Mucosal melanoma - a couple of reports

Melanoma sucks.  Mucosal melanoma sucks even more.  Here are some prior posts:

Mucosal melanoma - abstracts from 2016 to now

Here is an abstract regarding the use of pembro and a case report in which a topical anti-fungal was used in a patient with vaginal melanoma (although radiation to a brain met and nivo was started as well....so it's a bit muddy!!!) to good effect.  For what they're worth:

Antitumour activity of pembrolizumab in advanced mucosal melanoma: a post-hoc analysis of KEYNOTE-001, 002, 006. Hamid, Robert, Ribas, Hodi, et al.Br J Cancer. 2018 Sep 11.

Mucosal melanoma is an aggressive melanoma with poor prognosis. We assessed efficacy of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced mucosal melanoma in KEYNOTE-001 (NCT01295827), -002 (NCT01704287), and -006 (NCT01866319).

Patients received pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks (Q3W) or 10 mg/kg Q2W or Q3W. Response was assessed by independent central review per RECIST v1.1.

1567 patients were treated and 84 (5%) had mucosal melanoma. Fifty-one of 84 were ipilimumab-naive. In patients with mucosal melanoma, the objective response rate (ORR) was 19% (11-29%), with median duration of response (DOR) of 27.6 months (range 1.1 + to 27.6). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.8 months (2.7-2.8), with median overall survival (OS) of 11.3 months (7.7-16.6). ORR was 22% (11-35%) and 15% (5-32%) in ipilimumab-naive and ipilimumab-treated patients.

Pembrolizumab provides durable antitumour activity in patients with advanced mucosal melanoma regardless of prior ipilimumab.

Itraconazole treatment of primary malignant melanoma of the vagina evaluated using positron emission tomography and tissue cDNA microarray: a case report.  Inoew, Tsubamoto, Isono-Nakata, et al.  BMC Cancer. 2018 Jun 4.

Primary malignant melanoma of the vagina is extremely rare, with a poorer prognosis than cutaneous malignant melanoma. Previous studies have explored the repurposing of itraconazole, a common oral anti-fungal agent, for the treatment of various cancers. Here, we describe a patient with metastatic, unresectable vaginal malignant melanoma treated with 200 mg oral itraconazole twice a day in a clinical window-of-opportunity trial.

A 64-year-old Japanese woman with vaginal and inguinal tumours was referred to our institution. On the basis of an initial diagnosis of vaginal cancer metastatic to the inguinal lymph nodes, we treated her with itraconazole in a clinical trial until the biopsy and imaging study results were obtained. During this period, biopsies were performed three times, and ¹⁸F-fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG/PET)-computed tomography (CT) was performed twice. Biopsy results confirmed the diagnosis of primary malignant melanoma of the vagina. Imaging studies revealed metastases to multiple sites, including the brain, for which she underwent gamma-knife radiosurgery. During the window period before nivolumab initiation, the patient received itraconazole for 30 days. Within a week of itraconazole initiation, pain in the inguinal nodes was ameliorated. PET-CT on days 6 and 30 showed a reduction in tumour size and FDG uptake, respectively. The biopsied specimens obtained on days 1, 13, and 30 were subjected to cDNA microarray analysis, which revealed a 100-fold downregulation in the transcription of four genes: STATH, EEF1A2, TTR, and CDH2. After 12 weeks of nivolumab administration, she developed progressive disease and grade 3 immune-related hepatitis. Discontinuation of nivolumab resulted in the occurrence of left pelvic and inguinal pain. Following re-challenge with itraconazole, the patient has not reported any pain for 4 months.

The findings of this case suggest that itraconazole is a potential effective treatment option for primary malignant melanoma of the vagina. Moreover, we identified potential itraconazole target genes, which could help elucidate the mechanism underlying this disease and potentially aid in the development of new therapeutic agents.

Wishing you all my best. - c

Pembro for mucosal melanoma vs response rate to nivo alone vs the ipi/nivo combo

A diagnosis of melanoma is bad enough.  Unfortunately, folks with mucosal melanoma have an even more difficult time.  Here's a review of two articles:

This report (Jan 2017):  Evaluation of response to nivo or ipi/nivo in Cutaneous and Mucosal Melanoma  Notes ~  889 patients who received nivolumab monotherapy in clinical studies, including phase III trials; 86 (10%) had mucosal melanoma and 665 (75%) had cutaneous melanoma. Data were also pooled for patients who received nivolumab combined with ipilimumab (n = 35, mucosal melanoma; n = 326, cutaneous melanoma). Among patients who received nivolumab monotherapy, median progression-free survival was 3.0 months and 6.2 months for mucosal and cutaneous melanoma, with objective response rates of 23.3% and 40.9%, respectively. Median progression-free survival in patients treated with nivolumab combined with ipilimumab was 5.9 months and 11.7 months for mucosal and cutaneous melanoma, with objective response rates of 37.1% and 60.4%, respectively. 

Efficacy of pembrolizumab (pembro) in patients (pts) with advanced mucosal melanoma (mucMEL): data from KEYNOTE-001, 002, and 006. Hamid, Ribas, Hodi, et al.  Society for Melanoma Research 2016 Congress.  Published 29 January 2017. 

Pembro has demonstrated efficacy and a manageable safety profile in advanced MEL. We assessed outcomes of pts with advanced mucMEL enrolled in KEYNOTE-001 (NCT01295827), KEYNOTE-002 (NCT01704287), and KEYNOTE-006 (NCT01866319). Pts received pembro 2 mg/kg Q3W, 10 mg/kg Q3W, or 10 mg/kg Q2W. Response was assessed per RECIST v1.1 by independent central review. Of the 1567 pts in the pembro arms who received greater than/= to 1 pembro dose, 84 (5%) had mucMEL. 57% of pembro-treated pts with mucMEL were women, 49% were aged greater than/= to 65 y, 32% had ECOG PS 1, 48% had elevated LDH, 8% had BRAF^V600 mutant tumors, 81% had M1c disease, 58% had baseline tumor size greater than/= to 77.7 mm (ie, median in total population), and 70% with known PD-L1 status had PD-L1–positive tumors. 90% of pts received greater than/= to1 prior therapy: 37% received 1, 45% received 2, and 8% received greater than/= to 3; 39% received prior ipilimumab (ipi). In pts with mucMEL, ORR was 19%, DCR was 31%, median PFS was 2.8 months, and median OS was 11.3 months. In the 16 responders, median time to response was 12.4 weeks (range, 11.1–84.1), 12 (75%) were alive without subsequent progression, and median response duration was 27.6 months (range 1.1+ to 27.6). In ipi pretreated pts with mucMEL, ORR was 15%, DCR was 27%, 4 of 5 (80%) responders were alive and without subsequent progression, and median response duration was 27.6 months. In the 1483 pembro-treated pts with non-mucMEL, ORR was 33%, DCR was 47%, median time to response was 12.4 weeks (range 3.7–144.0), 72% of responders were alive and progression free, median response duration was NR (range 1.3+ to 38.8+), median PFS was 4.2 months, and median OS was 23.5 months. Pembro is active in advanced mucMEL and provides durable activity regardless of prior ipi.

So...according to these studies:  Folks with mucosal melanoma who were given nivo alone had an objective response rate of 23% (cutaneous melanoma = 40%).  Those with mucosal melanoma given the ipi/nivo combo had a 37% objective response rate (cutaneous = 60%).  With pembro,  folks with mucosal mel not previously treated with ipi the ORR was 19%.  Those with prior ipi had a response rate of 15% to pembro.  (Generally the ORR of patients with cutaneous mel treated with pembro was 33%.)

In the end, folks with cutaneous melanoma can respond to nivo (Opdivo) or pembro (Keytruda) alone (and those responses can be durable).  However, it seems the response rate to the ipi/nivo combo is much better...though none of the response rates are as high as those that can be attained for cutaneous melanoma patients.  Hang in there, ratties.  Wishing you all my best. - c

CheckMate 172 - nivo used after progression on ipi - report on those with acral,ocular and mucosal melanoma

As difficult as it is to treat cutaneous melanoma, folks with mucosal melanoma and other subtypes face even greater challenges.  Here are some previous reports:  Mucosal Melanoma 
Now, there's this:

Safety and efficacy of nivolumab in patients with rare melanoma subtypes who progressed on or after ipilimumab treatment: a single-arm, open-label, phase II study (CheckMate 172).  Nathan, Ascierto, Haanen, et al. Eur J Cancer. 2019 Aug 21.

Nivolumab has been widely studied in non-acral cutaneous melanoma; however, limited data are available in other melanoma subtypes. We report outcomes by melanoma subtype in patients who received nivolumab after progression on prior ipilimumab.

CheckMate 172 was a phase II, single-arm, open-label, multicentre study that evaluated nivolumab in patients with advanced melanoma who progressed on or after ipilimumab. Patients received 3 mg/kg of nivolumab, every 2 weeks for up to 2 years. The primary end-point was incidence of grade greater than/= to 3, treatment-related select adverse events (AEs).

Among 1008 treated patients, we report data on patients with non-acral cutaneous melanoma (n = 723 [71.7%]), ocular melanoma (n = 103 [10.2%]), mucosal melanoma (n = 63 [6.3%]), acral cutaneous melanoma (n = 55 [5.5%]) and other melanoma subtypes (n = 64 [6.3%]). There were no meaningful differences in the incidence of grade greater than/= to 3, treatment-related select AEs among melanoma subtypes or compared with the total population. No new safety signals emerged. At a minimum follow-up of 18 months, median overall survival was 25.3 months for non-acral cutaneous melanoma and 25.8 months for acral cutaneous melanoma, with 18-month overall survival rates of 57.5% and 59.0%, respectively. Median overall survival was 12.6 months for ocular melanoma and 11.5 months for mucosal melanoma, with 18-month overall survival rates of 34.8% and 31.5%, respectively.

