Friday, December 20, 2019

Rose and Jamie - The party



This wedding was a celebration!!

Runners made by Roo!

Time for CAKE!  In this case - cupcakes and banana pudding!!!




Moore fun...





And games...

















TIME TO DANCE!!!!!!!!!!






Joseph!  Keeping the tunes going!!!



Finally, we get a pic of Irina!!!!






















So...
...much...
...MOORE...
FUN!!!




May you always dance, my sweet girl!
And they were off!  With happy bubbles and all our best wishes...
To our dear Rose and Jamie ~
May you always find strength, joy, comfort, and laughter in each others arms.







We love you.

Saturday, December 14, 2019

Sew Chaotically! ~ Cozy Celestine Jacket for Roo!!


I am so tickled with this make!!!

When Roo finally decided to part with her dear threadbare, though once incredibly plush and fuzzy North Face jacket dubbed "Monkey Butt" - I really can't explain the name, except that it was a very soft tan fleece though that hardly seems to fit the nomenclature - that served as her go-to jacket since around the age of 14, keeping her warm on runs as well as fancy affairs, working overtime as blanket or pillow as needed, in a recent closet clean out - I decided to make her a replacement!

I first used this pattern, Celestine by Le Laboratoire Familial, to make this crazy quilted satin and moleskin jacket back in the spring of 2018  and Roo combined it in one of her outfits for her #sewfrosting Hollyburn skirt  made of the same fabric later that year. 

I have had such fun in the making of this jacket both times.  With my nonexistent abilities in French (except for food!!!) B translated the instructions for me, but for each make I have pretty much done my own thing!

For this version, I eliminated the lining, using bias binding to secure the collar.  Turned up the sleeves to create a tunnel for the elastic, added side seam pockets, and applied a waistband pretty much as the pattern directs to encase the elastic and finish off the hem.  The fabric is a very plush wide ribbed corduroy with just a touch of stretch in a rich chocolate brown from JoAnn's.




Rosie picked this cute button from my stash.  A packet of painted buttons I believe B ordered from Amazon.  I hope they hold up in the wash!!!

This compensation plate was soooooo helpful in placing the button holes in this thick fabric!!!

I couldn't resist replicating her buttons with this little flower embroidered in the back!

Sew much fun!!!  Sew and live chaotically!!! ~ love, les

Tuesday, December 10, 2019

Reviews of T-VEC in melanoma patients: alone, with ipi or with pembrolizumab ~


I have been a fan of intraleional (also referred to as intratumoral) treatment - therapies that are injected directly into melanoma lesions - for a long time.  Here are a bazillion reports: Intralesional therapies for melanoma

While T-VEC is currently the only version with FDA approval, here is a list of some of the drugs most often used:
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 -  is also being used

Now this -

Patterns of response with talimogene laherparepvec in combination with ipilimumab or ipilimumab alone in metastatic unresectable melanoma.  Chesney, Puzanov, Collichio, et al. Br J Cancer. 2019 Jul 29. 

Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) has demonstrated efficacy for unresectable melanoma. We explored response patterns from a phase 2 study evaluating patients with unresectable stage IIIB-IVM1c malignant melanoma who received T-VEC plus ipilimumab or ipilimumab alone. Patients with objective response per modified irRC were evaluated for pseudo-progression (single greater than/= to 25% increase in tumour burden before response). Patients without pseudo-progression were classified by whether they responded within or after 6 months of treatment start; those with pseudo-progression were classified by whether pseudo-progression was due to increase in existing lesions or development of new lesions. Overall, 39% (n = 38/98) in the combination arm and 18% (n = 18/100) in the ipilimumab arm had an objective response. Eight responders (combination, n = 7; ipilimumab, n = 1) had pseudo-progression; most occurred by week 12 and were caused by an increase in existing lesions. These data reinforce use of T-VEC through initial progression when combined with checkpoint inhibitors.

We already have this report from 2017:  T-VEC plus ipi vs ipi alone ~ along with additional T-VEC data...  where it is noted that:  "...quite promising is the combination of talimogene laherparepvec and pembrolizumab. In the phase IB ­MASTERKEY-265 trial of 21 previously untreated patients, responses were seen in 57% of patients, including complete responses in 7 patients, with no dose-limiting toxicities.9 This regimen is now in phase III trials."...

