaningful.

Additional data showed that PFS rates continued to be higher in the doublet arm vs the monotherapy arm. At 12 months, these rates were 48.0%  and 36.9%, respectively; at 24 months, these rates were 38.5% and 29.0%, respectively.

Notably, PFS and OS benefit favored the doublet over the monotherapy across all stratification factors that were assessed.

In the investigative arm, the complete response rate achieved was 16.3%, the partial response rate was 26.8%, and 17.2% of patients experienced stable disease. Additionally, 29.6% of patients in this arm had disease progression.

The median duration of response had not yet been reached in both the relatlimab/nivolumab arm and the control arm. Moreover, the disease control rate achieved with the doublet was 62.8% vs 50.7% with the monotherapy.

Notably, fewer patients who received the doublet went on to receive subsequent therapy vs those who received single-agent nivolumab, at 40.8% and 42.6%, respectively. Specifically, fewer patients in the investigative arm received systemic therapy vs those in the control arm, at 32.7% vs 34.5%, respectively. Additionally, 11.8% of patients who received relatlimab/nivolumab went on to receive PD-L1 and/or CTLA-4 inhibitors vs 15.9% of those who received nivolumab monotherapy.

Specifically, 4.2% of patients on the relatlimab/nivolumab arm went on to recive nivolumab and ipilimumab (Yervoy), 4.2% received nivolumab monotherapy, 3.7% received ipilimumab, 1.7% received pembrolizumab (Keytruda) monotherapy, and no patients received single-agent avelumab (Bavencio); these rates were 6.7%, 5.6%, 5.3%, 2.8%, and 0.3%, respectively.

Additionally, 12.4% of patients on the investigative arm went on to receive BRAF and/or MEK inhibitors vs 14.8% of those on the control arm. Other subsequent treatment was received by 13.8% of those who received the doublet vs 12.3% of those who were given the monotherapy. Slightly more patients on the investigative arm received radiotherapy at 14.6% vs 12.3% on the control arm; however, more patients on the control arm underwent surgery, at 8.1% vs 7.0%, respectively.

The fixed-dose combination is associated with severe and fatal immune-mediated adverse reactions such as pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, nephritis with renal dysfunction, dermatologic adverse reactions, myocarditis, and other immune-mediated adverse reactions; infusion-related reactions. The doublet is also linked with complications of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and embryo-fetal toxicity.

“While we have made great progress in the treatment of advanced melanoma over the past decade, we are committed to expanding dual immunotherapy treatment options for these patients,” Samit Hirawat, chief medical officer of global drug development at Bristol Myers Squibb, added in the press release. “Inhibiting LAG-3 with relatlimab, in a fixed-dose combination with nivolumab, represents a new treatment approach that builds on our legacy of bringing innovative immunotherapy options to patients. The approval of a new medicine that includes our third distinct checkpoint inhibitor marks an important step forward in giving patients more options beyond monotherapy treatment.”

An updated "Primer of Melanoma Treatments" to be posted soon.  Hang tough, peeps! - c

Then there's melanoma, GCC and me - Study shows increased secondary cancer risk after immunotherapy!!!!! Adjuvant treatment of Stage II GCC = no improvement in OS!!! Well! Isn't that nice???

As most of you reading these pages know, I was diagnosed with Stage IIIb melanoma in 2003, advanced to Stage IV in 2010 with brain and lung mets, subsequently enrolled in a Phase 1 Nivolumab (Opdivo) trial, taking nivo for 2 1/2 years.  On what was to be my last follow-up scan in 2018, something was found in my appendix.  Removal and biopsy indicated Stage II Ex-goblet cell adenocarcinoma of the appendix.  Appendiceal cancer is very rare - found in only 1-2 people per million in the US.  Of those, my type of appendiceal cancer is rarer still!  I completed (almost) a three month, 4 dose regimen of adjuvant CAPOX (Capecitabine and Oxaliplatin).

Currently, that means I am ~

219 months (18 YEARS!!!!) post my original melanoma diagnosis in 2003 at the age of 39
139 months Stage IV (11 and 1/2 years!!!)
133 months NED (well....for melanoma at least)
131 months after starting nivo (Opdivo)
101 months (more than 8 years) AFTER my last nivo infusion in June 2013.

I am also:  
39 months post my diagnosis of adenocarcinoma ex-goblet cell carcinoid (GCC) and the removal of my appendix with its 10.5 cm tumor, my ascending colon including ileocecal valve, gall bladder and ovaries
36 months (3 years!) post completion of 3 months adjuvant CAPOX chemo for same

Then there's this:

Assessment of Trends in Second Primary Cancers in Patients With Metastatic Melanoma From 2005 to 2016.  Deng, Wang, Liu, et al.  JAMA Dec 2020.

Importance: To date, the risk of developing second primary cancers (SPCs) after the first primary melanoma has not been studied in the era of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).

Objective: To assess differences in the risk of SPCs in patients with primary melanoma before (2005-2010) and after (2011-2016) the introduction and approval of ICIs.

Design, setting, and participants: Population-based cohort study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database from January 2005 to December 2016 of patients diagnosed with metastatic melanoma. Data were analyzed from January 4 to June 30, 2020.

Exposures: Receipt of immunotherapy or other anticancer agents.

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was the development of second primary cancers in patients with melanoma. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) were calculated for the development of SPCs before and after the introduction of ICIs.