The safety profile of nivolumab after ipilimumab is similar across melanoma subtypes. Compared with non-acral cutaneous melanoma, patients with acral cutaneous melanoma had similar survival outcomes, whereas those with ocular and mucosal melanoma had lower median overall survival.

Not the numbers we wish for...but it is something!  Let's make them better for everyone SOON!!! - c

New trials for NRAS and Mucosal Melanoma patients - ASCO 2021

Melanoma sucks great big green hairy stinky wizard balls for everyone!  Still, it remains even more challenging for NRAS positive and mucosal melanoma patients.  Here are prior posts on Mucosal Melanoma. Now, there's this neoadjuvant trial:

A phase 2 clinical trial of neoadjuvant anti-PD-1 ab (toripalimab) plus axitinib in resectable mucosal melanoma.  Cui, Wang, Lian, et al.  ASCO 2021.

Background:  The outcome of patients (pts) with resectable mucosal melanoma (MM) is still poor. Toripalimab combined with axitinib has shown impressive results in metastatic MM with an ORR of 48.3% and a median PFS of 7.5 months in a phase 1b trial. It was hypothesized that this combination therapy might cause pathologic response in neoadjuvant setting for resectable MM, so we conducted this single arm phase 2 trial.

Methods:  Eligible pts were adults (aged 18 to 75) with histologically confirmed resectable (localized or regional lymph node metastasis) MM disease. Exclusion criteria included ocular or unknown primary melanoma, distant metastatic disease or previous use of anti PD-1 ab. Pts received toripalimab 3 mg/kg Q2W plus axitinib 5 mg BID for 8 weeks as neoadjuvant therapy, then surgery and the adjuvant toripalimab 3 mg/kg Q2W starting 2±1week after surgery for totally 52 weeks. The primary end point is pathologic response rate according to the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium (pCR+pPR, pCR is defined as the complete absence of residual viable tumor and pPR less than/= to 50% of viable tumor cells). The secondary end point is RFS in the ITT population.

Results:  From Aug 2019 to Dec 2020, 21 pts have been eligible and enrolled. Basic characteristics: median age 62 years; M: F 28.6% : 71.4%; primary sites 8 female genital(1urethra, 7vagina), 5 esophagus, 4 ano-rectal, 4 head and neck(3 nasal,1 oral), in which 47.6% localized disease (T3/4 60%), 52.4% regional lymphatic disease; Gene mutation: 4 cKit (1 amplification), 2 Nras,1 Braf (N581), 1mTOR. This therapy was tolerable with grade 3-4 treatment related AEs of 23.8% (liver dysfunction 14.3%, hyperglycemia 9.5% and hypertension 4.8%). 13 pts had received surgeries (local excision 30.8%, wide excision ± CLND72.7%)and 5 pts still in neoadjuvant treatment. One patient was inoperable for bone metastasis, and 2 pts withdrew for covid 19 epidemic. At a median follow up time of 59 weeks, the pathologic response rate was 28.6% (4/14, 2 pCR, 2pPR). Of the post-surgical specimens, 61.5% (8/13) showed significant TIL infiltration, with 38.5% Brisk and 23.1% Nonbrisk according to the definition of AJCC 8th edition. Plenty of plasma cells, histiocyte and pigment with hyaline fibrosis were also found in responders. No recurrence or metastasis was observed in responders until now, with a RFS reaching more than 58weeks. 5 pts with pNR (greater than 50% viable tumor cells) got disease progression, with 1 local recurrence, 1 regional lymphatic metastasis, and 3 distant metastases. The median RFS has not been reached.

Conclusions:  Neoadjuvant toripalimab plus axitinib in resectable MM has shown promising pathologic responses with good tolerance, which supports further investigation of neoadjuvant therapies in MM. Survival is still in follow-up. Clinical trial information: NCT04180995.

And this report on patients with unresectable disease:

Atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic mucosal melanoma: Interim analysis of an open-label phase II trial.  Si, Fang, Chen, et al.  ASCO 2021.

Background:  Mucosal melanoma is a rare malignant melanoma in Caucasians but ranks the second most common subtype in the Asian population. It is more often diagnosed at an advanced stage and responds poorly to current PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. Here we report the interim analysis results of ML41186, an open-label, multicenter, single-arm phase II study, aiming to evaluate the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab in patients (pts) with advanced mucosal melanoma.

Methods:  Eligible pts aged 18 to 75 years with histologically confirmed unresectable locally advanced or metastatic mucosal melanoma had at least one measurable lesion per RECIST version 1.1 at baseline, with an ECOG PS 0 or 1 and adequate hematologic and organ function. ML41186 is a Simon two-stage design study, if 22 pts completed ORR evaluation and more than 3 pts respond in stage I, the study then continue to Stage II. Atezolizumab and bevacizumab were administered at a fixed dose of 1200 mg and 7.5 mg/kg Q3W respectively (on day 1 of each 21-day cycle) until unacceptable toxicity or loss of clinical benefit. The primary endpoint is the objective response rate (ORR). The secondary endpoints include progression-free survival (PFS), duration of objective response (DoR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety.

Results:  By the cut-off date of 9th September 2020, 35 pts has been enrolled, among whom 22 pts in the stage I analysis set has completed two efficacy evaluation, while 28 pts (full analysis set) has completed at least one efficacy evaluation. In ITT populations (n=35), mean age was 58.9 years with 10 (28%) pts had ECOG PS of 1. LDH level elevated in 9 (25.7%) pts. More than half pts (19, 54.3%) had metastatic mucosal melanoma, of whom 3 (15.8%) pts had more than 3 metastasis sites and 4 (21.1%) pts had liver metastasis. In stage I analysis set (n=22), the best confirmed ORR was 36.4% (17.0%-59.3%). Median progression-free survival was 5.32 months (1.58-not reached), and the best confirmed DCR was 59.1% (36.4%-79.3%). The median confirmed DoR was not reached ( 2.76-NR). In the full analysis set (n=28), the unconfirmed ORR was 42.9% (24.5%-62.8%). In ITT populations (n=35), 28 pts (80%) experienced at least one adverse event (AE) and 5 pts (14.3%) experienced at least one grade 3-4 AEs. Only one patient experienced AE leading to treatment discontinuation. One patient died of autoimmune lung disease.

Conclusions:  The combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab showed promising benefit and was tolerable in pts with advanced mucosal melanoma. At the time of this interim analysis, the primary endpoint did not cross the futility boundary, thus the study will run into Stage II. Clinical trial information: NCT04091217.

The NRAS mutation has it's own challenges.  Here are prior NRAS Reports.  Now, there are these:

A phase Ib trial of belvarafenib in combination with cobimetinib in patients with advanced solid tumors: Interim results of dose-escalation and patients with NRAS-mutant melanoma of dose-expansion. Shin, Lee, Kim, et al.  ASCO 2021.

Background:  Belvarafenib, a potent, selective RAF dimer (type II) inhibitor, exhibits clinical activity in BRAFV600E- and NRAS-mutant (NRASm) melanoma patients. The combination of belvarafenib and cobimetinib more potently and durably suppressed MAPK pathway output and tumor growth than currently approved BRAF/MEK inhibitors in RAS- or RAF-mutant tumor xenograft models. This interim results of phase 1b trial evaluated the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and anti-tumor activity of belvarafenib in combination with cobimetinib in dose-escalation and NRASm melanoma patients among the 9 indication-specific expansion cohorts.

Methods: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors harboring RAS or RAF mutation were enrolled in the dose-escalation stage, and the recommended doses were explored in the indication-specific expansion stage. Patients in the dose-escalation stage were given belvarafenib (100–300mg BID) in combination with cobimetinib (20–40mg QD) and the dose of subsequent cohorts was decided by a traditional 3+3 design and safety profile. Primary objectives were to evaluate the safety and tolerability, to estimate the maximum tolerable dose, and to identify the RP2D of the combination.

Results:  A total of 32 patients enrolled were evaluated for safety analysis; 19 were enrolled in 4 cohorts in the dose-escalation stage and 13 NRASm melanoma patients were enrolled in the indication-specific expansion stage (cut-off date: 2020-7-24). There were 3 DLTs (G3 colitis, G3 diarrhoea, G3 nausea) in 2 patients at the starting dose of belvarafenib 200mg BID continuously and cobimetinib 40mg QD 21/7 schedule. Belvarafenib dose was escalated to 300mg BID with cobimetinib 20mg QD, which did not result in DLTs. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events that occurred in ≥30% of 32 patients were dermatitis acneiform, diarrhoea, constipation, and increase in blood creatine phosphokinase. Two combination doses were explored in the indication-specific expansion stage. Out of the 9 indication-specific expansion cohorts, NRASm melanoma patients exhibited promising efficacy signal; 5 patients reached partial responses (PRs) out of 13, giving a response rate of 38.5%. Among them, 11 had been previously treated with checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs), including 5 (45.5%) who achieved PR. The median PFS was 7.3 months and 5 patients remained on the treatment at the cut-off date.

Conclusions: Belvarafenib in combination with cobimetinib showed acceptable tolerability and encouraging efficacy in NRASm melanoma, and in those with prior CPI treatment. Further research is ongoing in other cohorts (Clinicaltrial.gov, NCT03284502) and in NRASm melanoma (reference GO42273 by clinicaltrials.gov ID number). Clinical trial information: NCT03284502.

Fingers crossed that there will soon be viable treatments for all melanoma ratties.  For what it's worth - c

Evaluation of response to nivo or ipi/nivo in Cutaneous and Mucosal Melanoma

As noted in these two prior posts (additional link within) Anti PD-1 and Anti-PD-L1 treatments rarely confer durable remissions for metastatic uveal melanoma (and poor responses in acral and mucosal mel as well!)

