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

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

Currently, that means I am ~

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

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

Then there's this:

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

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

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

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

Exposures: Receipt of immunotherapy or other anticancer agents.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next up -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) the little bits of tumor floating in our blood and how they can impact melanoma patients

In this post, replete with many links within - Circulating tumor DNA to monitor and predict response in melanoma patients - yes - AGAIN!!!!  - from earlier this year, I wrote:  "I first posted articles related to blood analysis to evaluate circulating tumor DNA in 2014.  It is a fairly non-invasive and relatively painless way to diagnose melanoma, measure tumor burden, and evaluate progression or response in melanoma patients.  It may even indicate those who are more likely to respond to a particular therapy.  Unfortunately, it is not commonly utilized."  Now there are these reports: 

Circulating tumour DNA in patients with advanced melanoma treated with dabrafenib or dabrafenib plus trametinib: a clinical validation study.  Syeda, Wiggins, Corless, et al.  Lancet Oncol.  Feb 2021.

Background: Melanoma lacks validated blood-based biomarkers for monitoring and predicting treatment efficacy. Cell-free circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) is a promising biomarker; however, various detection methods have been used, and, to date, no large studies have examined the association between serial changes in ctDNA and survival after BRAF, MEK, or BRAF plus MEK inhibitor therapy. We aimed to evaluate whether baseline ctDNA concentrations and kinetics could predict survival outcomes.

Methods: In this clinical validation study, we used analytically validated droplet digital PCR assays to measure BRAFV600-mutant ctDNA in pretreatment and on-treatment plasma samples from patients aged 18 years or older enrolled in two clinical trials. COMBI-d (NCT01584648) was a double-blind, randomised phase 3 study of dabrafenib plus trametinib versus dabrafenib plus placebo in previously untreated patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1. COMBI-MB (NCT02039947) was an open-label, non-randomised, phase 2 study evaluating dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive metastatic melanoma and brain metastases. Patients in cohort A of COMBI-MB had asymptomatic brain metastases, no previous local brain-directed therapy, and an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1. Biomarker analysis was a prespecified exploratory endpoint in both trials and performed in the intention-to-treat populations in COMBI-d and COMBI-MB. We investigated the association between mutant copy number (baseline or week 4 or zero conversion status) and efficacy endpoints (progression-free survival, overall survival, and best overall response). We used Cox models, Kaplan-Meier plots, and log-rank tests to explore the association of pretreatment ctDNA concentrations with progression-free survival and overall survival. The effect of additional prognostic variables such as lactate dehydrogenase was also investigated in addition to the mutant copy number.

Findings: In COMBI-d, pretreatment plasma samples were available from 345 (82%) of 423 patients and on-treatment (week 4) plasma samples were available from 224 (53%) of 423 patients. In cohort A of COMBI-MB, pretreatment and on-treatment samples were available from 38 (50%) of 76 patients with intracranial and extracranial metastatic melanoma. ctDNA was detected in pretreatment samples from 320 (93%) of 345 patients (COMBI-d) and 34 (89%) of 38 patients (COMBI-MB). When assessed as a continuous variable, elevated baseline BRAFV600 mutation-positive ctDNA concentration was associated with worse overall survival outcome, independent of treatment group and baseline lactate dehydrogenase concentration, in COMBI-d. A ctDNA cutoff point of 64 copies per mL of plasma stratified patients enrolled in COMBI-d as high risk or low risk with respect to survival outcomes and was validated in the COMBI-MB cohort. In COMBI-d, undetectable ctDNA at week 4 was significantly associated with extended progression-free and overall survival, particularly in patients with elevated lactate dehydrogenase concentrations.

Interpretation: Pretreatment and on-treatment BRAFV600-mutant ctDNA measurements could serve as independent, predictive biomarkers of clinical outcome with targeted therapy.

Circulating tumour DNA and melanoma survival: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.  Gandini, Zanna, De Angelis, et al.  Crit Rev Oncol Hematol.  Jan 2021.

We reviewed and meta-analysed the available evidence (until December 2019) about circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) levels and melanoma patients survival. We included twenty-six studies (more than 2000 patients overall), which included mostly stage III-IV cutaneous melanoma patients and differed widely in terms of systemic therapy received and somatic mutations that were searched. Patients with detectable ctDNA before treatment had worse progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), with no difference by tumour stage. ctDNA detectability during follow-up was associated with poorer PFS and OS; in the latter case, the association was stronger for stage IV vs. III melanomas. Between-estimates heterogeneity was low for all pooled estimates. ctDNA is a strong prognostic biomarker for advanced-stage melanoma patients, robust across tumour (e.g. genomic profile) and patients (e.g. systemic therapy) characteristics.

The Prognostic Impact of Circulating Tumour DNA in Melanoma Patients Treated with Systemic Therapies-Beyond BRAF Mutant Detection.  Marsavela, Johansson, Pereira, et al.  Cancers (Basel).  Dec 2020.

In this study, we evaluated the predictive value of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) to inform therapeutic outcomes in metastatic melanoma patients receiving systemic therapies. We analyzed 142 plasma samples from metastatic melanoma patients prior to commencement of systemic therapy: 70 were treated with BRAF/MEK inhibitors and 72 with immunotherapies. Patient-specific droplet digital polymerase chain reaction assays were designed for ctDNA detection. Plasma ctDNA was detected in 56% of patients prior to first-line anti-PD1 and/or anti-CTLA-4 treatment. The detection rate in the immunotherapy cohort was comparably lower than those with BRAF inhibitors (76%). Decreasing ctDNA levels within 12 weeks of treatment was strongly concordant with treatment response and predictive of longer progression free survival. Notably, a slower kinetic of ctDNA decline was observed in patients treated with immunotherapy compared to those on BRAF/MEK inhibitors. Whole exome sequencing of ctDNA was also conducted in 9 patients commencing anti-PD-1 therapy to derive tumour mutational burden (TMB) and neoepitope load measurements. The results showed a trend of high TMB and neoepitope load in responders compared to non-responders. Overall, our data suggest that changes in ctDNA can serve as an early indicator of outcomes in metastatic melanoma patients treated with systemic therapies and therefore may serve as a tool to guide treatment decisions.

Yep!  THAT LAST SENTENCE!!!

Prognostic Value of ctDNA Mutation in Melanoma: A Meta-Analysis.  Zheng, Sun, Cong, et al.  J Oncol.. May 2021.

Purpose: Melanoma is the most aggressive form of skin cancer. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a diagnostic and prognostic marker of melanoma. However, whether ctDNA mutations can independently predict survival remains controversial. This meta-analysis assessed the prognostic value of the presence or change in ctDNA mutations in melanoma patients.