Now, this -

Response to the Rechallenge With Talimogene Laherparepvec (T-VEC) After Ipilimumab/Nivolumab Treatment in Patient With Cutaneous Malignant Melanoma Who Initially Had a Progression on T-VEC With Pembrolizumab.  Afzal, Shirai.  J Immunother. 2019 Mar 29.  

Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) is approved for unresected stage III-IV malignant melanoma. T-VEC has a direct cytotoxic effect and enhances the antitumor immunity of host cells. Immune checkpoints inhibitors also enhance the immunity of host cells by increasing the recruitment of antigen-presenting cells or activation and restoration of T-cell functions. Both type of therapies can potentiate the effect of the other therapy. We are reporting a case of T-VEC rechallenge who initially progressed on T-VEC with pembrolizumab but then responded to T-VEC rechallenge after intervening ipilimumab/nivolumab. An 83-year-old man developed a subungual lesion of the left thumb and found to have AJCC V. 7 stage IIIb melanoma. Few months later, he developed axillary lymphadenopathy and multiple subcutaneous nodules (AJCC V. 7 stage IIIc). The patient was started on intralesional rose Bengal and pembrolizumab. After 4 cycles of pembrolizumab with rose Bengal, a positron-emission tomography/computerized tomography scan showed the progression of disease. He was started on T-VEC intralesional injections with concurrent pembrolizumab, however, after 3 T-VEC injections and 2 more cycles of pembrolizumab, there was the progression of disease. Subsequently, ipilimumab/nivolumab was started and patient responded partially. Ipilimumab/nivolumab was held due to toxicity. Eight weeks from the last dose of ipilimumab/nivolumab, he experienced locoregional progression and was rechallenged with T-VEC monotherapy. The patient showed a significant response after second T-VEC injection and continued to show response 6 months since rechallenge. After, initial progression on T-VEC with pembrolizumab, intervening immune checkpoints inhibitors may favorably modify the antitumor immunity and potentiate antitumor effect of T-VEC rechallenge.

Cases like this are so difficult to understand - by the patient - poor soul, mostly - but also:  Did the rechallenge with T-VEC really turn the tide?  Or - did all the other therapies - or ONE of the other therapies - finally kick in and just needed more time to work?  We really can't say.  Patients who have experienced multiple therapies and then finally respond, hold the key to many questions.  I'm just not sure we know what exactly they unlock.

Then, this -

Final analyses of OPTiM: a randomized phase III trial of talimogene laherparepvec versus granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor in unresectable stage III-IV melanoma.  Andtbacka Collichio, Harrington, et al.  J Immunother Cancer. 2019 Jun 6.

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.

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.

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 (19.5-29.6) and 18.9 months (16.0-23.7) in the talimogene laherparepvec and GM-CSF arms, respectively . DRR was 19.0 and 1.4%; 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.

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.

This is one of those studies that gets on my nerve.  We wouldn't have expected GM-CSF to do much better than it did!!!!  But, I guess it shows what T-VEC can do on its own.

And finally, this:

Intratumoral Immunotherapy-Update. Hamid, Ismail, Puzanov.  Oncologist.  2019 Nov 29.

Intratumoral immunotherapies aim to trigger local and systemic immunologic responses via direct injection of immunostimulatory agents with the goal of tumor cell lysis, followed by release of tumor-derived antigens and subsequent activation of tumor-specific effector T cells. In 2019, a multitude of intratumoral immunotherapies with varied mechanisms of action, including nononcolytic viral therapies such as PV-10 and toll-like receptor 9 agonists and oncolytic viral therapies such as CAVATAK, Pexa-Vec, and HF10, have been extensively evaluated in clinical trials and demonstrated promising antitumor activity with tolerable toxicities in melanoma and other solid tumor types. Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC), a genetically modified herpes simplex virus type 1-based oncolytic immunotherapy, is the first oncolytic virus approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of unresectable melanoma recurrent after initial surgery. In patients with unresectable metastatic melanoma, T-VEC demonstrated a superior durable response rate (continuous complete response or partial response lasting greater than/= to6 months) over subcutaneous GM-CSF (16.3% vs. 2.1%). Responses were seen in both injected and uninjected lesions including visceral lesions, suggesting a systemic antitumor response. When combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors, T-VEC significantly improved response rates compared with single agent; similar results were seen with combinations of checkpoint inhibitors and other intratumoral therapies such as CAVATAK, HF10, and TLR9 agonists. In this review, we highlight recent results from clinical trials of key intratumoral immunotherapies that are being evaluated in the clinic, with a focus on T-VEC in the treatment of advanced melanoma as a model for future solid tumor indications.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This review provides oncologists with the latest information on the development of key intratumoral immunotherapies, particularly oncolytic viruses. Currently, T-VEC is the only U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved oncolytic immunotherapy. This article highlights the efficacy and safety data from clinical trials of T-VEC both as monotherapy and in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors. This review summarizes current knowledge on intratumoral therapies, a novel modality with increased utility in cancer treatment, and T-VEC, the only U.S. FDA-approved oncolytic viral therapy, for medical oncologists. This review evaluates approaches to incorporate T-VEC into daily practice to offer the possibility of response in selected melanoma patients with manageable adverse events as compared with other available immunotherapies.