Efficacy and Safety of Nivolumab Alone or in Combination With Ipilimumab in Patients With Mucosal Melanoma: A Pooled Analysis. D'Angelo, Larkin, Sosman, Lebbe, …., Hodi...Sznol, Weber, ...Wolchok. J Clin Oncol. 2017 Jan 10.

Mucosal melanoma is an aggressive malignancy with a poor response to conventional therapies. The efficacy and safety of nivolumab (a programmed death-1 checkpoint inhibitor), alone or combined with ipilimumab (a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 checkpoint inhibitor), have not been reported in this rare melanoma subtype. Data were pooled from 889 patients who received nivolumab monotherapy in clinical studies, including phase III trials; 86 (10%) had mucosal melanoma and 665 (75%) had cutaneous melanoma. Data were also pooled for patients who received nivolumab combined with ipilimumab (n = 35, mucosal melanoma; n = 326, cutaneous melanoma). Among patients who received nivolumab monotherapy, median progression-free survival was 3.0 months and 6.2 months for mucosal and cutaneous melanoma, with objective response rates of 23.3% and 40.9%, respectively. Median progression-free survival in patients treated with nivolumab combined with ipilimumab was 5.9 months and 11.7 months for mucosal and cutaneous melanoma, with objective response rates of 37.1% and 60.4%, respectively. For mucosal and cutaneous melanoma, respectively, the incidence of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events was 8.1% and 12.5% for nivolumab monotherapy and 40.0% and 54.9% for combination therapy. To our knowledge, this is the largest analysis of data for anti-programmed death-1 therapy in mucosal melanoma to date. Nivolumab combined with ipilimumab seemed to have greater efficacy than either agent alone, and although the activity was lower in mucosal melanoma, the safety profile was similar between subtypes.

Hang in there dear peeps!!! - c

ASCO 2016 - Anti-PD1 for acral and mucosal melanoma

Acral and mucosal melanoma often fail to play by even the random rules that other melanoma tumors share and as such make treatment of them even more difficult.  But...there is this:

Clinical activity of anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) agents in acral and mucosal melanoma.  ASCO 2016. #9516.  J Clin Oncol 2016.  Munhoz, Shoushtari, Kuk, et al.

Background: Antibodies against PD-1 resulted in a paradigm shift in the management of melanoma. Nevertheless, melanoma is a heterogeneous disease: compared to cutaneous melanoma, mucosal melanoma (MM) and acral melanoma (AM) have distinct genetic and clinical characteristics, lower somatic mutational burden, and poorer prognosis. We sought to investigate the efficacy of PD-1 blockade in patients (pts) with advanced mm and AM. Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective study of pts with advanced mm or AM treated with nivolumab or pembrolizumab. Clinical, pathologic, and treatment data were retrieved from electronic medical records. Response rates were assessed by RECIST v1.1 and survival intervals were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Variables associated with response and survival were investigated. Results: Sixty pts were identified; 35 (58%) with mm and 25 (42%) with AM. Fifty-one (85%) pts had received prior therapy, including 77% with prior ipilimumab. Forty pts (67%) received pembrolizumab at 2mg/kg or 10mg/kg and 20 (33%) received nivolumab at 1mg/kg or 3mg/kg every 2-3 weeks. Objective response rate (ORR)  was 23% (10-40%) in mm and 32% (15-54%) in AM. ORR did not vary by age, primary site, or prior therapy outcomes. With a median follow-up of 10.6 months (mo) for mm and 20 mo for AM, the median progression-free survival was 3.9 mo and 4.1 mo, respectively. Median overall survival for the entire cohort was 16.8 mo; in mm it was 12.4 mo, and in AM 31.7 mo. Only two pts (3%) discontinued treatment due to toxicity. Conclusions: PD-1 blockade resulted in clinically meaningful activity in pts with mm and AM. Response rates and safety profile were comparable to published clinical trials which largely consisted of cutaneous melanoma and support the use of PD-1 blockade for mm and AM as well. The role of specific driver mutations, immunologic infiltrates and potential biomarkers of response and resistance in these melanoma subtypes needs further investigation.

Here, the roughly 40% response rates with anti-PD1 for treatment naive cutaneous melanoma patients were not achieved.  But, 85% of these patients had been previously treated....something many studies shows diminishes response rate and then there is the fact we are dealing with mucosal and acral melanoma.  Response rates of 23 and 32% are certainly something and definitely worth pursuing!!!  Interestingly, mucosal melanoma can often be NRAS positive.  Earlier I posted this: Good news for NRAS positive folks re: Anti-PD1 In that report, where NRAS positive patients were evaluated for response to IL2, ipi, vs anti-PD1 they found:  

"Within specific immune therapy types, patients with NRAS-mutant melanoma experienced the greatest benefit in CR/PR compared to patients with WT melanoma when treated with anti-PD1/PD-L1 agents (70% vs 20%)."   
 
Which got me thinking:  "A ray of light for folks with NRAS mutation. And maybe one more reason not to make them go through ipi before they get to take anti-PD1???!!!!!"  
Not all mucosal or acral melanoma are NRAS positive...but that info would probably be a good thing to find out!  Hang in there, dear ones!  Hang in there.   - c

Strategies for treating melanoma subtypes - Acral, Mucosal, Uveal, Nodular, Lentigo

 

While melanoma, despite the huge improvements made when targeted and immunotherapies gained FDA approved in 2011 remains a very difficult cancer to treat and survive, the subtypes noted in the title make cutaneous melanoma look like a walk in the park.  This LINK takes you to reports on those subtypes that I have previously posted.  The link below takes you to a pretty thorough report addressing these particular forms of melanoma as well as a good history regarding BRAF status.  I have included much of the report below.  Words are from the authors - not me.  However, checking out the link is valuable, as it includes tables and references not reported here.

Emerging strategies to treat rare and intractable subtypes of melanoma. Gretchen and Vito. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. Jan 2021.

Melanoma is the deadliest form of skin cancer, possessing a diverse landscape of subtypes with distinct molecular signatures and levels of aggressiveness. Although immense progress has been achieved therapeutically for patients with the most common forms of this disease, little is known of how to effectively treat patients with rarer subtypes of melanoma. These subtypes include acral lentiginous (the rarest form of cutaneous melanoma; AL), uveal, and mucosal melanomas, which display variations in distribution across (a) the world, (b) patient age-groups, and (c) anatomic sites. Unfortunately, patients with these relatively rare subtypes of melanoma typically respond worse to therapies approved for the more common, non-AL cutaneous melanoma and do not have effective alternatives, and thus consequently have worse overall survival rates. Achieving durable therapeutic responses in these high-risk melanoma subtypes represents one of the greatest challenges of the field. This review aims to collate and highlight effective preclinical and/or clinical strategies against these rare forms of melanoma.

INTRO - 

The melanoma field represents a paradigm for preclinical and clinical advancements in targeted and immune therapy modalities, with 13 new FDA-approved therapies since 2011. The catalyst for the development of targeted therapy modalities was the identification of activating NRAS mutations and BRAF mutations in 1984 and 2002... which paved the way for molecular stratification of the melanoma patient population. Approximately 45%–50% of non-acral lentiginous (AL) cutaneous melanoma patients have tumors that harbor activating BRAF mutations, with a single amino acid substitution of valine for glutamic acid at codon 600 (V600E) occurring in 90% of cases. Activating NRAS mutations at codon 12, 13, or 61 are detectable in 15%–20% of non-AL cutaneous melanoma patients and serve as an independent predictor of worse patient overall survival. Mutations of BRAF and NRAS are considered mutually exclusive; however, there are rare reports where both mutations exist in different regions of the same tumor or at different metastatic sites of the same patient. To date, it remains unclear whether the same melanoma cell can harbor both a BRAF and an NRAS mutation, or at the single-cell level, these mutations are indeed mutually exclusive.

With discoveries revealing that ~70% of non-AL cutaneous melanomas contain mutations constitutively activating the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway came intense development of inhibitors capable of targeting various nodes of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway (i.e., BRAF, MEK, and ERK inhibitors) that continues to date. The first targeted therapy approved for the treatment of patients with BRAFV600E/K mutant melanoma was the small molecule inhibitor vemurafenib, an agent designed to have high specificity against the mutant V600E, V600K, V600D, and V600R forms of BRAF. Vemurafenib had response rates of ~48% in phase II and III clinical trials leading to the 2011 Food Drug and Agriculture (FDA) approval. A few years later, the combination of a BRAF inhibitor and a MEK inhibitor was observed to further increase the response rate to ~76% leading to the 2014 FDA approval of dabrafenib and trametinib. There are now three BRAF inhibitor plus MEK inhibitor combinations FDA approved for melanoma patients with BRAFV600E/K mutations (dabrafenib/trametinib, vemurafenib/cobimetinib, and encorafenib/binimetinib.

For patients with wild-type BRAF, treatment with BRAF inhibitors that specifically target V600E/K mutant BRAF may increase melanoma aggressiveness due to the paradoxical activation of wild-type BRAF and downstream MAPK pathway signaling. Preclinically, targeting downstream of BRAF with MEK inhibitors in BRAF-wild-type melanoma cells demonstrates the importance of the MAPK pathway for their survival, with significant anticancer activity. However, clinical trials testing multiple MEK inhibitors (i.e., binimetinib, trametinib) have concluded that although encouraging response rates and small increases in progression-free survival could be achieved in certain trials relative to dacarbazine, no significant increase in overall survival of patients with BRAF-wild-type melanoma was achieved with MEK inhibition. In an effort to increase MEK inhibitor efficacy, combination strategies with other agents (i.e., PI3K inhibitors, CDK4/6 inhibitors) are being clinically tested in the BRAF-wild-type (i.e., patients with or without NRAS-MT melanoma) setting after failure of immunotherapy. ERK inhibitors are also being clinically investigated to see if durable efficacy can be achieved in patients with wild-type BRAF, with reports showing the first-in-class ERK1/2 inhibitor ulixertinib has an acceptable safety profile and early evidence of clinical activity. Preclinical evidence suggests that concurrent inhibition of multiple nodes of the MAPK pathway in NRAS-mutant melanoma (i.e., MEK and ERK) may have synergistic activity on par with the BRAF inhibitor and MEK inhibitor combination in BRAF-mutant melanomas, and further studies evaluating this strategy are under way.