Methods: We identified studies from the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. We estimated the combined hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) using either fixed-effect or random-effect models based on heterogeneity.

Results: Sixteen studies including 1,781 patients were included. Both baseline and posttreatment detectable ctDNA were associated with poor OS. For PFS, baseline detectable ctDNA may be associated with adverse PFS and baseline high ctDNA and increased ctDNA were significantly associated with adverse PFS. The baseline BRAFV600 ctDNA mutation-positive group was significantly associated with adverse OS compared with the baseline ctDNA-negative group. There were no significant differences in PFS between the baseline BRAFV600 ctDNA mutation-detectable group and the undetectable group.

Conclusion: The presence or elevation of ctDNA mutation or BRAFV600 ctDNA mutation was significantly associated with worse prognosis in melanoma patients.

Liquid biopsy and radiological response predict outcomes following discontinuation of targeted therapy in patients with BRAF mutated melanoma. Di Guardo, Randon, Corti, et al.  Oncologist. August 2021.

Background: Outcomes of patients with metastatic melanoma discontinuing BRAF-targeted therapy for cumulative toxicity after sustained response are unknown.

Patients and methods: This retrospective case series analysis conducted at a single Cancer Center in Italy included patients with BRAF mutated metastatic melanoma treated with a BRAF inhibitor as a single agent or in combination with a MEK inhibitor between June 1, 2011 and January 1, 2020 and interrupting treatment after achieving complete response (CR) or long-lasting partial response (PR - i.e. greater than 12 months) due to cumulative toxicity.

Results: We included 24 patients with a median treatment duration of 59.4 months. CR and PR were achieved in 71% and 29% of patients, respectively. At a median follow-up after treatment discontinuation of 37.8 months, 12-months progression free survival after discontinuation (dPFS) rate was 70.8% and 24-months dPFS rate was 58.3%. Baseline patients and tumor characteristics as well as treatment duration and best response did not significantly impact on dPFS. Patients with CR and negative circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) at time of discontinuation had a significantly improved dPFS compared to patients with either radiological residual disease or ctDNA positivity. No patient in CR with undetectable ctDNA experienced progression.

Conclusion: The risk of progression is high even in patients with sustained sensitivity to BRAF/MEK inhibitors. Integration of liquid biopsy in clinical trials investigating optimal management of patients with sustained sensitivity to BRAF/MEK inhibitors is warranted.

Implications for practice: Outcomes of patients with metastatic melanoma discontinuing BRAF-targeted therapy for cumulative toxicity are unknown. We analyzed patients with sustained responses (median treatment duration 59.4 months). Twelve and 24-months progression free survival following discontinuation were 70.8% and 58.3% respectively. Complete response and negative ctDNA at time of discontinuation are promising prognostic biomarkers in this setting.

Detection of clinical progression through plasma ctDNA in metastatic melanoma patients: a comparison to radiological progression.  Marsavela, McEvoy, Pereira, et al.  Br J Cancer.  August 2021.

Background: The validity of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) as an indicator of disease progression compared to medical imaging in patients with metastatic melanoma requires detailed evaluation.

Methods: Here, we carried out a retrospective ctDNA analysis of 108 plasma samples collected at the time of disease progression. We also analysed a validation cohort of 66 metastatic melanoma patients monitored prospectively after response to systemic therapy.

Results: ctDNA was detected in 62% of patients at the time of disease progression. For 67 patients that responded to treatment, the mean ctDNA level at progressive disease was significantly higher than at the time of response. However, only 30 of these 67 (45%) patients had a statistically significant increase in ctDNA by Poisson test. A validation cohort of 66 metastatic melanoma patients monitored prospectively indicated a 56% detection rate of ctDNA at progression, with only two cases showing increased ctDNA prior to radiological progression. Finally, a correlation between ctDNA levels and metabolic tumour burden was only observed in treatment naïve patients but not at the time of progression in a subgroup of patients failing BRAF inhibition (N = 15).

Conclusions: These results highlight the low efficacy of ctDNA to detect disease progression in melanoma when compared mainly to standard positron emission tomography imaging.

I think the vast preponderance of the evidence shows that knowing the presence of and/or quantity of bits of melanoma floating in your blood stream gives the patient and their physician important information that can impact treatment choice.  That same data can help make decisions about whether or not to stop or change treatments.  Many studies have demonstrated that this simple blood draw can tell you your status weeks to months sooner than tumors can be seen on radiographic studies.  The last study above stands in contrast to that but I try to be complete.  I will say that it is important to note that the study above was a retrospective review of 108 blood samples collected at the time of disease progression vs 66 patients monitored after response to systemic therapy.  I don't think that is the best way to collect and compare data - maybe that's just me.  I leave you with this ~

The prognostic value of circulating tumor DNA in patients with melanoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.  Feng, Cen, Tan, et al.  Transl Oncol.  June 2021.

Background: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has been investigated as a potential prognostic biomarker to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy and disease progression in melanoma patients, yet results remain inconclusive. The purpose of this study was to illustrate the prognostic value of ctDNA in melanoma.

Objectives: To describe the clinical prognostic value of ctDNA for melanoma patients.

Methods: Searched for eligible articles from Pubmed, Web of Science and Embase. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to evaluate the association between ctDNA at baseline or during treatment and overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

Results: A total of 9 articles were obtained, involving 617 melanoma patients. The pooled HRs revealed that compared with baseline undetectable ctDNA patients, detectable ctDNA was highly correlated with poor OS and PFS. A meta-analysis of these adjusted HRs was performed and confirmed that ctDNA collected at baseline was associated with poorer OS/PFS. During treatment, a significant association was shown between ctDNA and poorer OS/PFS.

Conclusion: Investigation and application of ctDNA will improve "liquid biopsy" and play a role in early prediction, monitoring disease progression and precise adjusting treatment strategies in melanoma patients.

For me, I think ctDNA can provide valuable information that we can use when having to make the incredibly difficult decisions faced by cancer patients.  Coming soon - putting my money and my blood - where my mouth is. Hang tough. - c 

Circulating tumor DNA to monitor and predict response in melanoma patients - yes - AGAIN!!!!

I first posted articles related to blood analysis to evaluate circulating tumor DNA in 2014.  It is a fairly non-invasive and relatively painless way to diagnose melanoma, measure tumor burden, and evaluate progression or response in melanoma patients.  It may even indicate those who are more likely to respond to a particular therapy.  Unfortunately, it is not commonly utilized.  Here are zillions of articles:  Circulating Tumor DNA for melanoma

Now, there are these:

The use of circulating cell-free tumor DNA in routine diagnostics of metastatic melanoma patients.  Knuever, Weiss, Persa, et al. Sci Rep. 2020 Mar 18.

Modern advances in technology such as next-generation sequencing and digital PCR make detection of minor circulating cell-free tumor DNA amounts in blood from cancer patients possible. Samples can be obtained minimal-invasively, tested for treatment-determining genetic alterations and are considered to reflect the genetic constitution of the whole tumor mass. Furthermore, tumor development can be determined by a time course of the quantified circulating cell-free tumor DNA. However, systematic studies which prove the clinical relevance of monitoring patients using liquid biopsies are still lacking. In this study, we collected 115 samples from 47 late stage melanoma patients over 1.5 years alongside therapy-associated clinical routine monitoring. Mutation status was confirmed by molecular analysis of primary tumor material. We can show that detectable levels of circulating cell-free tumor DNA correlate with clinical development over time. Increasing levels of circulating cell-free tumor DNA during melanoma treatment with either targeted therapy (BRAF/MEK inhibitors) or immunotherapy, during recovery time or the intervals between last treatment cycle and second-line treatment point towards clinical progression before the progression becomes obvious in imaging. Therefore, this is a further possibility to closely screen our patients for tumor progression during therapy, in therapy-free phases and in earlier stages before therapy initiation.

YEP!

Longitudinal monitoring of ctDNA in patients with melanoma and brain metastases treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.  Lee, Menziew, Carlino, et al.  Clin Cancer Res.  2020 April 22.

PURPOSE: Brain involvement occurs in majority of patients with metastatic melanoma. The potential of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) for surveillance and monitoring systemic therapy response in patients with melanoma brain metastases merits investigation. 

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This study examined circulating BRAF, NRAS and c-KIT mutations in melanoma patients with active brain metastases receiving PD-1 inhibitor-based therapy. Intracranial and extracranial disease volumes were measured using the sum of product of diameters, and response assessment performed using RECIST. Longitudinal plasma samples were analysed for ctDNA over the first 12 weeks of treatment (threshold 2.5 copies/ml plasma). 

RESULTS: Of a total of 72 patients; 13 patients had intracranial metastases only and 59 patients had concurrent intracranial and extracranial metastases. ctDNA detectability was 0% and 64%, respectively, and detectability was associated with extracranial disease volume. Undetectable ctDNA on-therapy was associated with extracranial response but not intracranial response. The median overall survival in patients with undetectable (n = 34) versus detectable (n = 38) ctDNA at baseline was 39.2 versus 10.6 months and on-therapy was 39.2 versus 9.2 months. 

CONCLUSIONS: ctDNA remains a strong prognostic biomarker in melanoma patients with brain metastases, especially in patients with concurrent extracranial disease. However, ctDNA was not able to detect or monitor intracranial disease activity, and we recommend against using ctDNA as a sole test during surveillance and therapeutic monitoring in patients with melanoma.

In this study of 72 patients, circulating tumor DNA was a useful biomarker in patients who had melanoma in both their body and brain.  The ability to monitor the status of patients with melanoma ONLY in their brain was not found.  It should be noted that this is one study and there were only 13 patients in the "brain met only" arm.

Circulating Tumor DNA Predicts Outcome from First-, but not Second-line Treatment and Identifies Melanoma Patients Who May Benefit from Combination Immunotherapy.   Marsavela, Lee, Calapre, et al.  Clin Cancer Res.  2020 Nov.

Purpose: We evaluated the predictive value of pretreatment ctDNA to inform therapeutic outcomes in patients with metastatic melanoma relative to type and line of treatment.

Experimental design: Plasma circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) was quantified in 125 samples collected from 110 patients prior to commencing treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), as first- (n = 32) or second-line (n = 27) regimens, or prior to commencing first-line BRAF/MEK inhibitor therapy (n = 66). An external validation cohort included 128 patients commencing ICI therapies in the first- (N = 77) or second-line (N = 51) settings.

Results: In the discovery cohort, low ctDNA (less than or equal to 20 copies/mL) prior to commencing therapy predicted longer progression-free survival (PFS) in patients treated with first-line ICIs, but not in the second-line setting. An independent cohort validated that ctDNA is predictive of PFS in the first-line setting, but not in the second-line ICI setting. Moreover, ctDNA prior to commencing ICI treatment was not predictive of PFS for patients pretreated with BRAF/MEK inhibitors in either the discovery or validation cohorts. Reduced PFS and overall survival were observed in patients with high ctDNA receiving anti-PD-1 monotherapy, relative to those treated with combination anti-CTLA-4/anti-PD-1 inhibitors.

Conclusions: Pretreatment ctDNA is a reliable indicator of patient outcome in the first-line ICI treatment setting, but not in the second-line ICI setting, especially in patients pretreated with BRAF/MEK inhibitors. Preliminary evidence indicated that treatment-naïve patients with high ctDNA may preferentially benefit from combined ICIs.

We already know that progression free survival and overall survival is better in those with the lowest tumor burden (no matter how you attain that information) and better in those who respond to treatment on the first go.  This study confirms that using ctDNA.  We don't fully understand why melanoma peeps respond less well on their second round of therapy and this report indicates that ctDNA is less useful in that setting as well - though they looked at small numbers here with 32 patients in the first line immunotherapy treatment cohort and only 27 peeps were using it for the second time.  There were 66 patients using targeted therapy for the first time.

Circulating tumour DNA and melanoma survival: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.  Gandini, Zanna, De Angelis, et al.  Crit Rev Oncol Hematol.  2020 Nov.

We reviewed and meta-analysed the available evidence (until December 2019) about circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) levels and melanoma patients survival. We included twenty-six studies (more than 2000 patients overall), which included mostly stage III-IV cutaneous melanoma patients and differed widely in terms of systemic therapy received and somatic mutations that were searched. Patients with detectable ctDNA before treatment had worse progression-free survival (PFS)  and overall survival (OS), with no difference by tumour stage. ctDNA detectability during follow-up was associated with poorer PFS and OS; in the latter case, the association was stronger for stage IV vs. III melanomas. Between-estimates heterogeneity was low for all pooled estimates. ctDNA is a strong prognostic biomarker for advanced-stage melanoma patients, robust across tumour (e.g. genomic profile) and patients (e.g. systemic therapy) characteristics.

Detectable ctDNA  before treatment correlated in a decreased progression free survival and overall survival for both Stage III and Stage IV peeps.  When ctDNA was detectable during follow-up after treatment, associated PFS and OS was worse, but the decreased OS was even more significant in Stage IV patients.