For those interested, here's a direct link to the abstract above:  Intratumoral Immunotherapy-Update 2019.

So - there you have it. NOW!!!  We need direct head-to-head comparisons of some of these other intralesionals (PV-10, CAVATAK, etc.) to T-VEC.  I also think it is clear that generally, intralesional therapy COMBINED with anti-PD-1 is the way to go - whether you are Stage III or IV.   But, that's just me...

Thanks, ratties.  You change the world! - c

Saturday, December 7, 2019

BRAF/MEK combo's for melanoma analyzed ~


About half of melanoma patients are BRAF positive.  A strange delineation that I tried to explain in 2014:  BRAF inhibitors for melanoma: Dabrafenib, Vemurafenib, Dabrafenib/trametinib combo. Answers!!!!!  Only melanoma peeps who are BRAF positive will gain an effect from the BRAF/MEK combo (targeted therapy).  Since 2010, ratties have taught us much about how targeted therapy works and should be used.  Back in the day, we didn't realize that combining a BRAF inhibitor with a MEK inhibitor led to fewer side effects and greater efficacy.  Or that alternate dosing could help avoid resistance.  Or how best to handle side effects.  Now there are many combo's available for use as targeted therapy.  But, as no direct comparison studies have been made - what combo is best?  Now, there's this:

Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of Approved Combination BRAF and MEK Inhibitor Regimens for BRAF-Mutant Melanoma.  Hamid, Cowey, Offner, et al.  Cancers (Basel). 2019 Oct 24.

No head-to-head studies exist comparing BRAF inhibitor/MEK inhibitor (BRAFi/MEKi) combination treatments for BRAF-mutant melanoma. A side-by-side analysis of randomized phase III trials is presented that evaluated dabrafenib/trametinib, vemurafenib/cobimetinib, and encorafenib/binimetinib. The baseline characteristics, efficacy, and safety were compared: COMBI-v (dabrafenib/trametinib versus vemurafenib); coBRIM (vemurafenib/cobimetinib versus vemurafenib); and COLUMBUS (encorafenib/binimetinib versus encorafenib and vemurafenib). Vemurafenib was the control arm in all studies. The data sources included literature databases, European public assessment reports, U.S. Food and Drug Administration review documents, and prescribing information. The baseline characteristics were similar, except for coBRIM, which had a higher proportion of patients with elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR) were similar across the trials, although numerically higher values were observed with encorafenib/binimetinib. In contrast, the median overall survival (OS) was numerically longer with encorafenib/binimetinib (33.6 months) compared to dabrafenib/trametinib (25.6 months) and vemurafenib/cobimetinib (22.3 months). Among vemurafenib arms, PFS, ORR, and OS were similar, despite variations in the baseline LDH. Each combination displayed a unique safety profile, with higher incidences of pyrexia with dabrafenib/trametinib and photosensitivity reactions with vemurafenib/cobimetinib. This analysis of BRAFi/MEKi combinations for BRAF-mutant melanoma, while limited as not a direct head-to-head clinical trial, highlights the differences in tolerability and efficacy that may be useful for therapeutic decision making.

So, there you have Hamid's take on comparing three of the BRAF/MEK combo's.  Their conclusions were pretty similar to my own in this post from 2018:  Well, okie dokie!!! BRAFTOVI/MEKTOVI (Seriously guys??? That's the name???!!!) Encorafenib with Binimetinib approved for melanoma.