In parallel, large strides have been made in the development of immune checkpoint blockade strategies with the FDA approval of antibodies targeting cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA4, ipilimumab) in 2011 and programmed cell death 1 (PD1, pembrolizumab, nivolumab) in 2014  and the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab in 2015. Immune checkpoint blockade describes the use of therapeutic antibodies that overcome immunosuppressive checkpoints with the goal of unchaining antitumor immune responses. CTLA4 and PD-1 are both receptors that suppress effector T-cell activity. These immunotherapy-based strategies elicit long-lasting responses in a subset of patients and represent a therapeutic strategy suitable for all genotypes of non-AL cutaneous melanoma. However, the majority of patients treated with immunotherapy progress within 5 years due to poorly understood primary resistance mechanisms, and clinicians still cannot reliably discriminate which patients will respond or not respond. Both tumor intrinsic (i.e., insufficient tumor antigenicity, tumor interferon-γ signaling, tumor stemness) and extrinsic (i.e., regulatory T cells, myeloid-derived suppressor cells) resistance mechanisms have been reported, and there are intense efforts focused on overcoming these therapeutic hurdles to further increase the efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade strategies.

The promising efficacy of these new therapeutic strategies has been demonstrated largely in non-AL cutaneous melanoma patients with either superficial spreading melanoma (SSM), nodular melanoma (NM), or lentigo maligna melanoma (LMM). SSM, NM, and LMM represent the most common forms of melanoma in Caucasians (>85% of cases). It is important to appreciate that most of the recent pivotal discoveries in melanoma were performed on SSM cell lines, short-term cultures, animal models, and tumor biopsies taken from patients with SSM largely due to their greater availability. AL melanoma represents the fourth and rarest subtype of cutaneous melanoma. In addition, mucosal melanoma and uveal melanoma are other rare subtypes of melanoma that are non-cutaneous in origin. The efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade is lower in rarer subtypes of melanoma relative to patients with non-AL cutaneous melanoma, which will be discussed later. There is also little information regarding the efficacy of combination BRAF inhibitor and MEK inhibitor therapy in these subtypes. 

Acral - 

Acral lentiginous melanoma is an uncommon yet relatively aggressive subtype of CMM that accounts for 2%–3% of all melanoma cases. AL melanoma arises on sun-protected, glabrous skin of the soles, palms, and nail beds. AL melanoma has been historically associated with worse 10-year survival rates relative to other forms of CMM (67.5% vs. 87.5%). Further, 10-year AL melanoma survival rates are highest in non-Hispanic Whites (69.4%), intermediate in Blacks (71.5%), and lowest in Hispanic Whites (57.3%) and Asian/Pacific Islanders (54.1%), as found by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program of the National Cancer Institute evaluating data from 17 population-based cancer registries from 1986 to 2005. Another analysis of AL melanoma prognostic features in a cohort of German, Swiss, and Austrian patients suggests no significant difference exist relative to other subtypes of cutaneous melanoma; however, this conclusion may stem due to differential ethnicity landscapes between this patient cohort and that in the SEER study. There does not appear to be a gender bias, with a similar frequency between men and women and a comparable median age of diagnosis of 63.1 years for men and 62.2 years for women. The incidence of AL melanoma increases with age, and for reasons poorly understood, men are twice as likely to develop AL melanoma relative to women after the age of 80.

The distribution of AL melanoma varies geographically among populations throughout the world. While AL melanoma represents only ~2%–3% of all melanoma cases in Caucasian populations, AL melanoma makes up 50%–80% of all cases in non-Caucasian individuals in the United States (i.e., those of African, Latin American, and Asian descent). Furthermore, the incidence in Hispanic Whites doubles compared to non-Hispanic Whites after the aged of 70. A 2009 SEER study found the overall incidence rates of AL melanoma were similar between non-Hispanic Whites and Blacks; however, Hispanic Whites have statistically higher incidence rates relative to non-Hispanic Whites . Updated epidemiological studies should be performed to continue understanding the differential incidence trends that may exist across different ethnicities. Of note, the incidence of other subtypes of cutaneous melanoma (i.e., NM, SSM) is much lower in non-Caucasians relative to Caucasians. As this subtype of melanoma is not related to ultraviolet radiation (UV), there are different theories of the cause of AL melanoma. Some reports state that trauma and pressure in the foot (a predilected area of AL) is causal. However, the hand is also exposed to trauma but its location is less favorable. The main sites of AL melanoma metastases are the lungs, distant lymph nodes, scalp, contralateral limb, and liver.

Acral lentiginous melanomas possess a significantly lower mutational burden relative to the more common cutaneous melanoma subtypes, likely due to the sun-protected locations they arise from. BRAF mutations in are found in 1 in every 5 Al melanoma patients, leaving ~80% ineligible to receive BRAF inhibitor and combination BRAF/MEK inhibitor strategies . Therefore, new targets specific for AL melanoma are needed. 80% of AL melanomas display genetic aberrations of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) pathway-related genes (i.e., amplification of CDK4 and CCND1, and/or loss of CDK2NA), representing the most frequent copy number alteration detected . Additionally, activating KIT mutations are present in ~6% of cases. AL melanoma displays similar incidence of NRAS mutations as non-AL cutaneous melanoma, detectable in 15%–28% of AL melanoma patients, and NRAS mutations are an independent prognostic factor of worse overall survival.

Considerable barriers exist to treat patients with AL melanoma: (a) a contrasting genomic and genetic landscape relative to non-AL cutaneous melanomas, (b) unclear targetable drivers, and (3) sparse experimental models available for preclinical drug development. Unfortunately, FDA-approved targeted therapy strategies for melanoma are not available for the majority of AL melanoma patients (i.e., BRAF inhibitors since AL melanoma has a low frequency of BRAF mutations), and the efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade strategies is not well known in AL melanoma, with differing overall response rates (ORR) differing by country. For example, the ORR of anti-PD-1 in AL melanoma patients was found to be similar to that in non-AL cutaneous melanoma patients within the United States. In contrast, the ORR was 66.7% for SSM patients and 28.6% of AL melanoma patients in a recent Japanese study, suggesting the efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade may vary with ethnicity. The lower mutational burden observed in AL melanoma cases is thought to drive the reduced efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitor strategies (e.g., PD-1 blockade) in patients. Although AL melanoma patients with Kit mutations can be treated with a KIT inhibitor per National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, resistance mechanisms that reactivate downstream MAPK and PI3K pathway signaling have been suggested to blunt long-term durability. Due to the high percentage of AL melanoma tumors with CDK4/6-pathway aberrations, CDK4/6 inhibition represents one of the most promising targeted therapy strategies for AL melanomas clinically. However, durable responses are not observed in all patients due to resistance and CDK4/6 inhibitor-based combinations will likely be needed to improve the curative rate for patients with AL melanoma. Preclinical investigation to optimize targeted therapy strategies has not been extensively performed in AL melanoma models, but the rich body of literature that exists from studies in non-AL cutaneous melanoma models strongly suggests that single-agent approaches will not be durable due to the nearly universal onset of resistance. In SSM models, treatment with a MAPK pathway inhibitor plus a CDK4/6 inhibitor has shown synergistic activity in BRAF-MT and BRAF-wild-type settings; however, residual disease persists. Resistance mechanisms to CDK4/6 inhibitors and/or MEK inhibitors must be delineated to develop combination strategies that produce durable responses in AL melanoma patients.

Mucosal Melanoma - 

Mucosal melanoma (MM) is one of the rarest types of melanoma, accounting for only 1% of all cases, and has a significantly worse prognosis relative to the other subtypes. Distinct from cutaneous melanoma, MM arises from melanocytes located in mucosal membranes inside the body (i.e., genitourinary, anorectal, nasopharyngeal). The head and neck (55), vulva (18), and anus (24) are the most common observed sites; however, MM can also occur in the gut, lungs, and urinary track. It is rarely diagnosed at early stages due to difficult visual detection, which is much more tractable for cutaneous subtypes of melanoma. The overall median age of diagnosis is 70 years, with the exception of MMs arising in the mouth that manifest more frequently in younger patients. The incidence of MM has been stable for the last few years with the exception of MM in the genital tract, which is higher in females relative to males for reasons not clearly understood.

Approximately 3%–15% of MMs harbor an activating mutation in BRAF, with ~63% located on the V600 codon and 37% located on a non-V600 codon. This is in contrast to non-AL cutaneous melanomas where <10% of BRAF mutations are outside of the V600 codon, and more closely resembles the high prevalence of non-V600 mutations found in 48% of lung adenocarcinomas. A closer analysis of the most common non-V600 mutations reveals (a) a difference between the frequency of mutations on D594, G469, and K601 between non-AL cutaneous melanomas and MMs, and (b) convergence in the non-V600 mutational landscape between MM and lung cancers where mutations are often associated with genotoxic agents.