Results: Among 5016 patients with diagnosed metastatic melanoma, 2888 (58%) were younger than 65 years at the time of diagnosis, and 3441 (69%) were male. From 2005 to 2010, SIRs were 3.24 for small intestine cancer, 1.93 for lung and bronchus cancer, 2.77 for kidney cancer, and 7.29 for myeloma. From 2011 to 2016, SIRs were 9.23 for small intestine cancer, 1.54 for lung and bronchus cancer, 2.66 for kidney cancer, and 5.90 for myeloma. The overall risk of developing SPCs in individuals who survived the first primary melanoma was 65% higher in the pre-ICIs period and 98% higher in the post-ICIs period than the overall cancer incidence rate in the general population.

Conclusions and relevance: In this study, an increase in the overall risk of second primary cancers after melanoma after the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors was observed. The pattern of SPCs has been altered in the era of systemic therapy. Close monitoring and screening for SPCs may be warranted in patients with metastatic melanoma.

Well damn!  I think of you so often, my sweet Julie!!!!  And that last sentence - "Close monitoring and screening for Second Primary Cancers may be warranted in patients with metastatic melanoma."  Tell that to oncs and more importantly to insurance companies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Though - before anyone panics I will add these thoughts:

1.  This study is not the end all be all.

2.  When you are dealing with melanoma - especially Stage IV as I was - you are facing death or treatment.  So, what choice is there, really?  Besides, despite Stage IV melanoma, despite immunotherapy side effects, despite a second cancer and the side effects from that treatment - I'm Still Here!!!!!!!!

3.  There are variables besides immunotherapy that have to be considered here as well - 

    a) The propensity of these patients to develop cancer - for whatever reason.

    b) The 9 gazillion scans used as follow-up/treatment management in these patients.

    c) The use of radiation in these patients as part of their treatment.

There may well be more, but those come to me at the moment.  In cancer world, we know that treatment, though necessary, is not benign.

Next up -

Gotta say, I thought I was a beast when I got through my 2 1/2 year nivo trial.  Working roughly 10-12 hours Mon, Tue, Wed as a pediatric NP in a busy office.  Driving the two hours to Atlanta on Thursday morning to catch the flight down to Tampa that afternoon.  Spending the night in the good ol La Quinta.  Treatment at the butt crack of dawn on Friday.  A mad dash back to the airport for the flight back to Atlanta.  Two hour drive home.  Usually arriving back in Chattown around midnight.  Rinse and repeat every 2 weeks for 6 months, then every 3 months for 2 years, missing only 3 days of work during that time.  Perhaps I was just insane.  Check out this post-it note sent home to B from a dear coworker during that time:  Friends in need are friends indeed! Here's to the caregivers!!!  Still, for all the fatigue, wheezing, arthralgias, rashes and oral lesions - immunotherapy was a walk in the park compared to CAPOX.  That shit kicked my ass - literally and figuratively!  Now, there's this.... 

Is adjuvant chemotherapy beneficial for stage II-III goblet cell carcinoid/goblet cell adenocarcinoma of the appendix?  Zakka, Williamson, Jiang, et al.  Surg Oncol.  2020 Dec.

Background: Goblet cell carcinoma (GCC), formerly known as goblet cell carcinoid, of the appendix constitutes less than 14% of all primary appendiceal neoplasms. Surgical resection is the main treatment and the role of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) is not established. This study aims to evaluate the impact of AC in stage II-III appendiceal GCC.

Methods: Patients with pathological stage II and III GCC who underwent surgical resection between 2006 and 2015 were identified from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) using ICD-O-3 morphology and topography codes: 8243/3 (goblet cell carcinoid) and C18.1. Patients treated with neoadjuvant systemic and/or radiation therapy and adjuvant radiation were excluded. Univariate and multivariable analyses were conducted, and Kaplan-Meier Curves were used to compare overall survival (OS) based on treatment received with Log-rank test.

Results: A total of 619 patients [over 9 years!!!] were identified. 54.4% males and 89.0% Caucasian; median age 56 (range, 23-90) years. Distribution across pathological stages II-III was 82.7% (N = 512) and 17.3% (N = 107) respectively. AC was administered in 9.4% (N = 48) of stage II and 47.7% (N = 51) of stage III patients. For stage II patients, AC was not associated with better OS. By contrast, in stage III patients, AC was associated with better OS. In the entire cohort 5-year OS for patients that received AC was 85.5% (74.0%, 92.1%) versus 82.7% (77.5%, 86.8%) with no AC. For stage II patients, 5-year OS was 96.9% with AC vs. 89.1% with no AC. For stage III patients, 5-year OS was 77.1% with AC vs. 42.8% with no AC.

Conclusion: AC was associated with improved OS in patients with pathological stage III GCC of the appendix, but not with pathological stage II.

Well, ain't that a bitch??!!!  Now this - 

Outcomes in Peritoneal Carcinomatosis from Appendiceal Goblet Cell Carcinoma Treated with Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC).  Zambrano-Vera, Sardi, Munoz-Zuluaga, et al.  Ann Surg Oncol.  2020 Jan 27.

Background: Appendiceal goblet cell adenocarcinoma (GCA) is often misclassified and mistreated due to mixed histologic features. In general, cytoreductive surgery plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) is standard of care for peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) from mucinous appendiceal tumors; however, in PC from GCA, data are limited and the role of CRS/HIPEC is controversial. We report outcomes in PC from appendiceal GCA treated with CRS/HIPEC.