Then, there's this:

Intracranial antitumor activity with encorafenib plus binimetinib in patients with melanoma brain metastases: A case series.  Holbrook, Lutzky, Davies, et al. Cancer. 2019 Oct 28.
Sixty percent of patients with stage IV melanoma may develop brain metastases, which result in significantly increased morbidity and a poor overall prognosis. Phase 3 studies of melanoma usually exclude patients with untreated brain metastases; therefore, clinical data for intracranial responses to treatments are limited.  A multicenter, retrospective case series investigation of consecutive BRAF-mutant patients with melanoma brain metastases (MBMs) treated with a combination of BRAF inhibitor encorafenib and MEK inhibitor binimetinib was conducted to evaluate the antitumor response. Assessments included the intracranial, extracranial, and global objective response rates; the clinical benefit rate; the time to response; the duration of response; and safety.

A total of 24 patients with stage IV BRAF-mutant MBMs treated with encorafenib plus binimetinib in 3 centers in the United States were included. Patients had received a median of 2.5 prior lines of treatment, and 88% had prior treatment with BRAF/MEK inhibitors. The intracranial objective response rate was 33%, and the clinical benefit rate was 63%. The median time to a response was 6 weeks, and the median duration of response was 22 weeks. Among the 21 patients with MBMs and prior BRAF/MEK inhibitor treatment, the intracranial objective response rate was 24%, and the clinical benefit rate was 57%. Similar outcomes were observed for extracranial and global responses. The safety profile for encorafenib plus binimetinib was similar to that observed in patients with melanoma without brain metastases.

Combination therapy with encorafenib plus binimetinib elicited intracranial activity in patients with BRAF-mutant MBMs, including patients previously treated with BRAF/MEK inhibitors. Further prospective studies are warranted and ongoing.

Okay.  Good.  But, I don't find these results that "new".  Small numbers were evaluated and we already knew BRAF/MEK worked in the brains of folks with BRAF positive melanoma.  To me, the best "news" of the article is that even those previously treated with BRAF/MEK were able to gain a response.  

Finally, there's this:

Extended 5-Year Follow-up Results of a Phase Ib Study (BRIM7) of Vemurafenib and Cobimetinib in BRAF-Mutant Melanoma.  Ribas, Daud, Pavlick, et al.  Clin Cancer Red. 2019 Nov 15. 


To report the 5-year overall survival (OS) landmark and the long-term safety profile of vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (BRAF plus MEK inhibition, respectively) in the BRIM7 study.

This phase Ib, dose-finding, and expansion study evaluated combination treatment with vemurafenib and cobimetinib in two cohorts of patients with advanced BRAF V600-mutated melanoma: patients who were BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi)-naïve (n = 63) or patients who had progressed on prior treatment with BRAFi monotherapy [vemurafenib monotherapy-progressive disease (PD); n = 66]. Patients in the dose-escalation phase received vemurafenib at 720 or 960 mg twice daily in combination with cobimetinib at 60, 80, or 100 mg/d for 14 days on/14 days off, 21 days on/7 days off, or continuously. Two regimens were selected for expansion: vemurafenib (720 and 960 mg twice daily) and cobimetinib (60 mg/d 21/7).

Median OS was 31.8 months in the BRAFi-naïve cohort. The landmark OS rate plateaued at 39.2% at years 4 and 5 of follow-up. In the vemurafenib monotherapy-PD cohort, the median OS was 8.5 months (6.7-11.1), and the landmark OS rate plateaued at 14.0% from 3 years of follow-up. No increase was observed in the frequency and severity of adverse events with long-term follow-up. No new toxicities were detected, and there was no increase in the frequency of symptomatic MEK inhibitor class-effect adverse events.

A subset of patients with advanced BRAF V600-mutated melanoma treated with a combination regimen of vemurafenib and cobimetinib achieve favorable long-term outcomes.

Again.  Nothing really new here.  As I noted at the start, we have known for years now that folks treated with a BRAF/MEK combo do better than those treated with BRAFi alone.  The best take away from this, is the fact that given targeted therapy is known to have responses that are less durable than those for responders to immunotherapy - overall survival plateaued at 39% at 4 and 5 years out.  Something amazing ratties like Dick K (aka Richard K - thanks to spam blockers) have been demonstrating for some time.  NOTE:  For additional comparison, this post includes a report on the 5 year outcomes for the Dabrafenib/Tramedtinib combo:   Melanoma patients want to know! What do I choose? Targeted or immunotherapy? What happens then?