In regard to NRAS mutations, approximately 12% of MMs harbor activating mutations, which is lower relative to cutaneous melanomas where NRAS mutations occur in 15%–20% of cases. There is also a divergence in the location of NRAS mutations between MM and cutaneous melanoma, with 54% located on codon 61 in MM versus 88% in cutaneous melanoma, and 46% located on codons 12 and 13 in MM versus 12% for cutaneous melanomas. Approximately 7%–22% of MMs have v-kit Hardy-Zuckerman 4 feline sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KIT) somatic mutations or amplifications. MMs located in the genital area appear to be driven by mutations in SF3B1 which encodes the subunit 1 of splicing factor 3b, a component of the spliceosome that processes pre-mRNA into mature transcripts. A recent study analyzing the mutational landscape of MM identified IGF2R mutations in 31.7% of MM samples relative to 6.3% of SSM cases. Interestingly, a lower frequency of UV-induced DNA damage, a lower number of mutations and a link to high tobacco exposure have also been identified in MM.

Unfortunately, MM is typically detected at relatively more advanced states due to difficulty in early detection. The main treatment for MM differs slightly on where the tumor is located; however, like any other subtype of melanoma, patients are initially treated with surgical excision. MMs arising in the head and neck are treated with complete surgical excision of the tumor when the patient is in stages III and IVA. However, this is associated with a high rate of recurrence. MMs that have arisen in the vulvovaginal or anorectal area also receive radiation in addition to surgical tumor excision. Therapeutic efficacy may be improved in select patients when treatment is personalized by tumor mutational status. Clinical trials targeting KIT with imatinib show no clear effect in unselected metastatic melanoma patient populations, but encouraging clinical benefit has been observed with KIT inhibition specifically in patients with melanomas harboring KIT mutations (not in patients whose melanoma harbor KIT amplification only). Nonetheless, disease progression ultimately occurs in the majority of cases. These data support the practice of determining KIT mutational status for MM patients to have a higher chance of receiving additional clinical benefi. Subsequent phase II clinical trials now require a KIT alteration for enrollment. For the relatively small number of MM patients whose tumors harbor BRAF mutations (relative to the ~50% in non-AL cutaneous melanoma patients), treatment with combination BRAF inhibitor and MEK inhibitor therapy is available. However, the efficacy of targeted therapy specifically in the MM patient population is not completely understood due to the low number available for analysis.

The efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy also remains unclear in MM patients, with conflicting evidence of whether MM patients respond as well as non-AL cutaneous melanoma patients. In one multi-institutional analysis of clinical trials focusing on all the subtypes of metastatic melanoma, patients with MM had similar responses compared with non-AL cutaneous melanoma patients when treated with anti-PD-1 single-agent therapy, with a progression-free survival of 3.9 months . In another pooled analysis, MM patients treated with nivolumab as monotherapy or nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab experienced reduced clinical benefit relative to non-AL cutaneous melanoma patients. MM patients experienced 50% shorter progression-free survival (3.0 months) relative to patients with non-AL cutaneous melanoma (6.2 months) for monotherapy (nivolumab) and for nivolumab plus ipilimumab (5.9 vs. 11.7 months. Another recent study combining axitinib (small molecule receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor) with toripalimab (anti-PD-1) found a median progression-free survival of 7.5 months in among 29 patients with chemotherapy-naïve mucosal melanoma. Although these data suggest that MM patients may not achieve as much benefit with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy as non-AL cutaneous melanoma patients, it should be considered that in each of the pooled analyses, the number of MM cases was only 10% of patients compared to 75% from cutaneous melanoma. Also notable, another prospective study where 44 patients with unresectable MM were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors concluded that the site of origin for MM (i.e., vaginal, anal) may not have a significant impact on the objective response rate, which was 8.2% for ipilimumab and 35% for pembrolizumab. The lower mutational burden in MM relative to non-AL cutaneous melanoma may explain the decreased efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade in MM.

Uveal Melanoma -

Uveal melanoma (UM) is the most common form of ocular melanoma, as well as the most prevalent form of non-cutaneous melanoma, accounting for 5% of all melanomas . It most commonly arises in non-Hispanic Whites relative to other races (i.e., African and Asian Americans), with a slight predominance for men (52.3%) relative to women (47.7%). The incidence of UM has remained stable over the last few decades and is diagnosed in 4–5 per million individuals in the United States each year. The median age of diagnosis is 62, and the incidence of UM increases with age. Early detection of UM provides a favorable 85% survival rate; however, this survival rate significantly decreases to 15% once UM cells have disseminated. Approximately 50% of UM patients develop metastases, and among patients with metastatic disease, 90% have liver involvement and ~70% have liver-only disease. This is a distinct metastatic pattern relative to cutaneous melanoma or mucosal melanoma.

Unlike non-AL cutaneous melanomas, UMs have a much lower mutational burden due to the sun-protected site they arise from within the ocular cavity. Activating mutations in BRAF or NRAS are not detected (extremely rare) in tumor cells of UM patients. In contrast, the main drivers for UM are activating mutations of guanine nucleotide-binding protein G (GNAQ/11), splicing factor 3B subunit 1 (SF3B1), eukaryotic translation initiation factor (EIF1AX), and inactivating mutations of the tumor suppressor BRCA-associated protein-1 (BAP1). The GNAQ/11 genes encode specific GTP binding proteins that mediate signal transduction from the inner cell surface to the MAPK pathway through activation of the protein kinase C (PKC) enzyme. GNAQ and GNA11 mutations are mutually exclusive, and thus in total are detected in 85%–94% of UM across all stages of disease. Due to their detection in benign uveal nevi, GNAQ/11 mutations are thought to be early mutational events.

BAP1 (located on the short arm of chromosome 3) loss-of-function mutations are posited to serve as a predisposing factor for diverse hereditary cancers including mesothelioma, cutaneous melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, and UM. A recent comprehensive review identified that among 174 patients harboring germline BAP1 mutations, 130 developed tumors that were either UM (31% of cases), cutaneous melanoma (13% of cases), renal cell carcinoma (10% of cases), or MM (22% of cases). In UM, loss of BAP1 returns melanoma cells to a more stem cell-like state as BAP1 is involved in melanocyte differentiation. BAP1 is frequently mutated in metastasizing uveal melanomas, which supports the growing evidence that stem-like melanoma cell states drive elements of the metastatic cascade.

There has been a recent decline in UM patients treated solely with surgery due to micrometastases that develop years before primary tumor detection. The current approach for treatment of metastatic UM is radiation; however, the survival rate is not significantly improved relative to what is possible from surgery. There have been an array of clinical studies trying to identify efficacious therapeutic strategies for patients with metastatic UM. UM patients that possess GNAQ or GNA11 mutations can be treated in clinical trials with targeted therapy approaches specific for the MAPK pathway (i.e., MEK inhibitor, ERK inhibitor) as these tumors display elevated MAPK activity. Preclinical studies have shown that treatment of UM with a combination of a MAPK pathway inhibitor and a PKC inhibitor may provide synergistic efficacy relative to what is achievable by either agent alone. Clinical trials with selumetinib, a MEK inhibitor, reported a higher progression-free survival among UM patients (15.9 vs. 7 weeks); however, no clinically meaningful increase in overall survival was observed in comparison to the chemotherapeutic temozolomide in the metastatic setting (10.8 vs. 9.4 months). Additionally, preclinical studies identified that targeting the PI3K/AKT pathway (in GNAQ and GNA11 mutant xenograft models) in combination with a MEK inhibitor may be an effective treatment strategy for patients with GNAQ or GNA11 mutations; however, clinical trials using this combination have stopped due to low response rates and high toxicity. Inhibitors against bromodomain and extraterminal (BET) proteins have had encouraging activity preclinically in UM, which could be further increased by concurrent inhibition of escape mechanisms mediated by fibroblast growth factor receptors. Similarly, targeting microenvironment-derived factors including HGF can also increase MEK inhibitor efficacy against UM cells, preclinically. For UM with BAP1 mutations, it has been shown preclinically that treatment with a histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor could be beneficial. Because BAP1 mutations are associated with loss of melanocytic differentiation, treatment with HDAC inhibitors (valproic acid) are postulated to inhibit the growth of uveal melanoma in vivo by inducing morphological differentiation.

While immune checkpoint inhibitors are the standard of care for cutaneous melanoma, UM has not yet had a phase III clinical trial for immune therapy. Small studies in UM patients (10 patients) treated with pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1) after treatment with ipilimumab reported a median progression-free survival of 18 weeks; ranging from 3.14 to 49.3 weeks. Of the eight evaluable patients, four rapidly progressed, one had stable disease, two had partial responses, and one had a complete response. Although this small study resulted in comparable results seen in patients with non-AL cutaneous melanoma, other studies suggest far lower response rates to single agent anti-PD-1 and combination anti-PD-1 plus anti-CTLA-4 in UM patients. An analysis of Danish UM patients observed partial responses in 7% of patients to anti-PD-1 and 21% to concurrent anti-PD-1 plus anti-CTLA-4. Metastatic UM patients treated with ipilimumab from two additional clinical studies had a median overall survival of 9 months (in contrast to 19.9 months in non-AL cutaneous melanoma). Despite the reduced efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade in UM patients, this option may represent the most effective strategy to date.

Nodular Melanoma -

Nodular melanoma represents the second most common subtype of melanoma, responsible for 10%–15% of total melanomas in Caucasians. NM is the melanoma subtype most associated with increased thickness at clinical presentation, which is attributed to the relatively poorer prognosis of patients with NM. The median age of diagnosis for NM is 53 years, with thicker tumors more common in older patients. NM is more common in women than men for reasons poorly understood and commonly presents de novo on the head, neck, or trunk of patients.

