BRAF/MEK before surgery as well as after is MUCH better, than just AFTER surgery for melanoma!! Plus trial still recruiting resectable stage III/IV melanoma peeps.

We have long known that BRAF positive melanoma peeps can respond almost magically to BRAF inhibitors, and do even better, with fewer side effects and less tumor work-around, when those medications are combined with a MEK inhibitor.  However, we also know that far too often, despite the combo, tumors can still learn to rear their ugly heads after that initial response.  For that reason, BRAF/MEK inhibition is often used to lower tumor burden quickly, then start the patient on immunotherapy.  Lot's of studies are also looking at pairing this targeted therapy with immunotherapy and a host of other drugs that will boost the durability of these responses.  Here are a zillion BRAF inhibitor related posts:  More than you ever wanted to know about BRAF inhibitors/targeted therapy in melanoma

With all that being noted...the next great way to treat melanoma is through adjuvant care.  Meaning - after the patient is rendered "free of disease" (usually these are Stage III or IV patients whose tumors are removed surgically and/or treated with radiation, whose follow-up scans of the irradiated area show no viable tumor) they can then be treated with immunotherapy or targeted therapy to try to make sure that their melanoma does not come back.  This was the premise of the study arm I was in, taking nivo from 2010-2013.  We know adjuvant care, whether you use ipi, anti-PD-1, or BRAF/MEK, works for many in melanoma!!!  Here are a zillion posts on that:  Adjuvant treatments WORK in melanoma!!!

Now....with all that said...we are also learning about NEOadjuvant treatment.  This treatment is where you find out the patient has melanoma.  THEN you start them on their meds.  THEN you remove the tumor and continue the treatment.  Here are some reports on neoadjuvant studies looking at BRAFi as neoadjuvant, along with the the OpACIN trial which used ipi/nivo as neo-adjuvant for Stage III melanoma patients.  Note:  you will have to scroll through some of the posts as some of the NEO-adjuvants articles are interspersed. - Neoadjuvant studies in melanoma

Researcher Amaria (lead author of the article below), has figured largely in the published data for BRAF/MEK as neoadjuvant.  Now, there's this:

Neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib versus standard of care in patients with high-risk, surgically resectable melanoma: a single-centre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial. Amaria, Prieto, Tetzlaff, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2018 Jan 17.

Dual BRAF and MEK inhibition produces a response in a large number of patients with stage IV BRAF-mutant melanoma. The existing standard of care for patients with clinical stage III melanoma is upfront surgery and consideration for adjuvant therapy, which is insufficient to cure most patients. Neoadjuvant targeted therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors (such as dabrafenib and trametinib) might provide clinical benefit in this high-risk p opulation.

We undertook this single-centre, open-label, randomised phase 2 trial at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX, USA). Eligible participants were adult patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed surgically resectable clinical stage III or oligometastatic stage IV BRAFV600E or BRAFV600K (ie, Val600Glu or Val600Lys)-mutated melanoma. Eligible patients had to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, a life expectancy of more than 3 years, and no previous exposure to BRAF or MEK inhibitors. Exclusion criteria included metastases to bone, brain, or other sites where complete surgical excision was in doubt. We randomly assigned patients (1:2) to either upfront surgery and consideration for adjuvant therapy (standard of care group) or neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib (8 weeks of neoadjuvant oral dabrafenib 150 mg twice per day and oral trametinib 2 mg per day followed by surgery, then up to 44 weeks of adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib starting 1 week after surgery for a total of 52 weeks of treatment). Randomisation was not masked and was implemented by the clinical trial conduct website maintained by the trial centre. Patients were stratified by disease stage. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed event-free survival (ie, patients who were alive without disease progression) at 12 months in the intent-to-treat population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231775.

Between Oct 23, 2014, and April 13, 2016, we randomly assigned seven patients to standard of care, and 14 to neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib. The trial was stopped early after a prespecified interim safety analysis that occurred after a quarter of the participants had been accrued revealed significantly longer event-free survival with neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib than with standard of care. After a median follow-up of 18·6 months (IQR 14·6-23·1), significantly more patients receiving neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib were alive without disease progression than those receiving standard of care (ten [71%] of 14 patients vs none of seven in the standard of care group; median event-free survival was 19·7 months vs 2·9 months. Neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib were well tolerated with no occurrence of grade 4 adverse events or treatment-related deaths. The most common adverse events in the neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib group were expected grade 1-2 toxicities including chills (12 patients [92%]), headache (12 [92%]), and pyrexia (ten [77%]). The most common grade 3 adverse event was diarrhoea (two patients [15%]).

Neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib significantly improved event-free survival versus standard of care in patients with high-risk, surgically resectable, clinical stage III-IV melanoma. Although the trial finished early, limiting generalisability of the results, the findings provide proof-of-concept and support the rationale for further investigation of neoadjuvant approaches in this disease. This trial is currently continuing accrual as a single-arm study of neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib.

In this study of only 21 stage III/IV patients who had never taken BRAF/MEK, whose tumors were BRAF positive, and could be removed surgically, were divided in 2 groups. Folks with "metastases to bone, brain, or other sites where complete surgical excision was in doubt" were excluded.  7 got standard of care:  complete excision of their tumor and "consideration" of adjuvant therapy.  21 got the BRAF/MEK combo (dabrafenib and trametinib) BEFORE surgical removal of their lesion as well as AFTER!  Ten of the 14 treated with BRAF/MEK before and after excision were alive without disease progression "vs none of seven in the standard of care group".  These results were deemed so good that this phase of the trial was stopped and only the neoadjuvant/adjuvant arm is continuing, and in fact, recruiting.

This is great news.  However, I do see several flies in this report.
1.  You researchers left out some folks in serious need of care...folks with brain, bone and other mets that you didn't see as a winning ticket.  I've been one of those peeps and was given adjuvant care.  Those folks need neo-adjuvant/adjuvant care as much (or more!!!!) than anybody!!  Here's a small tirade on their being left out of clinical trials:  A really good review of treatment data for Melanoma Brain Mets!!! (And this is from 2015!!!!!!!!)
2.  These are really small numbers...in both arms.
3.  The fact that the 7 in the standard care arm were eligible for "consideration" of adjuvant care is pretty lame.  That language tells me that some chose to forego adjuvant care!!!  So OF COURSE!!! ~ those who had no additional care did less well!!!!  To provide greater clarity and benefit, the authors should have clearly defined the standard of care group in regard to whether they actually utilized BRAF/MEK after resection or not.
4.  Finally, I really don't care for the major drama, yet lack of real information, posed in this categorization of the 7 peeps in the standard of care group:  "more patients receiving neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib were alive without disease progression than those receiving standard of care (ten [71%] of 14 patients vs none of seven in the standard of care group".  At first blush it seems that all of the 7 are dead, along with the 4 out of the 14 in the neo/adjuvant group!!  Come on, Amaria!  You have better writing skills than this!  Some of these peeps may well have passed, but it is also possible that ALL these folks are alive, albeit with disease progression.  Clarification of that could easily have been included in this abstract and is hopefully made more clear in the actual published article.

Now...despite that critique...I am a huge fan of neoadjuvant treatment.  More and more, it is looking as though melanoma peeps treated in this way do better.  But, if nothing else, neoadjuvant treatment (treatment BEFORE surgical resection) provides decreased tumor bulk, therefore minimizing the invasiveness of the surgical resection.

You know me, Keep'n it💯!!!!!!!!!!  ~ les

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

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy vs Adjuvant immunotherapy

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 some prior posts - BRAF/MEK before surgery as well as after is MUCH better, than just AFTER surgery for melanoma!!

Now, there are these looking at immunotherapy as neoadjuvanat ~

Neoadjuvant immune checkpoint blockade in high-risk resectable melanoma.  Amaria, Reddy, Tawbi, Davies, et al.  Nat Med. 2018 Oct 8.

Preclinical studies suggest that treatment with neoadjuvant immune checkpoint blockade is associated with enhanced survival and antigen-specific T cell responses compared with adjuvant treatment; however, optimal regimens have not been defined. Here we report results from a randomized phase 2 study of neoadjuvant nivolumab versus combined ipilimumab with nivolumab in 23 patients with high-risk resectable melanoma ( NCT02519322 ). RECIST overall response rates (ORR), pathologic complete response rates (pCR), treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) and immune correlates of response were assessed. Treatment with combined ipilimumab and nivolumab yielded high response rates (RECIST ORR 73%, pCR 45%) but substantial toxicity (73% grade 3 trAEs), whereas treatment with nivolumab monotherapy yielded modest responses (ORR 25%, pCR 25%) and low toxicity (8% grade 3 trAEs). Immune correlates of response were identified, demonstrating higher lymphoid infiltrates in responders to both therapies and a more clonal and diverse T cell infiltrate in responders to nivolumab monotherapy. These results describe the feasibility of neoadjuvant immune checkpoint blockade in melanoma and emphasize the need for additional studies to optimize treatment regimens and to validate putative biomarkers.

Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab in macroscopic stage III melanoma. Blank, Rozeman, Fanchi, Sikorska, et al.  Nat Med. 2018 Oct 8.

Adjuvant ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4) and nivolumab (anti-PD-1) both improve relapse-free survival of stage III melanoma patients. In stage IV disease, the combination of ipilimumab + nivolumab is superior to ipilimumab alone and also appears to be more effective than nivolumab monotherapy. Preclinical work suggests that neoadjuvant application of checkpoint inhibitors may be superior to adjuvant therapy. To address this question and to test feasibility, 20 patients with palpable stage III melanoma were 1:1 randomized to receive ipilimumab 3 mg kg and nivolumab 1 mg kg, as either four courses after surgery (adjuvant arm) or two courses before surgery and two courses postsurgery (neoadjuvant arm). Neoadjuvant therapy was feasible, with all patients undergoing surgery at the preplanned time point. However in both arms, 9/10 patients experienced one or more grade 3/4 adverse events. Pathological responses were achieved in 7/9 (78%) patients treated in the neoadjuvant arm. None of these patients have relapsed so far (median follow-up, 25.6 months). We found that neoadjuvant ipilimumab + nivolumab expand more tumor-resident T cell clones than adjuvant application. While neoadjuvant therapy appears promising, with the current regimen it induced high toxicity rates; therefore, it needs further investigation to preserve efficacy but reduce toxicity.

It is pretty clear that no matter how or when you take it, the ipi/nivo combo does much better than ipi or nivo alone.  It is also clear that the side effects will be greater.  Not news.  However, the real news is still out there.  Do melanoma peeps FAIL to progress more often when given treatment, in this case immunotherapy, BEFORE rendering them NED or giving them the treatment while some of their disease remains in place????  Inquiring minds NEED to KNOW!!!

Hang tough ratties.  You teach us all. - 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

Neoadjuvant ipi/nivo as well as Neoadjuvant BRAF targeted therapy for unresectable melanoma lesions

Could neoadjuvant treatment (melanoma treatment administered BEFORE a lesion is surgically removed or radiated) be the way of future melanoma treatment???  Here's the data so far: Neoadjuvant reports related to melanoma

Now, there's this~

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 BRAF-targeted therapy in regionally advanced and oligometastatic melanoma.  Eroglu, Eatrides, Naqvi, et al. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. 2019 Jul 22. 

Current management of locoregional and oligometastatic melanoma is typically with surgery; however, some patients are unable to undergo resection due to location/size of their tumors and/or the anticipated morbidity of the surgery. While there are currently no established guidelines for neoadjuvant therapy in melanoma, neoadjuvant BRAF-targeted therapy may make resection more feasible.

A retrospective analysis was conducted of 23 patients with BRAFV600-mutant, stage III/IV melanoma treated with BRAF-targeted therapy prior to surgery, with no adjuvant treatment. Surgical specimens, preoperative imaging and clinical outcomes were evaluated.

Ten of 23 patients (44%) attained a pathologic complete response (pCR), with no correlation between RECIST-response based on preoperative imaging and pathologic response. After a median of 43 months follow-up, only 1 patient (10%) with a pCR recurred; while 8 of 13 (62%) patients without a pCR recurred. Patients with a pCR had significantly improved relapse-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to patients with residual tumor.

Neoadjuvant BRAF-targeted therapy is associated with a high pCR rate in patients with stage III-IV melanoma, which may correlate with improved RFS and OS. 

Overall, still early days, but neoadjuvant treatment may be very good news for many melanoma patients, especially those for whom surgery is not an option.  Hang tough ratties!!  ~ 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 2018 - Optimal sequencing of anti-PD-1 and BRAFi in Stage III patients

Okay.  One of the many zillion dollar questions in melanoma (for those who are BRAF positive) is:  "What treatment should I do first ~ BRAFi or immunotherapy?"  Right now [SPOILER ALERT!!!] we don't know, though the report below is trying to figure that out (at least for Stage III patients). And before I get to the report/ad for the study now enrolling:  Neoadjuvant Dabrafenib, Trametinib and/or Pembrolizumab in BRAF Mutant Resectable Stage III Melanoma (NeoTrio)  ...here's a little review on adjuvant vs NEOadjuvant treatment.