Patients and methods: A prospective institutional database of 391 CRS/HIPEC patients with appendiceal carcinomatosis from 1998 to 2018 was reviewed. Twenty-seven patients with GCA were identified. Perioperative variables were described. Survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results: GCA occurred in 7% (27/391) of appendiceal CRS/HIPEC patients. Seven (26%) cases were aborted. Two patients underwent a second CRS/HIPEC for peritoneal recurrence. Median age at diagnosis was 53 years (range 39-72 years), and 12 (60%) were female. All underwent previous surgery. Seven (35%) had prior chemotherapy and received a median of 5 cycles (range 3-8). Median PCI was 6 (range 1-39). Complete cytoreduction was achieved in 95% (19/20). Grade III complications occurred in three (15%) patients, and no perioperative deaths occurred. Median follow-up was 97 months. Overall survival at 1, 3 and 5 years was 100%, 74% and 67%, respectively. Progression-free survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 94%, 67% and 59%, respectively.

Conclusion: CRS/HIPEC should be considered as the main treatment option for patients with PC from appendiceal GCA. When performed at a CRS/HIPEC specialty center, 5-year OS of 67% can be achieved.

Poor peeps!  I hope I never have to undergo that shit!!!!  Man!  Don't you love how researchers state things like "When performed at a CRS/HIPEC specialty center, 5-year OS of 67% can be achieved." - as though 33% of patients dying within 5 years is a good thing?  Sigh.....

Y'all know I've been yelling for YEARS, as recently as earlier this month, about ctDNA use in melanoma - rather - how it SHOULD be used in melanoma!!! - A Zillion Posts  Now, there's this -

Analysis of Plasma Cell-Free DNA by Ultradeep Sequencing in Patients With Stages I to III Colorectal Cancer.  Reinert, Henriksen, Christensen, et al.  JAMA Oncol.  2019, May.

Importance:  Novel sensitive methods for detection and monitoring of residual disease can improve postoperative risk stratification with implications for patient selection for adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT), ACT duration, intensity of radiologic surveillance, and, ultimately, outcome for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC).

Objective:  To investigate the association of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) with recurrence using longitudinal data from ultradeep sequencing of plasma cell-free DNA in patients with CRC before and after surgery, during and after ACT, and during surveillance.

Design, Setting, and Participants:  In this prospective, multicenter cohort study, ctDNA was quantified in the preoperative and postoperative settings of stages I to III CRC by personalized multiplex, polymerase chain reaction–based, next-generation sequencing. The study enrolled 130 patients at the surgical departments of Aarhus University Hospital, Randers Hospital, and Herning Hospital in Denmark from May 1, 2014, to January 31, 2017. Plasma samples (n = 829) were collected before surgery, postoperatively at day 30, and every third month for up to 3 years.

Results:  A total of 130 patients with stages I to III CRC (mean age, 67.9 years; 74 male) were enrolled in the study; 5 patients discontinued participation, leaving 125 patients for analysis. Preoperatively, ctDNA was detectable in 108 of 122 patients. After definitive treatment, longitudinal ctDNA analysis identified 14 of 16 relapses (87.5%). At postoperative day 30, ctDNA-positive patients were 7 times more likely to relapse than ctDNA-negative patients. Similarly, shortly after ACT ctDNA-positive patients were 17 times  more likely to relapse. All 7 patients who were ctDNA positive after ACT experienced relapse. Monitoring during and after ACT indicated that 3 of the 10 ctDNA-positive patients (30.0%) were cleared by ACT. During surveillance after definitive therapy, ctDNA-positive patients were more than 40 times more likely to experience disease recurrence than ctDNA-negative patients. In all multivariate analyses, ctDNA status was independently associated with relapse after adjusting for known clinicopathologic risk factors. Serial ctDNA analyses revealed disease recurrence up to 16.5 months ahead of standard-of-care radiologic imaging (mean, 8.7 months; range, 0.8-16.5 months). Actionable mutations were identified in 81.8% of the ctDNA-positive relapse samples.

Conclusions and Relevance:  Circulating tumor DNA analysis can potentially change the postoperative management of CRC by enabling risk stratification, ACT monitoring, and early relapse detection.

How could this not be a good thing, right???? So, I put my money where my mouth is.  Several months ago, I had the Signatera - Circulating tumor DNA blood test done.  The company analyzed a sample from my appendiceal tumor to create an assay generated by the mutations in my specific tumor to know what to look for in a simple blood draw.  It was negative.  Meaning - no bits or bobs of the tumor DNA they searched for was in my blood sample.  This is in no way an advert for that particular company. (Though medical folks from the company answered ALL B's questions in several phone calls, so that is something!!!)  This is simply a report of what I did, the research behind it, and how it went.  I told B I ought to do a two-fer and have them look for melanoma as well as GCC!!  Surprisingly, he was not amused!  Such a party pooper!  Poor boy.  

So, to finish up 2021 with a bang, a couple of weeks ago, routine follow-up scans were clear - the strange ascites that keep jogging around with me was diminished, so that's good, I guess.  Yesterday, I had a visit with my onc and labs (to follow relative proteins, iron, folate and such) drawn.  An uneventful event, though I had to be stuck twice.  Such is the life of a cancer patient.  And to think - having had bilateral complete lymphadenectomies of both arms in 2003 and 2007 - I was told never to have so much as a blood pressure check in either.  Well!!!  That went out the window YEARS ago!  I am moving to annual scans and doc visits with labs every 6 months.  Clearly, I am to be seen sooner if I have any problems. Though how to ID said 'problems' is a little unclear.  Leaving the visit, I told B I was tired of being a cancer patient.  But, as quickly as I said it I realized that when you ARE a cancer patient, getting to be one for so many years is pretty lucky, no?  Neuropathies to hands and feet continue.  B religiously applies Voltaren to my feet each night.  Again, not an advert.  I'm not really sure it does anything, but he is convinced.  We've tried a variety of things - icy hot type preparations, Blue emu something or other, a hemp oil ta-dah.  These well and truly did nothing at all!!!  I've learned to manage my bowel situation, though some days are better than others.  I still run and sew and work and play.  At the end of the day - especially at the end of THREE /18 crazy years - what more can one ask for?