Activating BRAF mutations are detected in patients with NM at a slightly lower frequency relative to SSM, with 43%–47% of patients possessing mutations mostly (88% of cases) in V600E. A recent study identified evidence that BRAFV600E expression may serve as a prognostic marker in primary NM associated with ulceration and reduced survival. Preclinically, it was reported that hyperactivation of the downstream MAPK effector ribosomal protein S6 kinase (RSK1) is detectable in metastatic tumor tissues derived from NM to a higher extent relative to SSM. Activating NRAS mutations are detected at a significantly elevated frequency in NM relative to SSM in 30%–33% vs. 19% of cases, respectively. Interestingly, BRAF and NRAS mutations may not be as mutually exclusive in NM relative to SSM, with the identification of both mutations in the same tumor specimens when assessed by laser capture dissection followed by direct sequencing analysis of exons 11 and 15 of the BRAF gene and exons 1 and 2 of the NRAS gene. Additional high-throughput sequencing of patient-derived samples of single nucleotide variations (SNVs) expected to impact protein coding reveals NOTCH4, RPSKA6, BCL2L12, TERT, ERBB3, ZNF560, SSPO, and SNX31 to be significantly under-mutated in NM relative to SSM.

An analysis of the most recent Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cohort and the New York University (NRU) cohort suggests that relative to patients with metastatic SSM treated with BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi) therapy, patients with metastatic NM may respond worse to BRAFi for reasons not completely understood, suggesting the potential existence of distinct clinical and biological properties between NM and SSM. The observation of activated RSK1 via constitutive phosphorylation at the Ser-380 residue may explain the poorer efficacy of BRAFi and/or BRAFi/MEKi in patients with this melanoma subtype. In contrast, no significant difference in response rates and survival was detected in NM versus SSM among a cohort of 154 patients treated with either anti-CTLA-4, anti-PD-1, or the combination of both immune checkpoint inhibitor approaches. Immune checkpoint blockade may serve an ideal first-line therapy for patients with this subtype.

Lentigo Maligna - 

Lentigo maligna (LM) is the third most common subtype of melanoma, comprising roughly 4%–15% of all melanoma cases and its incidence has dramatically increased over the past few decades across the United States, and other regions of the world. LM melanoma typically presents on chronically sun-damaged (CSD) skin of the head and neck, appearing as an irregular brown macule commonly on the head and neck in the elderly. In contrast to the mean age of diagnosis of SSM between 40 and 60 years, the mean age of diagnosis for LM melanoma is 66–72 years. Credit is given to Sir John Hutchinson for the earliest description of LM melanoma in 1890. LM melanoma was initially referred to as “Hutchinson’s melanocytic freckle” due to the prevailing thought that it was benign, non-infectious lesion owing to its slow growing nature. Critical work by Ackerman and Silvers in the late 1970s–1980s finally led to wide acceptance of LM melanoma as a malignant disease worthy of clinical attention and intervention. Chronic ultraviolet radiation is the major risk factor for the development of LM melanoma, which differs from NM and SSM that are associated with intense intermittent ultraviolet radiation exposure. LM melanomas arise most frequently on the face and other sites of chronic sun damage which also differs from NM and SSM that arise most commonly on the trunk in men and legs in women. LM melanoma is thought to occur in older patients due to the increased lifetime sun and ultraviolet radiation exposure.

Lentigo maligna melanomas have a relatively high mutational burden compared to other melanoma subtypes due to chronic ultraviolet exposure. The frequency of activating BRAF mutations in LM is unclear, with reports finding 16.7%–53.4% of LM patients harboring BRAF mutations. The large variation may, in part, be attributed to the regional differences among tested patient tissue cohorts. In a Greek cohort, 16.7% of LM melanoma cases expressed BRAF mutations and 50% of LM cases in a Japanese cohort expressed BRAF mutations. When BRAF mutations are present, the V600K substitution is frequently observed (~77%) relative to the V600E (~23%) as observed in SSM, in this small set of 13 LM patient tumor samples. This finding is consistent with V600K mutations arising on chronically sun-damaged skin. Activating NRAS mutations have been reported to occur in ~8.1%–16% of LM cases .

The treatment of choice for patients with localized LM melanoma consists of surgical excision as first line of therapy, followed by radiation therapy with fractionated superficial radiotherapy, or topical imiquimod cream as an alternative to surgery. Once LM melanoma metastasizes to visceral organs, the five-year survival is similar to SSM. Interestingly, the efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade may be significantly higher in patients with LM melanoma relative to the other subtypes discussed. A study investigating the overall response rate (ORR) of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 in different subtypes of melanoma found patients with melanoma on CSD skin (including LM melanoma, desmoplastic melanoma, and subtype not-specified cases) exhibited an overall response rate of 70%, which fits the theory that cancer cells with high mutational burdens may be more sensitive to immune checkpoint blockade due to the increased presence of immune-stimulatory neoepitopes. Additional investigations on the efficacy of targeted and immune-based therapy are needed specifically for patients with LM melanoma to ensure the optimal treatment(s) is identified for this cohort and further improved through preclinical experimentation and clinical trials.

To date, this is the most comprehensive review of the data and treatments best suited for these melanoma subtypes that I have found.  So hoping that understanding and effective treatment options increase for these patients very soon.  -  c

Anti PD-1 and Anti-PD-L1 treatments rarely confer durable remissions for metastatic uveal melanoma (and poor responses in acral and mucosal mel as well!)

As many of you know, I am frequently contacted by folks with melanoma (or those with peeps who are suffering) looking for answers, treatments, explanations.  I help as best I can.  In that capacity, I have discovered many who are facing more than just cutaneous melanoma and are gradually coming to realize that they or their loved one, is probably dealing with uveal, acral, or mucosal melanoma given the history, location, or results of testing.  Unfortunately, while we have made a great deal of progress since 2011 in the treatment of melanoma generally, these sub-types are notoriously unresponsive to the now conventional melanoma treatments.  For instance, this is a report out of ASCO this year: ASCO 2016: Anti-PD1 for acral and mucosal melanoma , where unfortunately it was demonstrated that rather than the more typical 40% response rate to anti-PD1 in treatment naive cutaneous melanoma, folks with acral melanoma had only a 32% ORR, while folks with mucosal attained only a 23% ORR....albeit these peeps were heavily pre-treated and perhaps that contributed to the lower response rates as well.
  
Additionally, these types of melanoma are less likely to be BRAF positive, removing yet another treatment option from their arsenal.  Here's data from a discussion between two melanoma specialists:  Pick your poison: Weber and Agarwala discuss combination therapy for melanoma
Here they note the following expected mutation rates -
Mucosal = 9% BRAF, 12% NRAS, 25% KIT
Acral = 22% BRAF, 16% NRAS, 24% KIT

The disconcerting aspect for me has been this response, "Oh, no.  We aren't [or - the doc isn't] calling it that! If that happened, she wouldn't be eligible for the trial!!"  I can hear the fear and desperation in their voice.  I really do understand!  I spent many years, even as a Stage IV patient, in melanoma land BEFORE the FDA approval of the BRAF inhibitors, anti-PD1, or ipi. I fully recognize the desperation and search for an effective treatment.   However, when you are allowed placement into a trial or treatment that we now KNOW provides little to no benefit for your particular mutation....what has been accomplished?  To my mind, time has been wasted, suffering continues, while other possibly more effective options go untapped.  Some Melanoma Big Dogs recently came together in this report regarding uveal melanoma response rates to anti-PD1 and anti-PDL1:

Clinical outcomes in metastatic uveal melanoma treated with PD-1 and PD-1L antibodies.  Algazi, Tsai, Shoushtari, ... Daud, Sosman, Carvajal, Chmielowski, Postow, Weber, et al.  Cancer. 2016 Aug 17.

Antibodies inhibiting the programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1) have demonstrated significant activity in the treatment of advanced cutaneous melanoma. The efficacy and safety of PD-1 blockade in patients with uveal melanoma has not been well characterized.  Fifty-eight patients with stage IV uveal melanoma received PD-1 or PD-1 ligand (PD-L1) antibodies between 2009 and 2015 at 9 academic centers. Patients who were evaluable for response were eligible for the analysis. Imaging was performed every 12 weeks and at the investigators' discretion. Safety and clinical efficacy outcomes, including the best overall response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS), were retrospectively determined.  Of 56 eligible patients, 48 (86%) had received prior therapy, and 35 (63%) had received treatment with ipilimumab. Three patients had an objective response to ipilimumab, and 8 had stable disease as their best response. Thirty-eight patients (68%) received pembrolizumab, 16 (29%) received nivolumab, and 2 (4%) received atezolizumab. Objective tumor responses were observed in 2 patients for an overall response rate of 3.6%. Stable disease (greater or = to 6 months) was observed in 5 patients (9%). The median PFS was 2.6 months, and the median OS was 7.6 months. There was no association between prior treatment with ipilimumab or liver-directed therapy and PFS or OS. Treatment was well tolerated, and only 1 patient discontinued treatment because of toxicity.  PD-1 and PD-L1 antibodies rarely confer durable remissions in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma. Clinical trial enrollment should be prioritized in this population.

A sad acknowledgement to be sure.  These response and OS rates are really no different than those I was facing prior to the existence anti-PD1!  Frustrating and powerless do not begin to cover the feelings that this data engenders!!!  However, it is something I would want to know, if I were dealing with uveal melanoma.  For what it's worth.... - c

Outcomes of acral, mucosal, and uveal melanoma with treatment from checkpoint inhibitors - spoiler alert - get the immunotherapy combo!!!!

As I've said many times, Melanoma sucks great big hairy green stinky wizard balls.  Sadly, ocular, mucosal, and acral (think -fingers, palms, soles, nail beds) sucks even more.  Here are some prior reports:  https://chaoticallypreciselifeloveandmelanoma.blogspot.com/search?q=mucosal+melanoma

Now, there's this ~

Survival after checkpoint inhibitors for metastatic acral, mucosal and uveal melanoma.  Klemen, Wang, Rubinstein...Sznol.  J Immunother Cancer. 2020 Mar 8.

Checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) are thought to be effective against cutaneous melanoma in part because of the large burden of somatic mutations (neoantigens) generated from exposure to ultraviolet radiation. However, rare melanoma subtypes arising from acral skin, mucosal surfaces, and the uveal tract are largely sun-shielded. Genomic studies show these sun-shielded melanomas have a paucity of neoantigens and unique biology; they are thought to be largely resistant to immunotherapy. It has not been definitively shown that CPI improves survival in metastatic sun-shielded melanoma.

We reviewed a single institutional experience using antibodies against CTLA-4, PD-1 and/or PD-L1 to treat patients with metastatic melanoma. Primary tumor histology was categorized as cutaneous, unknown, acral, mucosal, or uveal. We studied demographic data, treatment characteristics, and overall survival (OS) after CPI.

We treated 428 patients with metastatic melanoma from 2007 to 2019. Primary tumors were cutaneous in 283 (66%), unknown in 55 (13%), acral in 22 (5%), mucosal in 38 (9%), and uveal in 30 (7%). Patients with metastatic disease from cutaneous primary tumors had median OS after CPI of 45 months compared with 17 months for acral, 18 months for mucosal, and 12 months for uveal. For all patients with sun-shielded melanoma (n=90), first treatment with anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 was followed by a median OS of 9 months compared with 18 months after anti-CTLA-4 and 20 months after combination therapy. There were 21 patients who achieved actual 3-year survival; 20 received both anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1, either sequentially or in combination. Over 80% of 3-year survivors with progressive disease were treated with local therapy after CPI.

Long survival in patients with metastatic melanoma from acral, mucosal, and uveal primary tumors was associated with receipt of both anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 antibodies. Complete responses were rare, and local therapy was frequently employed to control disease progression. While sun-shielded melanomas exhibit worse outcomes after CPI than cutaneous melanomas, with an aggressive multidisciplinary approach, 5-year survival is still possible for 25%-32% of these patients.

In this report 90 patients with "sun shielded melanoma" (either acral, mucosal, or uveal) first treated with anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 had median survival of 9 months vs OS of 18 months with anti-CTLA-4 vs 20 months OS with combination therapy.  21 of these 90 patients achieved 3 year survival, with 20 of those getting both anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 either sequentially or together.  80% of the 3-year survivors were also treated with local therapy after immunotherapy.

My take - if you have this sort of melanoma.  Get the combo - from the start!!!

For what it's worth.  Take care.  - c

Late addition:  

Ipilimumab plus nivolumab for patients with metastatic uveal melanoma: a multicenter, retrospective study.  Najjar, Navrazhina, Ding, et al.  J Immunother Cancer.  June 2020.

Background: Uveal melanoma (UM) is the most common intraocular malignancy in adults. In contrast to cutaneous melanoma (CM), there is no standard therapy, and the efficacy and safety of dual checkpoint blockade with nivolumab and ipilimumab is not well defined.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with metastatic UM (mUM) who received treatment with ipilimumab plus nivolumab across 14 academic medical centers. Toxicity was graded using National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events V.5.0. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methodology.

Results: 89 eligible patients were identified. 45% had received prior therapy, which included liver directed therapy (29%), immunotherapy (21%), targeted therapy (10%) and radiation (16%). Patients received a median 3 cycles of ipilimumab plus nivolumab. The median follow-up time was 9.2 months. Overall response rate was 11.6%. One patient achieved complete response (1%), 9 patients had partial response (10%), 21 patients had stable disease (24%) and 55 patients had progressive disease (62%). Median OS from treatment initiation was 15 months and median PFS was 2.7 months. Overall, 82 (92%) of patients discontinued treatment, 34 due to toxicity and 27 due to progressive disease. Common immune-related adverse events were colitis/diarrhea (32%), fatigue (23%), rash (21%) and transaminitis (21%).

Conclusions: Dual checkpoint inhibition yielded higher response rates than previous reports of single-agent immunotherapy in patients with mUM, but the efficacy is lower than in metastatic CM. The median OS of 15 months suggests that the rate of clinical benefit may be larger than the modest response rate.

For what it's worth - c

Does previous treatment with BRAF inhibitors affect response to immunotherapy in melanoma?

We have had conflicting reports over the years regarding BRAF status and immunotherapy - to include:  "Those folks do better."  "Those folks do worse."  "It makes no difference."  Likewise, there has been conflict regarding which therapy to do first - immunotherapy or targeted therapy with BRAF inhibitors - for those who are BRAF positive. Now there is this:

Correlation between previous treatment with BRAF inhibitors and clinical response to pembrolizumab in patients with advanced melanoma. Simeone, Grimaldi, Restino, et al. Oncoimmunology. 2017 Jan 19.

The optimal sequencing of targeted treatment and immunotherapy in the treatment of advanced melanoma is a key question and prospective studies to address this are ongoing. Previous observations suggest that treating first with targeted therapy may select for more aggressive disease, meaning that patients may not gain full benefit from subsequent immunotherapy. In a single-center retrospective analysis, we investigated whether response to pembrolizumab was affected by previous BRAF inhibitor therapy. A total of 42 patients with metastatic cutaneous or mucosal melanoma who had received previous treatment with ipilimumab were treated with pembrolizumab as part of the Italian expanded access program. Sixteen of these patients had BRAF-mutated melanoma and had also been previously treated with a BRAF inhibitor (vemurafenib or dabrafenib), while 26 had BRAF wild-type melanoma (no previous BRAF inhibitor). Patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma who were previously treated with BRAF inhibitors had a significantly lower median progression-free survival (3 versus not reached mo) and disease control rate (18.6% versus 65.4%;) than patients with BRAF wild-type, while there was also a trend toward a lower response rate (assessed using immune-related response criteria) although this was not significantly different between groups (12.5% versus 36.4%;). These data are consistent with previous reports that BRAF inhibitor therapy may affect subsequent response to immunotherapy.

Hmmm....  Not sure this is terribly elucidating.  I fear the "facts" in this report are much confounded!

1.   It would not surprise me to find that one day we consider mucosal melanoma and cutaneous melanoma to be two different diseases.  They are certainly not apples to apples.
2.  Pretreatment with ipi is KNOWN to decrease the response to anti-PD-1 (Pembro/Ketruda and Nivo/Opdivo)!  Remember this?  Sequential nivo then ipi = ORR of 41%. Ipi followed by nivo = ORR of 20%!!!! FDA! Are you listening???????
3.  Also, BRAF wild-type vs BRAF mutated - again, not apples to apples.
4.  What we need is a study in which one group of folks with cutaneous melanoma (or strictly mucosal melanoma) with BRAF positive status are treated with targeted therapy then given anti-PD-1 vs another BRAF positive group of folks are treated with anti-PD-1 followed by BRAFi.

It's just me, but... C'mon man!!!!  Hang in there, ratties!  - c

Advanced Melanoma - A smattering of 2020 literature for Stage IV peeps

Unfortunately, though some promising trials are underway, no major breakthroughs have occurred in melanoma research of late.  Still, there are studies and data that are meaningful.  Here is a collection of reports that may be valuable to Stage IV melanoma peeps.  (My comments in red.) -

Overall Survival Improved for Contemporary Patients with Melanoma: A 2004-2015 National Cancer Database Analysis.  Farrow, Turner, Salama, Beasley.  Oncol Ther. 2020 Dec.

Introduction: Since 2011, encouraging clinical trial results have led to approval of multiple new therapies for advanced melanoma, but the impact of these therapies outside of trial populations is largely unknown. This study examines use of novel therapies and survival in contemporary patients with melanoma.

Methods: Stage I-IV melanoma patients were identified in the 2004-2015 National Cancer Database and grouped into historic (2004-2010) and contemporary (2011-2015) cohorts. Overall survival (OS) was compared using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard modeling adjusting for patient, tumor, and facility characteristics.

Results: Of 268,668 patients, 136,828 were classified as historic and 131,840 as contemporary. Among all stages, immunotherapy utilization was significantly higher among contemporary patients. Adjusted OS was improved in the contemporary cohort. There was no difference in OS among stage I/II patients between groups, while OS was significantly improved for contemporary stage III/IV patients. Among stage III/IV patients who received immunotherapy, OS was improved for the contemporary cohort.

Conclusions: Adjusted overall survival for contemporary melanoma patients is improved. This effect is driven by improvements for those with advanced stage disease, particularly those that received immunotherapy and BRAF/MEK targeted therapies.

Confirmation of what we already know - targeted therapy (BRAF/MEK combo's) for BRAF positive melanoma patients and immunotherapy - have made a world of difference for melanoma peeps.  

Systemic Therapy for Melanoma: ASCO Guideline.  Seth, …Kirkwood, Kudchadkar…Weber, Agarwala, Ascierto, …, Faries… Robert,…Sondak, et al.  J Clin Oncol, 2020 Nov 20.

Purpose: To provide guidance to clinicians regarding the use of systemic therapy for melanoma.

Methods: ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the literature.

Results: A systematic review, one meta-analysis, and 34 additional randomized trials were identified. The published studies included a wide range of systemic therapies in cutaneous and noncutaneous melanoma.

Recommendations: In the adjuvant setting, nivolumab or pembrolizumab should be offered to patients with resected stage IIIA/B/C/D BRAF wild-type cutaneous melanoma, while either of those two agents or the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib should be offered in BRAF-mutant disease. No recommendation could be made for or against the use of neoadjuvant therapy in cutaneous melanoma. In the unresectable/metastatic setting, ipilimumab plus nivolumab, nivolumab alone, or pembrolizumab alone should be offered to patients with BRAF wild-type cutaneous melanoma, while those three regimens or combination BRAF/MEK inhibitor therapy with dabrafenib/trametinib, encorafenib/binimetinib, or vemurafenib/cobimetinib should be offered in BRAF-mutant disease. Patients with mucosal melanoma may be offered the same therapies recommended for cutaneous melanoma. No recommendation could be made for or against specific therapy for uveal melanoma. 