Hang tough ratties.  You save us all! - c

Wednesday, December 4, 2019

NSAID's and cancer (Colon and melanoma specifically!) ~


Much has been written in the literature regarding NSAID use and melanoma. NSAID's are drugs like aspirin, ibuprofen, naproxen, and lots of prescription ones, that block COX enzymes.  Enzymes that produce prostaglandins which lead to inflammation, pain and fever when left to do their own thing.  By blocking the enzyme, NSAID's reduce the prostaglandins and the unpleasantness they cause.  I first reported on them in 2012!  Here is a break down of how they might work in melanoma world from 2015:  An aspirin a day...keeps melanoma at bay....and makes immunotherapy work better!!!! 
Here are a zillion additional reports:  NSAID's - do they help or not? 
Basically, the data (and reports) cover:
"YES!!!  NSAID's make immunotherapy work better!"   "NSAID's increase survival in melanoma patients."  "No, NSAID's make no difference."

Though these drugs are not to be trifled with despite being accessible over the counter, most data says at worst they "do no harm".  Given the aches and pains immunotherapy causes, I've long said you would be hard pressed to find a patient on immunotherapy who did NOT partake in the use of NSAID's!!  I know I certainly took my share of advil during my treatment!!!  Now, there's this:

The Impact of Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs, Beta Blockers, and Metformin on the Efficacy of Anti-PD-1 Therapy in Advanced Melanoma.  Wang, McQuade, Rai, et al.  Oncologist.  2019 Nov 29.

Anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (anti-PD-1) therapy has greatly improved outcomes of patients with melanoma; however, many fail to respond. Although preclinical studies suggest a potentially synergistic relationship with anti-PD-1 therapy and certain concurrent medications, their clinical role remains unclear. Here, we retrospectively evaluated the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and other drugs in 330 patients with melanoma treated with anti-PD-1 therapy from four academic centers. In the cohort, 37% of patients used NSAIDs including aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid; ASA; 47%), cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors (2%), and non-ASA/nonselective COX inhibitor NSAIDs (59%). The objective response rates (ORRs) were similar in patients with NSAID (43.4%) and no NSAID (41.3%) use with no significant difference in overall suvival (OS). There was a trend toward improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients who took NSAIDs (median PFS: 8.5 vs. 5.2 months). Most patients (71.3%) took NSAIDs once daily or as needed. Multivariate analysis did not reveal an association with NSAID use with ORR, PFS, or OS. Concurrent use of metformin or beta blockers did not affect ORR, PFS, or OS. Our study found no conclusive association of concurrent NSAID or other medication use with improved outcomes in patients with melanoma treated with anti-PD-1 therapy. Larger and more systematic analysis is required to confirm these findings.

Given my current condition, it is pertinent that my 2015 report started with this quote:
 "NSAID's, including aspirin, decrease the incidence and mortality from colon cancer in humans by 45% to 50%."  DuBois, Cancer Research, 56(4), 1996.

Now, there's this - The Association between NSAID use and Colorectal Cancer Mortality: Results from the Women's Health Initiative

Which notes:  "Randomized trial evidence demonstrates that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use, particularly long-term use, reduces the incidence of colorectal neoplasia. Recent data also suggests an inverse association between NSAID use and death due to colorectal cancer (CRC). We examined the association between NSAID use and CRC mortality among 160,143 post-menopausal women enrolled in the Women's Health Initiative. Women provided details on medication use at baseline and three years after enrollment. Overall, NSAID use at baseline was not associated with CRC mortality. However, women who reported NSAID use at both baseline and year-three experienced reductions in CRC mortality compared to non-users.  Results suggest that NSAID use is associated with lower CRC mortality among post-menopausal women who use these medications more consistently over time. Our results support prolonged NSAID use in post-menopausal women for the prevention of poor CRC outcomes."

I have discussed all of this with my various docs.  They didn't have too much to say or contribute on the subject one way or another.  However, I was given their blessing to start an aspirin regimen of one baby aspirin (81mg) per day.  So, I did!  For what it's worth! - c