In adjuvant trials or treatments, like the one I participated in, the melanoma patient must have all of their "measureable" melanoma removed.  (Would that we really could have ALL of our melanoma removed!!!) In real terms this means that all positive nodes or lesions that are visible on scans are surgically removed.  Additionally, though it depends on the study, if one has brain tumors, patients can have them zapped and if, over a certain period of time (this varies study to study) they do not recur, and the area fails to light up on subsequent scans, the patient may join the adjuvant trial/treatment, at which time they are given the treatment du jour.

In NEOadjuvant treatments/studies, patients keep the lesions they have and start the treatment du jour.  Sometimes after a certain amount of therapy the lesions are then removed, if they have not evaporated with the treatment, sometimes not.

Here is a March 2018 report I put up:  BRAF/MEK before surgery as well as after is MUCH better, than just AFTER surgery for melanoma!! Plus trial still recruiting resectable stage III/IV melanoma peeps.  Clearly you can read the entire report and abstract for yourself, but this was my take:

In this study of only 21 stage III/IV patients who had never taken BRAF/MEK, whose tumors were BRAF positive, and could be removed surgically, were divided in 2 groups. Folks with "metastases to bone, brain, or other sites where complete surgical excision was in doubt" were excluded.  7 got standard of care:  complete excision of their tumor and "consideration" of adjuvant therapy.  21 got the BRAF/MEK combo (dabrafenib and trametinib) BEFORE surgical removal of their lesion as well as AFTER!  Ten of the 14 treated with BRAF/MEK before and after excision were alive without disease progression "vs none of seven in the standard of care group".  These results were deemed so good that this phase of the trial was stopped and only the neoadjuvant/adjuvant arm is continuing, and in fact, recruiting.

This is great news.  However, I do see several flies in this report.
1.  You researchers left out some folks in serious need of care...folks with brain, bone and other mets that you didn't see as a winning ticket.  I've been one of those peeps and was given adjuvant care.  Those folks need neo-adjuvant/adjuvant care as much (or more!!!!) than anybody!!  Here's a small tirade on their being left out of clinical trials:  A really good review of treatment data for Melanoma Brain Mets!!! (And this is from 2015!!!!!!!!)
2.  These are really small numbers...in both arms.
3.  The fact that the 7 in the standard care arm were eligible for "consideration" of adjuvant care is pretty lame.  That language tells me that some chose to forego adjuvant care!!!  So OF COURSE!!! ~ those who had no additional care did less well!!!!  To provide greater clarity and benefit, the authors should have clearly defined the standard of care group in regard to whether they actually utilized BRAF/MEK after resection or not.
4.  Finally, I really don't care for the major drama, yet lack of real information, posed in this categorization of the 7 peeps in the standard of care group:  "more patients receiving neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib were alive without disease progression than those receiving standard of care (ten [71%] of 14 patients vs none of seven in the standard of care group".  At first blush it seems that all of the 7 are dead, along with the 4 out of the 14 in the neo/adjuvant group!!  Come on, Amaria!  You have better writing skills than this!  Some of these peeps may well have passed, but it is also possible that ALL these folks are alive, albeit with disease progression.  Clarification of that could easily have been included in this abstract and is hopefully made more clear in the actual published article.

                                        ------------------------------------                                                                       

One more pertinent side note - Researchers have been working on seeing how things go for melanoma patients who are treated with immnotherapy (like anti-PD-1) COMBINED with targeted therapy (BRAF/MEK) for a while now.  Here are some reports:  ASCO 2017 (with links to the "whole she-bang") BRAFi and anti-PD1/PD-L1

Now, there's this:

Determining optimal sequencing of anti-PD-1 and BRAF-targeted therapy: A phase II randomised study of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab with/without dabrafenib and trametinib (D+T) in BRAF V600 mutant resectable stage IIIb/c/d melanoma (NeoTrio trial). Gonzalez, Menzies, Saw, ... Georgina V. Long. ASCO 2018. 

Background:  BRAF targeted and CTLA-4/PD-1 immunotherapies have high response rates and improve survival for patients (pts) with metastatic melanoma, however, most still die of this disease. It is hypothesised the activated cytotoxic T cell infiltrate that occurs early during treatment with BRAF/MEK inhibitors is potentiated by adding checkpoint inhibitors, resulting in improved response and survival. While trials combining BRAF/MEK inhibitors and anti-PD-1/L1 antibodies are underway in the metastatic setting, the neo-adjuvant (neo-adj) setting provides an opportunity to test different treatment schedules in small cohorts of pts. Tissue and blood biomarkers can be drawn at several timepoints and correlated to clinical and pathological endpoints to explore mechanisms of response, biomarkers of efficacy, and to select the best schedules to take forward to larger-scale trials.