YEP!

Five-Year Outcomes With Nivolumab in Patients With Wild-Type BRAF Advanced Melanoma.  Robert, Long, Brady, et al.  J Clin oncol.  2020 Nov.

Purpose: The CheckMate 066 trial investigated nivolumab monotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with previously untreated BRAF wild-type advanced melanoma. Five-year results are presented herein.

Patients and methods: In this multicenter, double-blind, phase III study, 418 patients with previously untreated, unresectable, stage III/IV, wild-type BRAF melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or dacarbazine 1,000 mg/m2 every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), and secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety.

Results: Patients were followed for a minimum of 60 months from the last patient randomly assigned (median follow-up, 32.0 months for nivolumab and 10.9 months for dacarbazine). Five-year OS rates were 39% with nivolumab and 17% with dacarbazine; PFS rates were 28% and 3%, respectively. Five-year OS was 38% in patients randomly assigned to dacarbazine who had subsequent therapy, including nivolumab (n = 37). ORR was 42% with nivolumab and 14% with dacarbazine; among patients alive at 5 years, ORR was 81% and 39%, respectively. Of 42 patients treated with nivolumab who had a complete response (20%), 88% (37 of 42) were alive as of the 5-year analysis. Among 75 nivolumab-treated patients alive and evaluable at the 5-year analysis, 83% had not received subsequent therapy; 23% were still on study treatment, and 60% were treatment free. Safety analyses were similar to the 3-year report.

Conclusion: Results from this 5-year analysis confirm the significant benefit of nivolumab over dacarbazine for all end points and add to the growing body of evidence supporting long-term survival with nivolumab mono-therapy. Survival is strongly associated with achieving a durable response, which can be maintained after treatment discontinuation, even without subsequent systemic therapies.

So over comparing any melanoma treatment with dacarbazine.  At the onset of this study, I suppose it was okay - but hopefully we are well past that now!!!  At any rate - important points are just relative to nivo only treatment and survival.  Overall response rate was 42%.  Of patients alive at five years ORR was 81%.  Of the patients on nivo with a complete response, 88% were alive at 5 years.  Of nivo treated patients alive at 5 years - 83% had needed no additional treatment, 23% were still on treatment, and 60% were treatment free.

Safety and efficacy of combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma: results from a North American expanded access program (CheckMate 218).  Hodi, Chapman, Sznol, et al.  Melanoma Res.  2020 Nov.

CheckMate 218, a North American expanded access program (EAP), investigated nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma. Safety and efficacy, including 2-year survival in clinically relevant patient subgroups, are reported. Eligible patients were aged greater than/equal to18 years with unresectable stage III/IV melanoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0/1, and no prior checkpoint inhibitors. Patients received nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for 4 cycles (induction) followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (maintenance) until progression or unacceptable toxicity or a maximum of 48 weeks. Safety and overall survival (OS) data were collected. This EAP included 754 treated patients from the USA (n = 580) and Canada (n = 174). Median follow-up time was 17.8 months. All-grade and grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 96% and 53% of patients and led to treatment discontinuation in 36% and 26% of patients, respectively. OS rates at 12 and 24 months were 82%  and 70%, respectively. Twenty-four-month OS rates were 63% in patients aged ≥75 years, 56% in patients with elevated lactate dehydrogenase levels, 73% in patients with BRAF wild-type tumors, 70% in patients with BRAF mutant tumors, and 56% in patients with mucosal melanoma. In this EAP, nivolumab plus ipilimumab demonstrated high survival rates and safety outcomes consistent with those from randomized clinical trials, further supporting the use of this combination for advanced melanoma across multiple subgroups.

Again - ipi/nivo with better survival than nivo alone, though with a more significant side effect profile.

PD-1 inhibitors might limit the development of brain metastases in patients with advanced melanoma.  Marcaillous, Linder, Chaltiel, et al.  Melanoma Res. 2020 Dec.

Brain metastases are a common and severe complication potentially leading to death in patients with metastatic melanoma. Immunotherapy and targeted therapy have significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced melanoma. Few studies focus on patients with central nervous system (CNS) metastases, and these patients are often excluded and have a poor prognosis. It has been suggested that immunotherapy could reduce the incidence of brain metastases. We tested this hypothesis in a retrospective bicentric study. We performed a retrospective, bicentric descriptive analysis on a cohort of 293 patients treated for metastatic melanoma between May 2014 and October 2017. Patients with brain metastasis at diagnosis were excluded from the analysis. Patients were separated into two groups according to the first line of treatment: immunotherapy [immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)] vs other and anti-PD-1 vs other. The primary endpoint was the cumulative incidence of brain metastases, and secondary endpoints were OS and PFS. At 12 months, the cumulative incidence of brain metastases was 13.78% in the ICI group and 27.26% in the other group. The cumulative incidence was 9.49% in the anti-PD-1 group vs 30.11% in the other group . In multivariable analysis, anti-PD-1 reduced the risk of brain metastases by almost 70%. The use of ICI (anti-PD-1/PD-L1) in advanced melanomas without initial brain metastasis shows a protective effect and prevents their occurrence.

Yep.  Been yelling it for over 10 years!!!  Immunotherapy works in the brain.  Folks treated with anti-PD-1 had an incidence of brain met development of 9.49% vs 30.11% in patients not treated with anti-PD-1.  Analysis found that anti-PD-1 reduced the risk of brain mets by almost 70%.

PD-L1 blockade in combination with inhibition of MAPK oncogenic signaling in patients with advanced melanoma. Ribas, Algazi, Ascierto, et al.  Nat Commun.  2020 Dec.

Combining PD-L1 blockade with inhibition of oncogenic mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling may result in long-lasting responses in patients with advanced melanoma. This phase 1, open-label, dose-escalation and -expansion study (NCT02027961) investigated safety, tolerability and preliminary efficacy of durvalumab (anti-PD-L1) combined with dabrafenib (BRAF inhibitor) and trametinib (MEK inhibitor) for patients with BRAF-mutated melanoma (cohort A, n = 26), or durvalumab and trametinib given concomitantly (cohort B, n = 20) or sequentially (cohort C, n = 22) for patients with BRAF-wild type melanoma. Adverse events and treatment discontinuation rates were more common than previously reported for these agents given as monotherapy. Objective responses were observed in 69.2% (cohort A), 20.0% (cohort B) and 31.8% (cohort C) of patients, with evidence of improved tumor immune infiltration and durable responses in a subset of patients with available biopsy samples. In conclusion, combined MAPK inhibition and anti-PD-L1 therapy may provide treatment options for patients with advanced melanoma.

In this trial of either Durvalumab (anti-PD-L1) combined with dabrafenib/trametinib or just with trametinib or given sequentially - patients given the combination of the three drugs had a 69.2% response rate, of the 2 a response rate of 20% and in the sequential group (not clear, but I suspect that they got the three drugs) a response rate of 31.8%.  For comparison here is a report on atezo and pembro when combined with a BRAF/MEK therapy from 2019 that includes links to other reports of results when immunotherapy was combined with targeted therapy - Treating melanoma by COMBINING targeted therapy AND immunotherapy!!  When atezo and pembro were combined with a BRAF/MEK combo - responses rates were 70+%.  Of course, this treatment option is only available to about half of us as patients need to be BRAF positive.

Chemotherapy combined with antiangiogenic drugs as salvage therapy in advanced melanoma patients progressing on PD-1 immunotherapy.  Wang, Weiran, Zhihong, et al.  Transl Oncol. 2020 Nov.

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of salvage therapy with nab-paclitaxel (nab-p) or temozolomide (TMZ) combined with antiangiogenic drugs in programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor-resistant patients with unresectable metastatic melanoma.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of 69 metastatic melanoma patients who received nab-p or TMZ combined with antiangiogenic drugs after developing PD-1 inhibitor resistance and were treated at the Beijing Cancer Hospital between 2016 and 2019. The disease control rate (c-DCR) and progression-free survival (c-PFS) of salvage CA (chemotherapy combined with antiangiogenic drugs) regimens were investigated. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate the clinical pathological factors affecting the outcomes. Then, a nomogram was formulated to predict the probability of 3-month and 6-month c-PFS based on the multivariate analysis results.

Results: The c-DCR was 63.8%, and the median c-PFS was 3.0 months. In the univariate analysis, factors associated with the c-DCR were included the melanoma subtype, baseline platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and best response status to PD-1 inhibitors. Factors influencing c-PFS included age, baseline lactic dehydrogenase, PLR, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), PFS duration of anti-PD-1 therapy (p-PFS), and the best response and progression pattern of PD-1 inhibitors. In the multivariate analysis, age <65 years, heterogeneous progression pattern and baseline PLR<200 were significantly associated with improved c-PFS. The concordance index (C-index) of the nomogram was equal to 0.65.

Conclusions: CA regimens demonstrated promising effects in PD-1 inhibitor-resistant patients. The nomogram could be a valuable predictive module for salvage therapy choice in PD-1 inhibitor-resistant patients.

So these peeps created a fancy scale to determine whether a chemo cocktail would provide 3 vs 6 months of progression free survival in unresectable Stage IV melanoma folks who had become unresponsive to anti-PD-1.  Sad thing to face.  But, if this formula works, perhaps it can provide patients with knowledge that may inform their decision to accept or decline such therapy.

So there you have it.  Final 2020 reports in review for advanced melanoma patients - my take, anyway.  Over the coming days, I will plow through some other 2020 research on other topics pertinent to melanoma.  Stay safe.  Wear a mask.  Get a COVID vaccine when you can.  - c