Wishing each of you peaceful moments, much love, and a zillion small joys in the coming year.   ~ les

And, yes.  The observant among you will note that it took me a year to post the data included here.  Sometimes it takes a minute to face your reality. And, yes.  I am smiling. - c

Brain Mets - A mixture of recent reports

I've covered the data related to brain mets in melanoma for a long time - A few zillion relative reports  

Unfortunately, some older posts are at the top of that list, so scroll through for newer posts if you are interested.  Also unfortunately, not a lot has changed since many of those postings, but here are some reports published over the past year (my comments in red as ever) ~

Tumor Control Probability of Radiosurgery and Fractionated Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Brain Metastases.  Redmond, Gui, Benedict, et al.  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.  Dec 2020.

Purpose: As part of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Working Group on Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy, tumor control probability (TCP) after stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and fractionated stereotactic radiosurgery (fSRS) for brain metastases was modeled based on pooled dosimetric and clinical data from published English-language literature.

Methods and materials: PubMed-indexed studies published between January 1995 and September 2017 were used to evaluate dosimetric and clinical predictors of TCP after SRS or fSRS for brain metastases. Eligible studies had greater than/= to10 patients and included detailed dose-fractionation data with corresponding greater than/= to 1-year local control (LC) data, typically evaluated as a greater than 20% increase in diameter of the targeted lesion using the pre-SRS diameter as a reference.

Results: Of 2951 potentially eligible manuscripts, 56 included sufficient dose-volume data for analyses. Accepting that necrosis and pseudoprogression can complicate the assessment of LC, for tumors less than/= to 20 mm, single-fraction doses of 18 and 24 Gy corresponded with greater than 85% and 95% 1-year LC rates, respectively. For tumors 21 to 30 mm, an 18 Gy single-fraction dose was associated with 75% LC. For tumors 31 to 40 mm, a 15 Gy single-fraction dose yielded ∼69% LC. For 3- to 5-fraction fSRS using doses in the range of 27 to 35 Gy, 80% 1-year LC has been achieved for tumors of 21 to 40 mm in diameter.

Conclusions: TCP for SRS and fSRS are presented. For small lesions less than/= to 20 mm, single doses of ≈18 Gy appear generally associated with excellent rates of LC; for melanoma, higher doses seem warranted. For larger lesions greater than 20 mm, local control rates appear to be ≈ 70% to 75% with usual doses of 15 to 18 Gy, and in this setting, fSRS regimens should be considered. Greater consistency in reporting of dosimetric and LC data is needed to facilitate future pooled analyses. As systemic and biologic therapies evolve, updated analyses will be needed to further assess the necessity, efficacy, and toxicity of SRS and fSRS.

Not stuff that we as melanoma patients have a lot of control of or say in - but there you go.

Long-term disease outcome and volume-based decision strategy in a large cohort of multiple brain metastases treated with a mono-isocentric linac-based Stereotactic Radiosurgery technique.  Alongi, Nicosia, Figlia, et al.  Clin Transl Oncol.  August 2021.

Purpose: Radiosurgery (SRS) is an effective treatment option for brain metastases (BMs). Long-term results of the first worldwide experience with a mono-isocentric, non-coplanar, linac-based stereotactic technique in the treatment of multiple BMs are reported.

Methods: Patients with multiple BMs, life expectancy greater than 3 months, and good performance status (less than/= to 2) were treated with simultaneous SRS with volumetric modulated arc technique. Data were retrospectively evaluated.

Results: 172 patients accounting for 1079 BMs were treated at our institution from 2017 to 2020. The median number of treated metastases was 4 (range 2-22). Primary tumor histology was: lung (44.8%), breast (32%), and melanoma (9.4%). The 2-year LPFS was 71.6%, respectively. A biological effective dose (BED) greater than/= to 51.3 Gy10 correlated with higher local control. Uncontrolled systemic disease and melanoma histology were independent prognostic factors correlated with decreased iPFS. Patients with greater than 10 BMs had a trend towards shorter iPFS. 31 patients received multiple SRS courses (2-7) in case of intracranial progression. The median iOS was 22.4 months. Brainstem metastases and total PTV greater than 7.1 cc correlated with shorter iOS. The 1- and 2-year WBRT-free survival was 83.2% and 61.1%, respectively.

Conclusion: Long-term results in a large patient population treated with a mono-isocentric, dedicated technique demonstrated its effectiveness and safety also in the case of multiple courses. The shortened treatment time and the possibility to safely spare healthy brain tissue allows the safe treatment of patients with a large number of metastases and to deliver multiple courses of SRS. In selected cases, the administration of WBRT can be delayed.

Not all melanoma patients here.  But good to know that multiple rounds of SRS were effective and well tolerated in some of these patients.

Time from stereotactic radiosurgery to immunotherapy in patients with melanoma brain metastases and impact on outcome.  Wegner, Abel, D’Amico, et al.  J Neurooncol.  Mar 2021.