Methods: Eligible pts with BRAF V600 mut, stage IIIB/C/D, resectable and measurable melanoma are evenly assigned to 3 cohorts (n = 60). All pts undergo complete macroscopic resection (RES) at wk 12 and receive neo-adj therapy for 12 wks preceding RES, followed by 40 wks of adjuvant (adj) therapy. Cohort 1 receive sequential therapy with D+T for 2 wks, then 4 pembrolizumab (pembro) doses until wk 12, and 3 wkly pembro after RES. Cohort 2 receive concurrent D+T and 3 wkly pembro before and after RES. Cohort 3 receive 3 wkly pembro for the entire treatment course. Pembro is given at a flat dose of 200mg. Ultrasound of known disease areas is undertaken during the neo-adj period. CT and FDG PET/CT are used to measure response and exclude progression in theneo-adj phase, and to monitor for recurrence during adj and post treatment phases. Blood and tumour samples are collected at baseline, wk 1, 4 and 12. The primary endpoint is the complete pathological response rate at RES following 12 wks of therapy. Secondary endpoints include RECIST response, metabolic response, OS, RFS, safety/tolerability, surgical outcomes, quality of life, and biomarker analysis. First patient enrolled 29Nov2017. Clinical trial information: NCT02858921

Best as I can tell they are going to take 60 Stage III patients with measureable disease, and put 20 into each of 3 groups.  The groups are treated as noted below, per ClinicalTrials.gov
Group 1 = 
  Sequential D + T, THEN Pembrolizumab
Dabrafenib 150mg orally twice a day + Trametinib 2mg orally once a day for 2 weeks, then followed by treatment with Pembrolizumab 2mg/kg delivered intravenously at weeks 2, 4, 6, and 9, then once every 3 weeks from week 12 for 50 weeks
Group 2 = 
 Concurrent D + T AND Pembrolizumab

Dabrafenib 150mg orally twice a day + Trametinib 2mg orally once a day + Pembrolizumab 200mg intravenously once every 3 weeks for 52 weeks

Group 3 = 
Pembrolizumab 200mg intravenously once every 3 weeks alone for 52 weeks.

It seems to me that they should have offered immunotherapy followed by BRAF/MEK in a Group 4, so there could be a complete answer, but I guess that's just me.  CT's and PET/CT's along with blood and tumor sample testing will be used to follow patients and determine results.

Important stuff.  Good luck, ratties.  And...thanks. - c

Straight Outta Boston!!! Latest melanoma research ~

From the recent Boston meeting of the Society for Melanoma Research:

 Preventing resistance by combining BRAF with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). 

High response rates with combined BRAF and autophagy inhibition: results of 2 phase I trials  Gangadhar, et al.

Autophagy is a resistance mechanism to BRAF inhibitors that can be targeted with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). We launched a Phase I trial of vemurafenib and HCQ in BRAFV600 melanoma patients. 7 patients in the 1st dose level (vemurafenib 960 po bid + HCQ 400 po bid) had 2 dose limiting toxicities ...  preventing further dose escalation. 6/6 patients evaluable for response had PR or CR. Prolonged PFS was seen in 1 CR (30+ mo) and 1 PR (20 mo).  Combined BRAF/MEK inhibition was adopted widely so this trial was closed, and a multi-institution phase I/II trial of dabrafenib (D), trametinib (T) and HCQ was opened. Phase I was completed with no DLT (n=7). Recommended phase II dose was HCQ 600 bid with D+T. Phase II enrollment continues. D+T+HCQ was well tolerated, with no evidence of visually significant ocular toxicity. Striking responses were observed: 6/7 patients responded and 5/6 patients had a CR. The only non-responder was found to have BRAFV600E amplification, and had pyrexia that required frequent dose interruptions. Only 1 of 6 responders has progressed (PFS for responders 7-19 months, ongoing, censored as of July 2016), with brain metastases harboring a BRAFV600E and PIK3CA mutation after 15 mo. A cell line created from this resected metastases showed continued sensitivity to D+T+HCQ in vitro. The patient developed progressive CNS disease despite brain radiation and restarted D+T+HCQ, benefiting from second response that continues to date. