Surgery After Systemic Treatment for Melanoma

 In this time of neo-adjuvant treatment for melanoma, two concepts are at odds with previous melanoma treatment plans.  

1.  The response to therapy may be better by actually leaving the tumor in place.  

2.  The premise that by waiting on surgery, the treatment may decrease the size of the lesion (and thereby diminish the size/damage from said surgery) or perhaps evaporate the lesion altogether so that surgery is not needed at all.  The impact of these new aspects of melanoma treatments makes decisions about surgery for melanoma even more complicated.  Here are zillions of reports about neoadjuvant treatment:  Neo-Adjuvant treatment for melanoma  That said - there are plenty of good reasons to have surgery to remove your melanoma lesions.  We know that, neo-adjuvant care aside, folks with the lowest tumor burden respond better.  We know that sometimes, one lesion remains persistently present even if all other lesions resolve.  Some patients will become NED after systemic treatment but later develop a lesion.  There are folks who haven't responded well to systemic therapy may need radiation and surgery to tackle their lesions.  The varied reasons for needing surgery are just as mixed as melanoma can be itself.  Still, there is a significant body of evidence indicating the benefit of the adage - "When in doubt, cut it out!" 

There is this from 2019 ~ Cut it out!!! Prolonged overall survival following metastasectomy in Stage IV melanoma

And this from 2020 ~ Surgical removal of melanoma lesions -

That said, there are these reports on varied circumstances that looked at surgery and melanoma patients:

Re-defining the role of surgery in the management of patients with oligometastatic stage IV melanoma in the era of effective systemic therapies.  Ch’ng, Uyulmaz, Carlino,…Long, Menzies.  Eur J Cancer.  Aug  2021.

Although previously the mainstay of treatment, the role of surgery in the management of patients with oligometastatic stage IV melanoma has changed with the advent of effective systemic therapies (most notably immunotherapy). Contemporary treatment options for patients with asymptomatic solitary or oligo-metastases include upfront surgery followed by adjuvant immunotherapy or upfront immunotherapy with salvage surgery as required. For suspected solitary or oligo-metastases, surgery serves both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Advances in radiological technology allow metastases to be detected earlier and surgery to be less morbid. Surgical morbidities are generally more tolerable than serious immune-related adverse effects, but surgery may be less effective. Upfront immunotherapy ensures that futile surgery is not offered for rapidly progressive disease. It also provides an opportunity to assess response to treatment, which predicts outcome, and may obviate the need for surgery. However, it is important not to miss a window of opportunity for surgical intervention, whereby if disease progresses on immunotherapy it becomes unresectable. In situations where local therapy is recommended but surgery is not desired, stereotactic radiosurgery may be an effective alternative. The decision-making process regarding upfront surgery versus immunotherapy needs to take place within a specialist melanoma multidisciplinary setting and be customized to individual patient and tumor factors. Ultimately, high-level clinical trial evidence is required to resolve uncertainties in the management of patients with oligometastatic stage IV melanoma but the complexity of the varying presentations may make trial design challenging.

Survival Outcomes of Salvage Metastasectomy After Failure of Modern-Era Systemic Therapy for Melanoma.  Li, Vakharia, Lo, et al.  Ann Surg Oncol.  Aug 2021.

Background: Metastasectomy for selected patients with melanoma was associated with improved survival in the era before effective systemic therapy. Emerging evidence shows that these benefits persist even in this era of BRAF-targeted therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of salvage metastasectomy after failure of systemic therapy.

Methods: Stage 3 or 4 melanoma patients with extracranial disease progression after at least 4 weeks of systemic treatment between 2009 and 2020 were identified and categorized as resected to no evidence of disease (NED), non-progressive residual disease (NPRD), or progressive residual disease (PRD). Systemic therapy was stratified into BRAF-targeted therapy, immune checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy, or both. The end points of overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and locoregional disease control (LRC) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves. Uni- and multivariable Cox regression procedures were used to examine factors associated with OS, PFS and LRC.

Results: The study enrolled 190 patients. Among all the patients, the 5-year OS from metastatectomy was 52%, the 3-year PFS was 21%, and the 5-year LRC was 61%. After resection to NED, NPRD, and PRD, the 5-year OS values were 69%, 62% and 8%, respectively. Fewer lines of preoperative therapy, use of preoperative immunotherapy, and resection to NED were predictors of improved OS. After resection to NED, NPRD, and PRD, the 3-year PFS values were 23%, 24% and 10%, and the 5-year LRC values were 61%, 72% and 34%, respectively.

Conclusions: Salvage metastasectomy was associated with durable survival and disease control, particularly after resection to NED, preoperative immunotherapy, and fewer lines of preoperative systemic therapy

The role of local therapy in the treatment of solitary melanoma progression on immune checkpoint inhibition: A multicentre retrospective analysis.  Versluis, Hendriks , Weppler, et al..  Eur J Cancer. 2021 Jul.