Background: The role of immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma has expanded over the past decade triggering questions regarding the combination and timing of immunotherapy and radiation for brain metastases. We used the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to see if the time from radiation to immunotherapy in patients with melanoma brain metastases had an impact on survival.

Methods: We queried the NCDB from 2010 to 2015 for patients with melanoma brain metastases treated with immunotherapy and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was done to determine a timepoint associated with outcome. Cox regression was used to identify predictors of survival. Propensity matching was done to account for indication bias.

Results: We identified 247 patients meeting the above criteria. The median patient age was 62 years (27-90) and the vast majority were Caucasian (99%). The median SRS dose was 22 Gy (18-24 Gy).The median time to SRS was 39 days (0-344) and the median time to immunotherapy was 56 days (6-454). The ROC analysis revealed 8 days from SRS to immunotherapy as associated with outcome. Fifty-six patients had immunotherapy prior to SRS, 30 patients had immunotherapy within 0-7 days of SRS, and the remaining 161 had immunotherapy greater than 7 days from SRS. Three year survival rates were 21%, 55%, and 35% for those timeframes, respectively. Propensity matching of the 0-7 day and greater than 7 day groups yielded 28 pairs and Kaplan Meier analysis showed 3 year overall survival of 55% and 35%, in favor of immunotherapy within 7 days of SRS. Multivariable Cox regression identified lack of extracranial disease, more recent year of treatment, and time from SRS to immunotherapy of 0-7 days as predictors of improved survival.

Conclusions: Immunotherapy within 7 days of SRS shows a possible association with improve outcomes in patients with brain metastases from melanoma.

Many other studies have already demonstrated this fact - outcomes are better when you DO NOT delay immunotherapy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Again = a zillion reports:  Radiation AND immunotherapy

Management of melanoma brain metastases: Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines by Cancer Council Australia.  Hong, Waldstein, Shivalingam, et al.  Eur J Cancer.  Jan 2021.

Introduction: The brain is a common site of metastatic disease for patients with advanced melanoma. Brain metastasis portends a poor prognosis, often causing deterioration in neurological function and quality of life, and leading to neurological death. Treatment approaches including surgery, radiotherapy and systemic therapy can lead to better control of this problem. Therefore, appropriate guidelines for the management of melanoma brain metastases need to be established, with regular updating when new treatment options become available.

Methods: A multidisciplinary working party established by Cancer Council Australia has produced up-to-date, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the management of melanoma. After selecting key clinical questions, a comprehensive literature search for relevant studies was conducted, followed by systematic review of those studies. Data were summarized and the evidence was assessed, leading to the development of recommendations.

Main recommendations: Symptomatic lesions are best treated with surgery, when possible; this provides safe and effective local control. For patients with single or a small number of asymptomatic brain metastases, stereotactic radiotherapy is recommended, but in asymptomatic patients who have not previously received systemic treatment, drug therapy can be considered as a first-line treatment option. Whole brain radiotherapy may provide palliative benefits in patients with multiple brain metastases. Whenever possible, melanoma patients with brain metastases should be managed by a multidisciplinary team of melanoma specialists that considers the optimal combination and sequencing of surgery, radiotherapy and systemic therapy.

All conclusions seem true based on current data.  There is even this confirming report from 2019 regarding immunotherapy as first line treatment (without radiation) for folks with melanoma brain mets - IPI/NIVO - results - in melanoma brain mets and long term follow-up in advanced melanoma  However, as I noted in that post - with the vast preponderance of evidence showing that responses are better when immunotherapy is COMBINED with radiation, you would have a hard time convincing me to roll with immunotherapy alone.  But, maybe that's just me!

Sustainable responses in metastatic melanoma patients with and without brain metastases after elective discontinuation of anti-PD1-based immunotherapy due to complete response.  Dimitriou, Zaremba, Allayous, et al. Eur J Cancer.  Jul 2021.

Background: Anti-PD1-based immunotherapy is currently used in most patients with advanced melanoma. Despite the remarkable data regarding overall survival, the optimal treatment duration is still unknown.

Methods: We evaluated the outcome of 125 patients with advanced melanoma with and without brain metastases (MBM), treated either with anti-PD1 monotherapy (N = 97) or combined with anti-CTLA4 (N = 28) after elective treatment discontinuation due to complete response (CR) (group A, N = 86), or treatment-limiting toxicity (N = 33) and investigator's decision (ID, N = 6) (group B) with subsequent CR.

Results: For group A, median duration of treatment (mDoT) was 22 months (range 5-49) and median time to CR 9 months (range 2-47). Accordingly, mDoT for group B was 3 months (range 0-36) and median time to CR 7 months (range 1-32). Seven patients from group A and three from group B experienced disease recurrence. Off-treatment survival was not reached. Median off-treatment response time (mOTRt) was 19 months (range 0-42) and 25 months (range 0-66), respectively. For MBM, mOTRt was 17 months (range 7-41) and 28 months (range 9-39), respectively. After a median follow-up of 38 months (range 9-70), seven (5.6%) patients had deceased, one (0.8%) due to melanoma.

Conclusions: Treatment discontinuation is feasible also in patients with MBM. Efficacy outcomes seemed to be similar in both groups of patients who achieved CR, regardless of reason for discontinuation. In patients who experienced disease relapse, treatment re-challenge with anti-PD1 resulted in subsequent renewed response.

Deciding when to stop therapy - esp when there has been no complete response, remains hard.

First line immunotherapy extends brain metastasis free survival, improves overall survival, and reduces the incidence of brain metastasis in patients with advanced melanoma.  Wang, Haaland, Hu-Lieskovan, et al.  Cancer Rep.  June 2021.

Background: Recent advances in targeted therapy and immunotherapy have improved the prognosis of melanoma patients but brain metastasis remains a major challenge. Currently, it is unclear how existing therapies can be best used to prevent or treat brain metastasis in melanoma patients.

Aims: We aimed to assess brain metastasis free survival (BMFS), overall survival (OS), incidence of brain metastases, and sequencing strategies of immunotherapy and targeted therapy in patients with BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma.

Methods and results: We retrospectively analyzed 683 patients with BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma treated with first line (1L) immunotherapy (N = 266) or targeted therapy (N = 417). The primary outcome was BMFS. Secondary outcomes included OS of all patients and incidence of brain metastases in patients without documented brain metastases prior to 1L therapy. The median BMFS was 13.7 months among all patients. The median BMFS for patients receiving 1L immunotherapy was 41.9 months and targeted therapy was 11.0 months. Median OS results were qualitatively similar to BMFS results. The cumulative incidence of brain metastases for patients receiving 1L targeted therapy was higher than for patients receiving 1L immunotherapy. Patients receiving 1L anti-CTLA4 plus anti-PD1 combination immunotherapy only or followed by second line (2L) targeted therapy had better BMFS, improved OS, and reduced incidence of brain metastases, than patients receiving 1L combination BRAF and MEK targeted therapy followed by 2L immunotherapy.

Conclusion: Patients with advanced BRAF mutant melanoma treated with 1L immunotherapy have significantly longer BMFS and OS, and reduced incidence of brain metastases, compared with those treated with 1L targeted therapy. Further studies evaluating the ability of immunotherapy and targeted therapy to improve OS and prevent brain metastases are warranted.

Interesting.

Melanoma brain metastasis presentation, treatment, and outcomes in the age of targeted and immunotherapies.  Bander, Yuan, Carnevale, et al.  Cancer.  June 2021.

Background: Historically, the prognosis for patients who have melanoma brain metastasis (MBM) has been dismal. However, breakthroughs in targeted and immunotherapies have improved long-term survival in those with advanced melanoma. Therefore, MBM presentation, prognosis, and the use of multimodality central nervous system (CNS)-directed treatment were reassessed.

Methods: In this retrospective study, the authors evaluated patients with MBM who received treatment at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center between 2010 and 2019. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to describe overall survival (OS). Recursive partitioning analysis and time-dependent multivariable Cox modeling were used to assess prognostic variables and to associate CNS-directed treatments with OS.

Results: Four hundred twenty-five patients with 2488 brain metastases were included. The median OS after an MBM diagnosis was 8.9 months. Patients who were diagnosed with MBM between 2015 and 2019 experienced longer OS compared to those who were diagnosed between 2010 and 2014 (OS, 13.0 months vs 7.0 months). Prognostic multivariable modeling significantly associated shortened OS independently with leptomeningeal dissemination, increasing numbers of brain metastases at diagnosis, earlier MBM diagnosis year, higher serum levels of lactate dehydrogenase, receipt of immunotherapy before MBM diagnosis, and the presence of extracranial disease. The use of different CNS-directed treatment modalities was associated with presenting symptoms, diagnosis year, number and size of brain metastases, and the presence of extracranial disease. Multivariable analysis demonstrated improved survival for patients who underwent craniotomy.

Conclusions: The prognosis for patients with MBM has improved within the last 5 years, coinciding with the approval of PD-1 immune checkpoint blockade and combined BRAF/MEK targeting. Improving survival reflects and may influence the willingness to use aggressive multimodality treatment for MBM.

Lay summary: Historically, melanoma brain metastases (MBM) have carried a poor survival prognosis of 4 to 6 months; however, the introduction of immunotherapy and targeted precision medicines has altered the survival curve for advanced melanoma. In this large, single-institution, contemporary cohort, the authors demonstrate a significant increase in survival of patients with MBM to 13 months within the last 5 years of the study. A worse prognosis for patients with MBM was significantly associated with the number of metastases at diagnosis, previous exposure to immunotherapy, spread of disease to the leptomeningeal compartment, serum lactate dehydrogenase elevation, and the presence of extracranial disease. The current age of systemic treatments has also been accompanied by shifts in the use of central nervous system-directed therapies.

Yep.  Things are better.  But, not yet good enough.  Still, we know - if you have melanoma brain mets - hit 'em hard with everything you've got!  No waiting.  No pussy footing around!!!

Immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy may increase the incidence of treatment-related necrosis after stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  Kim, Suh, Kim, et al.  Eur Radiol.  June 2021.

Objectives: To compare the incidence of treatment-related necrosis between combination SRS+ICI therapy and SRS therapy alone in patients with brain metastases from melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods: A systematic literature search of Ovid-MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed up to August 10, 2020. The difference in the pooled incidence of treatment-related necrosis after SRS+ICI or SRS alone was evaluated. The cumulative incidence of treatment-related necrosis at the specific time point after the treatment was calculated and plotted. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were additionally performed.

Results: Sixteen studies (14 on melanoma, 2 on NSCLC) were included. In NSCLC brain metastasis, the reported incidences of treatment-related necrosis in SRS+ICI and SRS alone ranged 2.9-3.4% and 0-2.9%, respectively. Meta-analysis was conducted including 14 studies on melanoma brain metastasis. The incidence of treatment-related necrosis was higher in SRS+ICI than SRS alone (16.0% vs. 6.5%). The incidence showed rapid increase until 12 months after the SRS when combined with ICI therapy (14%) and its pace of increase slowed thereafter. Histopathologic diagnosis as the reference standard for treatment-related necrosis and inclusion of only symptomatic cases were the source of heterogeneity in SRS+ICI.