Circulating Tumour DNA in Advanced Melanoma Patients Ceasing PD1 Inhibition in the Absence of Disease Progression.  Warbutron, Calapre, Pereira, et al.  Cancers. 2020 Nov.

Immunotherapy is an important and established treatment option for patients with advanced melanoma. Initial anti-PD1 trials arbitrarily defined a two-year treatment duration, but a shorter treatment duration may be appropriate. In this study, we retrospectively assessed 70 patients who stopped anti-PD1 therapy in the absence of progressive disease (PD) to determine clinical outcomes. In our cohort, the median time on treatment was 11.8 months. Complete response was attained at time of anti-PD1 discontinuation in 61 (87%). After a median follow up of 34.2 months (range: 2-70.8) post discontinuation, 81% remained disease free. Using ddPCR, we determine the utility of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) to predict progressive disease after cessation (n = 38). There was a significant association between presence of ctDNA at cessation and disease progression and this conferred a negative and positive predictive value of 0.82 and 0.80, respectively. Additionally, dichotomised treatment-free survival in patients with or without ctDNA at cessation was significantly longer in the latter group. Overall, our study confirms that durable disease control can be achieved with cessation of therapy in the absence of disease progression and undetectable ctDNA at cessation was associated with longer treatment-free survival.

In this study, looking at melanoma patients who stopped immunotherapy after about a year, researchers found that disease progression was strongly associated with those who had detectable ctDNA when they stopped treatment.  Not a surprise.  SO - if you are thinking of stopping treatment due to side effects or a complete response per scans, getting ctDNA analyzed may be an important factor in that decision making process!

Stopping targeted therapy for complete responders in advanced BRAF mutant melanoma. Warbutron, Menjawy, Calapre, et al.  Sci Rep.  2020 Nov 2.

BRAF inhibitors revolutionised the management of melanoma patients and although resistance occurs, there is a subgroup of patients who maintain durable disease control. For those cases with durable complete response (CR) it is not clear whether it is safe to cease therapy. Here we identified 13 patients treated with BRAF +/- MEK inhibitors, who cease therapy after prolonged CR (median = 34 months, range 20-74). Recurrence was observed in 3/13 (23%) patients. In the remaining 10 patients with sustained CR off therapy, the median follow up after discontinuation was 19 months (range 8-36). We retrospectively measured ctDNA levels using droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) in longitudinal plasma samples. CtDNA levels were undetectable in 11/13 cases after cessation and remained undetectable in patients in CR (10/13). CtDNA eventually became detectable in 2/3 cases with disease recurrence, but remained undetectable in 1 patient with brain only progression. Our study suggests that consideration could be given to ceasing targeted therapy in the context of prolonged treatment, durable response and no evidence of residual disease as measured by ctDNA.

Same song, second verse in regard to two points here.  Folks going off targeted therapy did better if they had no detectable ctDNA.  And ctDNA was not detectable in one brain met only patient despite the obvious brain met.

We STILL have much to learn about melanoma and ctDNA.  However, it is CLEAR (after more than 7 years!!!) that analyzing ctDNA can be a helpful tool and should be routinely used in combination with other methods to monitor and evaluate melanoma patients - before and after therapy.  Thanks, ratties.  Demand the healthcare you deserve!!! - c

Circulating tumor DNA in melanoma - Yep. AGAIN!!!

If you've hung around this space for half a minute, you know that I've long been yelling about "liquid assays" (including ctDNA) that can diagnose, predict, and evaluate progression or response in melanoma patients.  Perhaps more importantly, despite the clear benefit of these tests, they remain pretty much unavailable to most melanoma patients.  Here are only a zillion reports: Melanoma and circulating tumor DNA

Now there are these:

Prediction and monitoring of relapse in stage III melanoma using circulating tumor DNA.  Tan, Sandhu, Lee, et al.  Ann Oncol.  2019 May 30.

The advent of effective adjuvant therapies for patients with resected melanoma has highlighted the need to stratify patients based on risk of relapse given the cost and toxicities associated with treatment. Here we assessed circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) to predict and monitor relapse in resected stage III melanoma.

Somatic mutations were identified in 99/133 (74%) patients through tumor tissue sequencing. Personalized droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) assays were used to detect known mutations in 315 prospectively collected plasma samples from mutation-positive patients. External validation was performed in a prospective independent cohort (n=29).

ctDNA was detected in 37 of 99 (37%) individuals. In 81 patients who did not receive adjuvant therapy, 90% of patients with ctDNA detected at baseline and 100% of patients with ctDNA detected at the postoperative time point relapsed at a median follow up of 20 months. ctDNA detection predicted patients at high risk of relapse at baseline and postoperatively. ctDNA detection at baseline and postoperatively was also associated with inferior distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS). These findings were validated in the independent cohort. ctDNA detection remained an independent predictor of RFS and DMFS in multivariate analyses after adjustment for disease stage and BRAF mutation status.  Baseline and postoperative ctDNA detection in two independent prospective cohorts identified stage III melanoma patients at highest risk of relapse and has potential to inform adjuvant therapy decisions.

Circulating tumor cells and early relapse in node-positive melanoma.  Lucci, Hall, Patel, et al.  Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Feb 3. There is a need for sensitive, reproducible biomarkers for stage III melanoma patients to guide clinical decision making. Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) can be detected in melanoma patients; however, there is limited data regarding their significance in stage III disease. The aim of this study was to determine if CTCs are associated with early relapse in stage III melanoma. We prospectively assessed CTCs at first presentation in clinic (baseline) for 243 stage III melanoma patients. CTCs were measured using the CellSearch System. Relapse-free survival (RFS) was compared between patients with one or more baseline CTC versus those with no CTCs. Log-rank test and Cox regression analysis were applied to establish associations of CTCs with RFS. At least one baseline CTC was identified in 90/243 (37%) patients. Forty-five (19%), 67 (28%), 118 (49%), and 13 (5%) patients were stage IIIA, IIIB, IIIC, or IIID, respectively. CTC detection was not associated with sub stage, or primary tumor characteristics. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that the detection of greater than/= to 1 baseline CTC was significantly associated with decreased 6 month RFS and 54 month RFS. Greater than/= to 1 CTC was independently associated with melanoma relapse, suggesting that CTC assessment may be useful to identify patients at risk for relapse who could derive benefit from adjuvant therapy.

Circulating tumour cells as tumour biomarkers in melanoma: detection methods and clinical relevance.  Khola, Lorigan, Dive, et al.  Ann Oncol.  2019 Dec 4.

Circulating tumour cells (CTCs) are cells of solid tumour origin detectable in the peripheral blood. Their occurrence is considered a prerequisite step for establishing distant metastases. Metastatic melanoma was the first malignancy in which CTCs were detected and numerous studies have been published on CTC detection in melanoma at various stages of disease. In spite of this, there is no general consensus as to the clinical utility of CTCs in melanoma, largely due to conflicting results from heterogeneous studies and discrepancies in methods of detection between studies. In this review, we examine the possible clinical significance of CTCs in cutaneous, mucosal and ocular melanoma, focusing on detection methods and prognostic value of CTC detection.

Despite very convincing data and a desperate need in the patient population these tests remain unavailable to the average patient.  Will the desire of firms to make a buck, make a difference?

This report from CNBC tech, 2/2020 :  These start-ups are racing to help doctors detect cancer early with a simple blood test

Which states, in part:  "Getting a blood test to screen for cancer in the earliest stages might seem like a pipe dream. But a group of biotech entrepreneurs say they’re close to making it a reality. If Gabriel Otte’s start-up, Freenome, is successful, millions of people could get a blood test to screen for early-stage colorectal cancer. Freenome looks for two major biomarkers in the blood. It’s simultaneously hunting for tiny fragments of DNA that are shed into the bloodstream from a tumor, as well as early signals that the patient’s immune system is starting to respond.  The medical industry has known for years that that blood-based “liquid biopsies” can find signatures of cancer. But the tests on the market today focus on monitoring the progression of the disease once a patient has been diagnosed with cancer, including how it’s responding to treatment.  The next generation of companies want to detect cancer while it’s early and often easier to treat."

We know these tests work.  We know they could provide a great deal of helpful information for melanoma patients facing hard choices.  It is past time that they be made available.  For what it's worth. ~ c

B cells within the tumor aid response in patients with melanoma, sarcoma, and renal cell carcinoma

Here's a link to a new report out of MD Anderson:  B-cell enrichment predictive of immunotherapy response in melanoma, sarcoma and kidney cancer

Which states, in part:

Studies published today in Nature conclude that enrichment of B cells, a type of immune cell known for producing antibodies, in TLS was predictive of response to checkpoint blockade in patients with melanoma, soft-tissue sarcomas, and renal cell carcinomas.

Checkpoint inhibitors offer the potential for long-term survival to patients across many cancer types, but not all benefit equally. Researchers previously have identified several useful biomarkers of response, which are helpful in identifying patients that may or may not benefit from checkpoint blockade.  The current studies conclude that the presence of B cells and their location within TLS, which act as a lymph node within the tumor, is critical for response to checkpoint blockade, suggesting a dynamic interaction between several components of the immune system.

Mature B cells in tumors of responders suggest active role in tumor immune response

An MD Anderson-led study found that B-cell markers were the most differentially expressed genes in responders relative to non-responders, and B cells in the tumors of responders appeared to be more mature and specialized. These findings were first presented at the 2019 American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting.  “These findings open up a whole new area ― that B cells are actually big drivers in cancer immunotherapy, specifically checkpoint blockade,” said corresponding author Jennifer Wargo, M.D... “This could lead us to important biomarkers for therapy response as well as potentially new therapeutic options.”

The team analyzed samples from patients with advanced melanoma receiving neoadjuvant, or pre-surgical, checkpoint inhibitors as part of a clinical trial sponsored by MD Anderson’s Melanoma Moon Shot...  The researchers also studied a group of patients with metastatic RCC being treated with neoadjuvant checkpoint blockade...   Tumor samples were collected from patients at baseline and during treatment ...

In each cohort, the expression of B cell-related genes was significantly higher in responders and was predictive of response to checkpoint blockade. These findings were further corroborated in an analysis of curated melanoma samples from The Cancer Genome Atlas, in which high expression of B-cell markers was associated with significantly improved overall survival.

“These data indicate the importance of cell types other than T cells, such as B cells, in the anti-tumor immune responses generated by immune checkpoint therapies,” said Sharma. “There is a great need to identify biomarkers of response to therapy, and these data may allow for future studies focused on developing composite biomarkers that represent both the T- and B-cell responses.”

The researchers determined that B cells were localized in the TLS, and the density of B cells and TLS in the tumor was higher in responders. Further analysis of these infiltrating B cells showed that those in responders expressed more markers of mature and differentiated B cells, such as memory B cells and plasma cells.

“Through these studies, we find that B cells are not just innocent bystanders, but are themselves contributing in a meaningful way to the anti-tumor immune response,” said first author Beth Helmink, M.D., Ph.D., fellow in Surgical Oncology.  [Red highlight = mine]  

So - news, but not news.  Meaning we've long known that there is a wide array of tumor markers and cells that determine response - whether these bits and bobs block the immune system and work to protect the tumor or facilitate immune response and try to do away with tumors in our body.  It isn't  surprising that B cells contribute to that as well.

Here are a zillion prior posts on such markers and cells, which begins with this from 2016:  Biomarkers - blood components, circulating tumor cells AND of the tumor itself Biomarkers. Sounds important. What are they? What can they really tell us?

We know that everything from floating bits of DNA in our blood stream, to antigens, to eosinophils, to the absolute number of monocytes and lymphocytes, to neutrophils, to t cells, to myeloid derived suppressor cells can help or hurt us in the fight to rid ourselves of melanoma and other cancers.  Speaking of MDSC - here's a bit of a definition:  MDSC; the Most Important Cell You Have Never Heard Of  However, if you are Jeff Weber or a reader of this blog - you have!!!

Here are a few reports on the mystery of the MDSC:  Markers for response to immunotherapy: Increased eosinophils = good. Increased Myeloid Suppressor cells = not so good. 

In fact, in looking at t-regs from the ratties in my study, from this report put out in 2014, My Nivo (Opdivo) trial - first dose - 4 years ago 12/29/2010 - thoughts... it was noted that: 

MDSC  (myeloid derived suppressor cells)
"There was a trend towards lower baseline MDSC levels in non-relapsing patients compared to relapsing patients."  This bit of stuff and such along with other Treg/Tcell data comes your way thanks to us ratties sitting through leukapheresis twice during the trial. However, this is a bit I'm pretty psyched about.  There is talk among melanoma big dogs that combining anti-PD1 with MDSC or T-reg depletion would make it more effective.  I think that holds real promise.  Though...once again...despite my blood and services having been rendered....I have no idea what my MDSC levels were.  Still...I think this could be a real boon to future patients.

So, YES!  Let's tweak our tumor battle field.  Let's boost the cells that help us and diminish those that don't.  I am confident that these tiny bits and bobs play a huge role in the lives of human ratties who respond to immunotherapy and those who don't.  And, yes, MD Anderson, I've written about your Moon Shot, too - in 2012 ~ Melanoma. Moon Shot. Curiosity. Will.i.am. The best 5th grade teacher in the world.

C'mon Man!!!  It's 2020!!  While great strides have been made, we've got a long way to go!  So let's get there! - c

Circulating DNA (ctDNA) Yes, again! A noninvasive method of diagnosing and monitoring melanoma patients

Yep.  Another thing I have been yelling about for years.  Circulating tumor DNA.  Something we can measure in the blood of melanoma patients.  Here are zillions of reports:  Important stuff floating in our blood - tumor DNA, micro RNA, cytokines - can determine tumor burden, predict response, and side effects for melanoma patients!!!  Now, there's this:

ctDNA as a noninvasive monitoring tool in metastatic melanoma.  2019 ASCO.  Varaljai, Wistuba-Hamprecht, Seremet, et al.  J Clin Oncology 37, 2019.

Background: The field of liquid biopsy provides a promising alternative to standard tissue biopsies. Previous work has shown that plasma circulating cell-free DNA (ctDNA) can reflect the heterogeneous spectrum of mutations in cancer including metastatic melanoma. Our project aimed to establish and statistically validate plasma-based assays for tumour load and therapy monitoring in melanoma. Methods: On a large cohort of stage III and stage IV melanoma patients (N = 96) who received signalling targeted or immune checkpoint inhibitors we showed that the most common oncogenic drivers of this disease such as the BRAFV600E, NRASQ61 and the TERTC250T and TERTC228T promoter mutations (termed TERTprom) can be analysed in ctDNA with highly sensitive droplet digital PCR technology (detection of mutant ctDNA down to 0.01% analytical sensitivity). Results: Our research has demonstrated that ctDNA (irrespective of the genotype) significantly correlates with tumour stage. Using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analyses thresholds were established for risk stratification and response prediction. Elevated ctDNA at baseline was a significant predictor of disease progression compared to elevated LDH or S100 in multivariable cox proportional hazards model. During therapy, patients with low ctDNA load (below the ROC threshold) had significantly better radiological outcomes and prolonged progression free survival (PFS) compared to patients with high ctDNA load. Our findings were confirmed on an independent cohort of metastatic melanoma patients (N = 35) treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors, where also during therapy low ctDNA load correlated with prolonged PFS. An added benefit of ctDNA was demonstrated in about 80% of the patients, where ctDNA analyses preceded the radiological diagnosis of response or relapse. Progression was detected in plasma ctDNA in average 3.5 months earlier as compared to routine imaging techniques. Finally, we demonstrated that the occurrence of NRASQ61 mutation in BRAFV600-inhibitor treated patients at therapy baseline was associated with treatment failure. The sub-clonal NRASQ61 mutation at therapy baseline was an independent predictor of shorter PFS as compared to BRAFV600E patients without the NRASQ61 mutation at therapy baseline. Conclusions: In sum, our results support the value of ctDNA as a sensitive biomarker for real-time therapy monitoring and early detection of disease progression.

It works!  Doesn't require surgical biopsy.  Shows results months sooner than radiological imaging techniques and doesn't expose the patient to radiation.  What are we waiting on??????

There is also, this:

Circulating Cell-Free DNA-Diagnostic and Prognostic Applications in Personalized Cancer Therapy.  Oellerich, Schutz, Beck, Walson.  Ther Drug Monit. 2019 Apr.

Genomic analyses in oncologic care allow for the development of more precise clinical laboratory tests that will be critical for personalized pharmacotherapy. Traditional biopsy-based approaches are limited by the availability of sequential tissue specimens to detect resistance. Blood-based genomic profiling ("liquid biopsy") is useful for longitudinal monitoring of tumor genomes and can complement biopsies. Tumor-associated mutations can be identified in cell-free tumor DNA (ctDNA) from patient blood samples and used for monitoring disease activity. The US Food and Drug Administration approved a liquid biopsy test for EGFR-activating mutations in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer as a companion diagnostic for therapy selection. ctDNA also allows for the identification of mutations selected by treatment such as EGFR T790M in non-small-cell lung cancer. ctDNA can also detect mutations such as KRAS G12V in colorectal cancer and BRAF V600E/V600K in melanoma. Chromosomal aberration pattern analysis by low-coverage whole genome sequencing is a new, broader approach. Genomic imbalances detected in cell-free DNA (cfDNA) can be used to compute a copy number instability (CNI) score. In clinical studies, it was demonstrated that the change in CNI score can serve as an early predictor of therapeutic response to chemotherapy/immunotherapy of many cancer types. In multivariable models, it could be shown that the CNI score was superior to clinical parameters for prediction of overall survival in patients with head and neck cancer. There is emerging evidence for the clinical validity of ctDNA testing regarding identification of candidates for targeted therapies, prediction of therapeutic response, early detection of recurrence, resistance mutation detection, measuring genetic heterogeneity, tumor burden monitoring, and risk stratification. Improvement of sensitivity to detect tumors at very early stages is difficult due to insufficient mutant DNA fraction of less than/= to 0.01%. Further developments will include validation in prospective multicenter interventional outcome studies and the development of digital platforms to integrate diagnostic data.

The technology exists to make this simple test available - impacting melanoma patients in lots of ways!  Let's make it so!!!

And, yes.  There is still beauty -

 - despite the storm.  ~ les

Ditzels!!! Ancillary findings on routine melanoma scans!

Yep.  Ditzels are a thing!!  Incidentals found during routine radiologic studies.  I've found gall stones, sparkly doo dads in my thyroid, and uterine fibroids...all of which were doing me NO HARM...in the process of years of scans and surveys to follow my melanoma.  Alternatively, a routine chest x-ray in 2010 (of all simple things) revealed a lesion within the right main bronchus of my lung that no one could believe was melanoma for months - until it was finally biopsied via a bronchoscopy.  Then there's the funny looking, "probably mucoid", appendix that showed up on my final melanoma scans in August that turned out to be ex-goblet cell carcinoma (GCC)!!!!  And I am not alone...

False-Positive Results and Incidental Findings with Annual CT or PET/CT Surveillance in Asymptomatic Patients with Resected Stage III Melanoma.  Nijhuis, Dieng, Khanna, et al.  Ann Surg Oncol. 2019 Mar 25. 

The aim of this study was to quantify false-positive and incidental findings from annual surveillance imaging in asymptomatic, American Joint Committee on Cancer stage III melanoma patients.

This was a cohort study of patients treated at Melanoma Institute Australia (2000-2015) with baseline computed tomography (CT) or positron emission tomography (PET)/CT imaging and at least two annual surveillance scans. False-positives were defined as findings suspicious for melanoma recurrence that were not melanoma, confirmed by histopathology, subsequent imaging, or clinical follow-up, while incidental findings were defined as non-melanoma-related findings requiring further action. Outcomes of incidental findings were classified as 'benign' if they resolved spontaneously or were not seriously harmful; 'malignant' if a second malignancy was identified; or 'other' if potentially harmful.

Among 154 patients, 1022 scans were performed (154 baseline staging, 868 surveillance) during a median follow-up of 85 months; 57 patients (37%) developed a recurrence. For baseline and surveillance imaging, 124 false-positive results and incidental findings were identified in 81 patients (53%). The frequency of these findings was 5-14% per year, and an additional 181 tests, procedures, and referrals were initiated to investigate these findings. The diagnosis was benign in 109 findings of 124 findings (88%). Fifteen patients with a benign finding underwent an unnecessary invasive procedure. Surveillance imaging identified distant metastases in 20 patients (13%).

False-positive results and incidental findings occur in at least half of all patients undergoing annual surveillance imaging, and the additional healthcare use is substantial. These findings persist over time. Clinicians need to be aware of these risks and discuss them with patients, alongside the expected benefits of surveillance imaging.

So, yeah.  Right now, with imaging being the preferred method of follow-up for melanoma peeps, at least half of us will experience findings that will have to be investigated (to some extent) that will NOT be melanoma!  DO NOT FREAK OUT!!!  Unfortunately, this is to be expected.  Still, we must be diligent and pursue needed answers when weird things show up.  All the more reason for putting blood assays that test for melanoma specifically and tangentially into practice sooner rather than later!!!  Here's the latest on that front (with a zillion links within) posted just last month:  Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA)  

Hang tough melanoma peeps!  Ours is not an easy path.  But, it is one that we can not only walk down, but run through!!! - c

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) as a way to predict survival in Stage III melanoma patients

If you have Stage III melanoma, trying to determine whether or not to embark on adjuvant treatment (treatment taken after all obvious melanoma has been removed) via either immunotherapy or targeted therapy is - at best - difficult!!!  Will such treatment really help?  Well, the data strongly supports - YES!!!  Here are a zillion such articles!  But, we also know that some folks can remain Stage III for years and years with no advancement of their disease.  Is the very real possibility of significant life changing side effects worth it?  Wouldn't it be great if you could do a simple blood test to see if you fall among the folks who are Stage III AND at increased risk for progression if you do not attain treatment?

Well!  Before we get to that, remember all my rants about simple blood tests that can tell us soooooooo much about our melanoma status?  Here are a few zillion of those - looking at circulating tumor DNA (little bits of tumor, floating around in our blood) in particular:  The many ways measuring circulating tumor DNA can help melanoma patients  Basically, that link takes you to tons and tons of data, with some of my explanations, about what measuring circulating bits of tumor via a simple blood draw can do to impact melanoma patients and their treatment choices.  I note: "There are many blood markers, all much easier to collect that actual tumor samples, that can be used to diagnosis melanoma, determine tumor type, prognosis and response to therapy." 

Here's the latest:

Pre-operative ctDNA predicts survival in high-risk stage III cutaneous melanoma patients.  Lee, Saw, Thompson, et al. Ann Oncol. 2019 Mar 12. 

The outcomes of patients with stage III cutaneous melanoma who undergo complete surgical resection can be highly variable, and estimation of individual risk of disease relapse and mortality remains imprecise. With recent demonstrations of effective adjuvant targeted and immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, more precise stratification of patients for costly and potentially toxic adjuvant therapy is needed. We report the utility of pre-operative circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) in patients with high-risk stage III melanoma.

ctDNA was analysed in blood specimens that were collected pre-operatively from 174 patients with stage III melanoma undergoing complete lymph node dissection. Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate the prognostic significance of ctDNA for distant metastasis recurrence free survival (DM-RFS) and melanoma specific survival (MSS).

The detection of ctDNA in the discovery and validation cohort was 34% and 33% respectively, and was associated with larger nodal melanoma deposit, higher number of melanoma involved LNs, more advanced stage and high lactose dehydrogenase (LDH) levels. Detectable ctDNA was significantly associated with worse MSS in the discovery and validation cohort and remained significant in a multivariable analysis. ctDNA further sub-stratified patients with AJCC stage III substage, with increasing significance observed in more advanced stage melanoma.

Pre-operative ctDNA predicts MSS in high-risk stage III melanoma patients undergoing complete LN dissection, independent of stage III subclass. This biomarker may have an important role in prognosis and stratifying patients for adjuvant treatment.

So ~ in this study researchers looked at one group of Stage III melanoma patients to see how many of them would have circulating tumor DNA present in their blood sample.  Then they took another group to determine the presence of ctDNA and its correlation to other risk factors and melanoma outcomes.  They determined that the presence of circulating bits of tumor in the blood was consistent across both groups at about 34%.  They found that ctDNA in the Stage III melanoma patient's blood was associated with those who had larger amounts of tumor in melanoma positive lymph nodes, a greater number of lymph nodes affected, advanced stage, and increased LDH levels.  In the end, when they looked at all the variables, ctDNA was significantly associated with melanoma specific survival.

Is the presence of ctDNA the end all, be all?  Of course not!  BUT!!!  If you knew where you stood in regard to bits of tumor floating in your blood - or NOT!! - then that could be critical in making a decision about whether or not to proceed with adjuvant treatment.  Further, if I were a Stage IIIb patient today, as I was back in 2003, and found I did NOT have measurable ctDNA, I might be comfortable in postponing adjuvant treatment.  HOWEVER, I would request serial blood draws to determine if that status changed over time, with the understanding that should ctDNA show up in my blood I would begin adjuvant therapy ASAP!  I believe (given all the data I've reviewed) that evaluating patients for ctDNA is a much more sensitive and sensible way to follow Stage III peeps for progression than repeated radiographic scans and (hopefully!!!) will be the wave of the future. 

So...what are we waiting for???????????  Lives are at stake!  Let's make measuring ctDNA a routine, accepted method of evaluating melanoma patients - TODAY!!!! ~  c

Important stuff floating in our blood - tumor DNA, micro RNA, cytokines - can determine tumor burden, predict response, and side effects for melanoma patients!!!

Continuing from yesterday.....  Our blood is a fairly accessible information rich soup that can tell us all sorts of things about our bodies!!!  One important ingredient for melanoma patients is circulating tumor DNA.  Here's a load of prior reports: Circulating tumor DNA - to determine diagnosis, disease burden, response to therapy, etc  Here are a couple more reports:

Correlation between circulating tumour DNA and metabolic tumour burden in metastatic melanoma patients.  McEvoy, Warburton, Al-Ogaili, et al. BMC Cancer. 2018 Jul 9.

Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) may serve as a measure of tumour burden and a useful tool for non-invasive monitoring of cancer. However, ctDNA is not always detectable in patients at time of diagnosis of metastatic disease. Therefore, there is a need to understand the correlation between ctDNA levels and the patients' overall metabolic tumour burden (MTB).  Thirty-two treatment naïve metastatic melanoma patients were included in the study. MTB and metabolic tumour volume (MTV) was measured by 18F-fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG PET/CT). Plasma ctDNA was quantified using droplet digital PCR (ddPCR).  CtDNA was detected in 23 of 32 patients. Overall, a significant correlation was observed between ctDNA levels and MTB. CtDNA was not detectable in patients with an MTB of greater than/= to 10, defining this value as the lower limit of tumour burden that can be detected through ctDNA analysis by ddPCR.  We showed that ctDNA levels measured by ddPCR correlate with MTB in treatment naïve metastatic melanoma patients and observed a limit in tumour size for which ctDNA cannot be detected in blood. Nevertheless, our findings support the use of ctDNA as a non-invasive complementary modality to functional imaging for monitoring tumour burden.

From validity to clinical utility: the influence of circulating tumor DNA on melanoma patient management in a real-world setting. Rose, Luber, Makell, et al. Mol Oncol. 2018 Aug 16.

Melanoma currently lacks a reliable blood-based biomarker of disease activity, although circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) may fill this role. We investigated the clinical utility (i.e., impact on clinical outcomes and interpretation of radiographic data) of measuring ctDNA in patients with metastatic or high-risk resected melanoma. Patients were prospectively accrued into greater than/= to 1 of 3 cohorts, as follows. Cohort A: patients with radiographically-measurable metastatic melanoma who underwent comparison of ctDNA measured by a BEAMing digital PCR assay to tissue mutational status and total tumor burden; when appropriate, determinations about initiation of targeted therapy were based on ctDNA data. Cohorts B and C: patients with BRAF- or NRAS-mutant melanoma who had either undergone surgical resection of high-risk disease (cohort B) or were receiving or had received medical therapy for advanced disease (cohort C). Patients were followed longitudinally with serial ctDNA measurements with contemporaneous radiographic imaging to ascertain times to detection of disease activity and progressive disease, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the ctDNA assay was 86.8% and 100%, respectively. Higher tumor burden and visceral metastases were found to be associated with detectable ctDNA. In 2 patients in cohort A, ctDNA test results revealed a targetable mutation where tumor testing had not; both patients experienced a partial response to targeted therapy. In 4 of 30 patients with advanced melanoma, ctDNA assessments indicated evidence of melanoma activity that predicted radiographic evidence of disease progression by 8, 14, 25 and 38 weeks, respectively. CtDNA was detectable in 3 of these 4 patients coincident with radiographic evaluations that alone were interpreted as showing no evidence of neoplastic disease. Our findings provide evidence for the clinical utility of integrating ctDNA data in managing patients with melanoma in a real-world setting.

Among the many bio-markers present in our blood, there's also circulating RNA.   Prior reports:  RNA and biomarkers generally  Now, this:

Extracellular microvesicle microRNAs as predictive biomarkers for targeted therapy in metastastic cutaneous malignant melanoma.  Svedman, Loncharoenkal, Bottaj, et al. PLoS One. 2018 Nov.

Mitogen activated-protein kinase pathway inhibitors (MAPKis) improve treatment outcome in patients with disseminated BRAFV600 mutant cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM) but responses are of limited duration due to emerging resistance. Although extensive research in mechanisms of resistance is being performed, predictive biomarkers for durable responses are still lacking. We used miRNA qPCR to investigate if different levels of extracellular microvesicle microRNA (EV miRNA) in matched plasma samples collected from patients with metastatic IV BRAFV600 mutated CMM before, during and after therapy with MAPKis could serve as predictive biomarkers.  EV miRNAs were extracted from plasma samples from 28 patients collected before and during therapy, measured by quantitative PCR-array and correlated to therapy outcome. Increased levels of EV let-7g-5p during treatment compared to before treatment were associated with better disease control with MAPKis. Elevated levels of EV miR-497-5p during therapy were associated with prolonged progression free survival (PFS).  EV miRNAs let-7g-5p and miR-497-5p were identified as putative novel predictive biomarkers of MAPKi treatment benefit in metastatic CMM patients highlighting the potential relevance of assessing EV miRNA during and after treatment to unravel novel mechanisms of resistance.

Circulating cytokines are substances like interleukin, interferon, and growth factors, that cells in our immune system secrete in order to affect other cells. Here's a report for a little background:  Eosinophilia with Nivo and Pembro - A predictor of success?!!
Here they are being examined as predictors of toxicity to immunotherapy:

Circulating cytokines predict immune-related toxicity in melanoma patients receiving anti-PD-1-based immunotherapy. Lim, Lee, Gide, et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2018 Nov 8.  

Combination PD-1 and CTLA-4 inhibitor therapy has dramatically improved the survival of patients with advanced melanoma but is also associated with significant immune-related toxicities. This study sought to identify circulating cytokine biomarkers of treatment response and immune-related toxicity.  The expression of 65 cytokines was profiled longitudinally in 98 melanoma patients treated with PD-1 inhibitors, alone or in combination with anti-CTLA-4, and in an independent validation cohort of 49 patients treated with combination anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4. Cytokine expression was correlated with RECIST response and immune-related toxicity, defined as toxicity that warranted permanent discontinuation of treatment and administration of high dose steroids.

Eleven cytokines were significantly upregulated in patients with severe immune-related toxicities at baseline and early during treatment. The expression of these eleven cytokines was integrated into a single toxicity score, the CYTOX score, and the predictive utility of this score was confirmed in the discovery and validation cohorts. 

The CYTOX score is predictive of severe immune-related toxicity in melanoma patients treated with combination anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 immunotherapy. This score, which includes pro-inflammatory cytokines such as IL-1a, IL-2 and IFNa2, may help in the early management of severe, potentially life-threatening immune-related toxicity.

Hoping for much more consistency and use of these relatively simple tests in order to reap better treatment outcomes for melanoma patients in 2019!!! - c