Introduction: In patients with metastatic melanoma, progression of a single tumour lesion (solitary progression) after response to immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) is increasingly treated with local therapy. We evaluated the role of local therapy for solitary progression in melanoma.

Patients and methods: Patients with metastatic melanoma treated with ICI between 2010 and 2019 with solitary progression as first progressive event were included from 17 centres in 9 countries. Follow-up and survival are reported from ICI initiation.

Results: We identified 294 patients with solitary progression after stable disease in 15%, partial response in 55% and complete response in 30%. The median follow-up was 43 months; the median time to solitary progression was 13 months, and the median time to subsequent progression after treatment of solitary progression (TTSP) was 33 months. The estimated 3-year overall survival (OS) was 79%; median OS was not reached. Treatment consisted of systemic therapy (18%), local therapy (36%), both combined (42%) or active surveillance (4%). In 44% of patients treated for solitary progression, no subsequent progression occurred. For solitary progression during ICI (n = 143), the median TTSP was 29 months. Both TTSP and OS were similar for local therapy, ICI continuation and both combined. For solitary progression post ICI (n = 151), the median TTSP was 35 months. TTSP was higher for ICI recommencement plus local therapy than local therapy or ICI recommencement alone, without OS differences.

Conclusion: Almost half of patients with melanoma treated for solitary progression after initial response to ICI had no subsequent progression. This study suggests that local therapy can benefit patients and is associated with favourable long-term outcomes.

For what it's worth!!  Hang tough.  Melanoma is never easy, but there is hope. - c

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

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

Currently, that means I am ~

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

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

Then there's this:

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

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

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

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

Exposures: Receipt of immunotherapy or other anticancer agents.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next up -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

best - c

Neo-adjuvant care for melanoma patients with BRAFi or immunotherapy continues to show good results!

As I mentioned in regard to adjuvant therapy in melanoma a couple of posts ago - initially, CLND (complete lymph node dissection - the removal of all lymph nodes in the area of a positive node) was recommended for melanoma patients.  Gradually, we learned that such a procedure merely increased the rate of complications like lymphedema, but did NOT extend overall survival in patients.  (Review the posts and articles that pop up when you enter 'CLND' in the search bubble at the top right if you want to check out tons of research that went into that decision over time.)  As the data was revealed, changes in the standard of care followed.  Today, SLND (sentinel lymph node dissection - the removal of only the node - occasionally 2 or 3 - that 'light up' nearest the initial lesion when the area is injected with radiographic material) is the recommended procedure.  Standard of care also recommends that these patients are then treated with adjuvant therapy (treatment provided once all gross evidence of tumor has been removed) utilizing either targeted or immunotherapy.  This standard of care, led to the approval of immunotherapy for adjuvant use in 2017 and for targeted therapy in 2018.  

That said - there is a "new" methodology in town!  NEO-adjuvant therapy ~ Therapy for melanoma patients with either targeted or immunotherapy when affected nodes are left IN PLACE!  I began reporting the data on this method in 2015. Find reports addressing it here:  Neoadjuvant treatment in melanoma 

Now, there's this:

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

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

The positive nature of this data is even making it to the lay press for medical advances.  This link takes you to - Melanoma breakthrough: New treatment saving lives - Published in Medical X-press today.

It seems data collected for over 6-plus years indicates that if you find yourself in the position of a Stage III melanoma patient, consideration of leaving any positive node(s) in place and availing yourself of treatment with either BRAFi or immunotherapy BEFORE that node is removed is one worth discussing with your oncologist. 

For what it's worth.  Perhaps a new way of looking at melanoma treatment, especially for Stage III patients, may be in the offing. - 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

Surgical removal of melanoma lesions -

With promising studies regarding "neoadjuvant" responses, deciding whether or not to opt for surgery before or after treatment is a bit more complicated.  Here's a link to Neoadjuvant Reports  

Here is a prior report on metastasectomy -  Surgical Removal of Melanoma   

Now, there's this:

Survival Outcomes After Metastasectomy in Melanoma Patients Categorized by Response to Checkpoint Blockade.  Bello, Panageas, Hollmann, et al.  Ann Surg Oncol.  2020 April 27.  

Introduction: Checkpoint inhibitors have improved outcomes in metastatic melanoma, with 4-year overall survival (OS) of 46% for anti-PD-1 alone or 53% in combination with anti-CTLA-4. However, the median progression free survival is 6.9 and 11.5 months, respectively. Many who progress have gone on to alternative treatments, including surgery, yet the outcome of patients selected for surgery after checkpoint blockade remains unclear.   Methods: Patients who were treated with checkpoint blockade from 2003 to 2017, followed by metastasectomy, were identified from a prospectively maintained institutional melanoma database. Response to immunotherapy was assessed at the time of surgery. Patients were categorized as having responding, isolated progressing, or multiple progressing lesions.   Results: Of the 237 total patients identified, 208 (88%) had stage IV disease, and 29 (12%) had unresectable stage III disease at the start of immunotherapy. Median OS following first resection was 21 months. Median follow-up among survivors was 23 months. Complete resection at the first operation (n = 87, 37%) was associated with improved survival compared with patients with incomplete resection (n = 150, 63%) [median OS not reached (NR) vs. 10.8 months, respectively]. Patients resected for an isolated progressing or responding tumor had a longer median survival compared with those with multiple progressing lesions (NR vs. 7.8 months).   Conclusions: Patients selected for surgical resection following checkpoint blockade have a relatively favorable survival, especially if they had a response to immunotherapy and undergo complete resection of isolated progressing or responding disease.  

And this -   

Metastasectomy for Melanoma Is Associated With Improved Overall Survival in Responders to Targeted Molecular or Immunotherapy.  Medina, Choi, Rodogiannis, et al.  J Surg Oncol.  2020 May 22.  

Background and objectives: Metastasectomy for melanoma provides durable disease control in carefully selected patients. Similarly, BRAF-targeted and immune checkpoint inhibition has improved median overall survival (OS) in metastatic patients. We hypothesized that there is an increasing role for metastasectomy in melanoma patients responding to these therapies.  Methods: Retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database identified 128 patients with stage IV melanoma who received targeted molecular and/or checkpoint inhibitors at an academic institution from 2006 to 2017. Records were reviewed to characterize clinicopathologic characteristics, response to treatment, and intent of surgery for those who underwent metastasectomy. OS was analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method.   Results: Median OS from stage IV diagnosis was 31.3 months. A total of 81 patients received checkpoint inhibitors, 11 received targeted inhibitors, and 36 received both. A total of 73 patients underwent metastasectomy. Indications for surgery included the intent to render disease-free (54%), palliation (34%), and diagnostic confirmation (11%). Responders to systemic therapy who underwent metastasectomy had improved OS compared to responders who did not (84.3 vs. 42.9 months).   Conclusions: Metastasectomy for melanoma is associated with improved OS in patients that respond to targeted molecular or immunotherapy. Resection should be strongly considered in this cohort as multimodality treatment results in excellent OS.

Melanoma never makes things easy.  If I found myself in this position now, I would probably opt to start systemic therapy.  Follow-up fairly quickly with scans to see what is happening.  If the tumor is growing, surgically remove it, and complete systemic therapy.  If it is shrinking, watch while continuing therapy and remove the lesion surgically if systemic therapy cannot take care of it on its on. 

For what it's worth.  Hang tough, peeps.  - c

Melanoma treatment guidelines from Melanoma Big Dogs

As much as we've learned about melanoma, there remains much we do not know.  Yet, even with the limited available treatments, the stage and indications for use, what to do about side effects, what to do next, remains confusing for patients and oncologists alike.  To that end, I put together this primer a couple of years ago:  Melanoma Intel: A primer for current standard of care and treatment options  (Unfortunately, to date, it has required no up-dates other than the dosing schedule for nivo!)

There is also this post regarding adjuvant treatment, including data from a presentation made by Jeff Weber, MD (Melanoma Big Dog extraordinaire!): ADJUVANT therapy for melanoma!!!!!!!!!!!!!! State of the science....

And finally, also with the help of Weber's presentation, what may be coming in the way of immunotherapy and other treatments:  The future of immunotherapy and cancer - per Weber

 You can find more articles on most any particular treatment by entering the word in the search bubble to the top left if you are interested.  Now, as we head into ASCO 2020, Melanoma Big Dogs have put together guidelines for the use of systemic therapies in melanoma ~

Systemic Therapy for Melanoma: ASCO Guideline.  Seth, Messersmith ... Weber ... Agarwala, Ascierto ... Faries ... Sondak, et al.  J Clin Oncol. 2020 Mar 31.  To provide guidance to clinicians regarding the use of systemic therapy for melanoma, ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the literature. 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. 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. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/melanoma-guidelines.

Click on the link included to search for specifics from the guidelines.  Hang tough peeps.  We're getting there! - 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

NEO = Treatment with targeted or immunotherapy BEFORE tumor removal - wave of the future for melanoma?

In the past couple of years, research into the use of targeted and immunotherapies BEFORE the removal of melanoma lesions has been evaluated by researchers and are showing promise. Here are prior reports:  Neoadjuvant treatments for melanoma

Now, there are these:

Successful Treatment of Unresectable Advanced Melanoma by Administration of Nivolumab With Ipilimumab Before Primary Tumor Resection.  Fujimura, Kambayashi, Sato, et al.  Front Med (Lausanne). 2019 Jun 26.  

Ipilimumab, in combination with nivolumab, is one of the promising drugs that enhance the anti-tumor immune response of patients with advanced melanoma. Since the co-administration of nivolumab with ipilimumab in the neoadjuvant setting expands melanoma-reactive T cells at the primary site of melanoma and has a high rate of histological complete response, the pre-surgical administration of this combination could be the optimal therapy for unresectable advanced melanoma. In this report, a case of unresectable advanced melanoma treated successfully with administration of nivolumab with ipilimumab before primary tumor resection is presented. In addition, CD8+ T cells increased among the tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes that were surrounding melanoma cells and caspase 3+ cells. The present case suggests that pre-surgical administration of nivolumab with ipilimumab could be the optimal therapy for the treatment of unresectable advanced melanoma.

Neoadjuvant systemic therapy in melanoma: recommendations of the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium.  Amaris, Menzies, Burton ... Antdbacka ...Daud, Faries...Flaherty ...Hamid...Postow ...Sondak...Taube...Davies...Ascierto...Long, et al.  Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jul;20.

Advances in the treatment of metastatic melanoma have improved responses and survival. However, many patients continue to experience resistance or toxicity to treatment, highlighting a crucial need to identify biomarkers and understand mechanisms of response and toxicity. Neoadjuvant therapy for regional metastases might improve operability and clinical outcomes over upfront surgery and adjuvant therapy, and has become an established role for drug development and biomarker discovery in other cancers (including locally advanced breast cancer, head and neck squamous cell carcinomas, gastroesophageal cancer, and anal cancer). Patients with clinically detectable stage III melanoma are ideal candidates for neoadjuvant therapy, because they represent a high-risk patient population with poor outcomes when treated with upfront surgery alone. Neoadjuvant therapy is now an active area of research for melanoma with numerous completed and ongoing trials (since 2014) with disparate designs, endpoints, and analyses under investigation. We have, therefore, established the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium with experts in medical oncology, surgical oncology, pathology, radiation oncology, radiology, and translational research to develop recommendations for investigating neoadjuvant therapy in melanoma to align future trial designs and correlative analyses. Alignment and consistency of neoadjuvant trials will facilitate optimal data organisation for future regulatory review and strengthen translational research across the melanoma disease continuum.

Neoadjuvant dabrafenib combined with trametinib for resectable, stage IIIB-C, BRAF^V600mutation-positive melanoma (NeoCombi): a single-arm, open-label, single-centre, phase 2 trial. Long, Saw, Lo, et al.   Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jun 3.

Adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib therapy improves relapse-free survival in patients with resected stage III melanoma. We aimed to ascertain the proportion of patients who would have a pathological response and a response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) after neoadjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib therapy for resectable clinical stage III melanoma.

NeoCombi was a single-arm, open-label, single-centre, phase 2 study done at Melanoma Institute Australia (Sydney, NSW, Australia). Eligible patients were adults (aged greater than/ = to 18 years) with histologically confirmed, resectable, RECIST-measurable, clinical stage IIIB-C (American Joint Committee on Cancer [AJCC] 7th edition), BRAF^V600-mutant melanoma, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or lower. Patients received 150 mg dabrafenib orally, twice daily, plus 2 mg trametinib orally, once daily, for 52 weeks (12 weeks of neoadjuvant therapy before complete resection of the pre-therapy tumour bed, and 40 weeks of adjuvant therapy thereafter). CT and PET scans were done at baseline and before resection. The primary outcomes were the proportion of patients achieving a complete pathological response and the proportion of patients achieving a response according to RECIST at week 12, analysed as per protocol. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01972347, and follow-up of patients is ongoing.

Between Aug 20, 2014, and April 19, 2017, 40 patients were screened, of whom 35 eligible patients were enrolled, received neoadjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib, and underwent resection. At the data cutoff (Sept 24, 2018), median follow-up was 27 months (IQR 21-36). At resection, 30 (86%) patients achieved a RECIST response; 16 (46%) had a complete response and 14 (40%; 24-58) had a partial response. Five patients (14%) had stable disease, and no patients progressed. After resection and pathological evaluation, all 35 patients achieved a pathological response, of whom 17 (49%) patients had a complete pathological response and 18 (51%) had a non-complete pathological response. Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in six (17%) of 35 patients and grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in ten (29%) patients. No treatment-related deaths were reported.

Neoadjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib therapy could be considered in the management of RECIST-measurable resectable stage III melanoma as it led to a high proportion of patients achieving a complete response according to RECIST and a high proportion of patients achieving a complete pathological response, with no progression during neoadjuvant therapy.

Hang tough ratties.  You give us hope! - c