Conclusions: Treatment-related necrosis tended to occur 2.4 times more frequently in the setting of combination SRS+ICI therapy compared with SRS alone in melanoma brain metastasis showing high cumulative incidence within the first year. Treatment-related necrosis should be considered when SRS+ICI combination therapy is used for melanoma brain metastasis, especially in the first year.

Key points: • Treatment-related necrosis occurred 2.4 times more frequently in the setting of combination SRS+ICI therapy compared with SRS alone in melanoma brain metastasis. • Treatment-related necrosis more frequently occurred in brain metastases from melanoma than NSCLC. • Reference standard for treatment-related necrosis and inclusion of only symptomatic treatment-related necrosis were a significant source of heterogeneity, indicating varying definitions of treatment-related necrosis in the literature need to be unified.

First of all, melanoma sucks.  Melanoma brain mets suck even more.  Yes, treatment necrosis is a real thing.  Yes, it seems to happen in melanoma brain mets more than in brain mets caused by other cancers.  BUT!  What 'cha gonna do?  Not treat and risk more mets and less survival?  Plus, this is a meta-analysis - NOT a real report with full intel on every rattie studied.  There are studies with real ratties that show this:  Immunotherapy with SRS does NOT increase risk of radiation necrosis in melanoma brain mets!!!

The combined use of steroids and immune checkpoint inhibitors in brain metastasis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  Jessurun, Hulsbergen, Wit, et al.  Neuro Oncol.  August 2021.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have been a breakthrough for selected cancer patients, including those with brain metastases (BMs). Likewise, steroids have been an integral component of symptomatic management of BM patients. However, clinical evidence on the interaction between ICI and steroids in BM patients is conflicting and has not adequately been summarized thus far. Hence, the aim of this study was to perform a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on the association between steroid use and overall survival (OS) in BM patients receiving ICI.

Methods: A systematic literature search was performed. Pooled effect estimates were calculated using random-effects models across included studies.

Results: After screening 1145 abstracts, 15 observational studies were included. Fourteen studies reported sufficient data for meta-analysis, comprising 1102 BM patients of which 32.1% received steroids. In the steroid group, median OS ranged from 2.9 to 10.2 months. In the nonsteroid group, median OS ranged from 4.9 to 25.1 months. Pooled results demonstrated significantly worse OS and systemic progression-free survival in the steroid group. Stratified analysis showed a consistent effect across the melanoma subgroup; not in the lung cancer subgroup. No significant association was shown between steroid use and intracranial PFS.

Conclusions: Administration of steroids was associated with significantly worse OS and PFS in BM patients receiving ICI. Further research on dose, timing, and duration of steroids is needed to elucidate the cause of this association and optimize outcomes in BM patients receiving ICI.

This article is proof that I share all the data that I find - even if it doesn't jive with most of the previous data.  To whit - steroids do NOT diminish response in melanoma patients - and are often in fact,  REQUIRED in order for melanoma patients to continue their life saving treatment!!!  While there may be some truth in the conclusion that folks who have to undergo steroids while on immunotherapy have a decreased response compared to those who do not - I think the REASON for that may not be the one first concluded - ie steroids themselves diminished the response.  RATHER, patients who must use steroids to tolerate immunotherapy often are unable to complete a sufficient quantity of immunotherapy to treat their disease effectively because they could not tolerate it.  The lack of knowledge about the specific patients in this review of 14 other studies demonstrates the severe limitations that this kind of compiled data in meta-analysis contains.  My opinions about the abstract of this study are much like those I discussed in a similar report from September of this year:  What to do about immunotherapy if you - take steroids or infliximab for side effects? Have a pre-existing autoimmune disease?????  If you are interested in the effects of steroids on immunotherapy, it is worth your time.  With repeated thanks to the Edster for help in analysis and provision of the complete article.

The studies in this post were all retrospective meta-analysis studies.  While reports like these can give a useful overview of the state of the science they are decidedly lacking in REASONS for outcomes.  For instance, there are absolutely NO elephants in Chattanooga, TN at this moment.  Further, I just clapped my hands three times.  Are those two things related?  Probably not!!!  Concurrent events and causative events are not the same.  Counting up a tally from some carefully chosen studies can be informative.  But, the results must be considered in the light of how they were attained and with recognition of the limited specifics known about the individual ratties in each of the studies, multiplied by how many studies and ratties there were.

See, Bentie?  All those crazy doctoral level statistic courses at UAB were worth the price of admission and tears of confusion, right????  BAHAHAHA!!!

Hang tough, ratties.  Melanoma isn't easy.  But there is hope. - c

ASCO 2021 - NEOadjuvant treatments - immunotherapy vs targeted and nivo plus relatlimab (anti-LAG3)

Having covered adjuvant therapy yesterday, today I turn to NEOadjuvant treatments.  In 2018 I wrote -

"Adjuvant therapy, is when a treatment is given AFTER signs of obvious disease have been removed, usually with surgery.  And we have very good data that adjuvant treatments, both with targeted and immunotherapy, work in melanoma to prevent progression in many of those patients.  After all, that is what the NED Stage IV ratties in my nivo trial proved from 2010 - 2013!!!!  NEO-adjuvant therapy, is when a treatment is given BEFORE melanoma has been removed. "

Here are a zillion Neoadjuvant reports.  Now, there are these:

Pathological response and survival with neoadjuvant therapy in melanoma: a pooled analysis from the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium (INMC).  Menzies, Amaria, Rozeman, et al.  Nat Med.  Feb 2021.

The association among pathological response, recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) with neoadjuvant therapy in melanoma remains unclear. In this study, we pooled data from six clinical trials of anti-PD-1-based immunotherapy or BRAF/MEK targeted therapy. In total, 192 patients were included; 141 received immunotherapy (104, combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab; 37, anti-PD-1 monotherapy), and 51 received targeted therapy. A pathological complete response (pCR) occurred in 40% of patients: 47% with targeted therapy and 33% with immunotherapy (43% combination and 20% monotherapy). pCR correlated with improved RFS (pCR 2-year 89% versus no pCR 50%) and OS (pCR 2-year OS 95% versus no pCR 83%). In patients with pCR, near pCR or partial pathological response with immunotherapy, very few relapses were seen (2-year RFS 96%), and, at this writing, no patient has died from melanoma, whereas, even with pCR from targeted therapy, the 2-year RFS was only 79%, and OS was only 91%. Pathological response should be an early surrogate endpoint for clinical trials and a new benchmark for development and approval in melanoma.

Hmmm....  While targeted therapy is almost magical in BRAF positive melanoma peeps for melting away tumors and those responses have proven at times to be durable, that durability can be fickle.  This report (while not necessarily about neoadjuvant administration) is similarly illuminating:

First-line immunotherapy versus targeted therapy in patients with BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma: a real-world analysis.  Pavlick, Zhao, Lee, et al.  Future Oncol. Feb 2021.

Aim: To compare effectiveness of nivolumab + ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) versus BRAF + MEK inhibitors (BRAFi + MEKi) in patients with BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma in the real-world setting. 

Materials & methods: This study used the Flatiron Health electronic medical record database. Results: After adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics, NIVO + IPI was associated with a 32% reduction in risk of death versus BRAFi + MEKi. At a mean follow-up of 15-16 months, 64% of NIVO + IPI patients and 43% of BRAFi + MEKi patients were alive; subsequent therapy was administered to 33 and 41% of patients, respectively. After first-line NIVO + IPI, 20% of patients died before subsequent therapy, whereas 32% died after first-line BRAFi + MEKi. 

Conclusion: In this real-world study, patients treated with first-line NIVO + IPI showed significant survival benefit versus those receiving first-line BRAFi + MEKi.

Then there's this, from ASCO....

Neoadjuvant and adjuvant nivolumab (nivo) with anti-LAG3 antibody relatlimab (rela) for patients (pts) with resectable clinical stage III melanoma.  Amaria, Postow, Tetzlaff, et al.  ASCO 2021

Background:  Neoadjuvant therapy (NT) for pts with clinical stage III melanoma remains an active area of research interest. Recent NT trial data demonstrates that achieving a pathologic complete response (pCR) correlates with improved relapse-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS). Checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) NT with either high or low dose ipilimumab and nivolumab regimens produces a high pCR rate of 30-45% but with grade 3-4 toxicity rate of 20-90%. In metastatic melanoma (MM), the combination of nivo with rela (anti Lymphocyte Activation Gene-3 antibody) has demonstrated a favorable toxicity profile and responses in both CPI-naïve and refractory MM. We hypothesized that NT with nivo + rela will safely achieve high pCR rates and provide insights into mechanisms of response and resistance to this regimen.

Methods:  We conducted a multi-institutional, investigator-initiated single arm study (NCT02519322) enrolling pts with clinical stage III or oligometastatic stage IV melanoma with RECIST 1.1 measurable, surgically-resectable disease. Pts were enrolled at 2 sites and received nivo 480mg IV with rela 160mg IV on wks 1 and 5. Radiographic response was assessed after completion of NT; surgery was conducted at wk 9 and specimens were assessed for pathologic response per established criteria. Pts received up to 10 additional doses of nivo and rela after surgery, with scans every 3 mo to assess for recurrence. The primary study objective was determination of pCR rate. Secondary objectives included safety, radiographic response by RECIST 1.1, event-free survival (EFS), RFS, and OS analyses. Blood and tissue were collected at baseline, at day 15, day 28, and at surgery for correlative analyses.

Results:  A total of 30 pts (19 males, median age 60) were enrolled with clinical stage IIIB/IIIC/IIID/IV (M1a) in 18/8/2/2 pts, respectively. 29 pts underwent surgery; 1 pt developed distant metastatic disease while on NT. pCR rate was 59% and near pCR ( less than10% viable tumor) was 7% for a major pathologic response (MPR, pCR + near pCR) of 66%. 7% of pts achieved a pPR (10-50% viable tumor) and 27% pNR (greater than/= to 50% viable tumor). RECIST ORR was 57%. With a median follow up of 16.2 mos, the 1-year EFS was 90%, RFS was 93%, and OS was 95%. 1-year RFS for MPR was 100% compared to 80% for non-MPR pts. There were no treatment related gr 3/4 AEs that arose during NT; 26% of pts had a gr 3/4 AE that began during adjuvant treatment.

Conclusions:  Neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment with nivo and rela achieved high pCR and MPR rates with a favorable toxicity profile in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings. Pts with MPR had improved outcomes compared to non-MPR pts. Translational studies to discern mechanisms of response and resistance to this combination are underway. Clinical trial information: NCT02519322.

Perhaps neoadjuvant care will become the way of the future.  Thanks ratties.

best - c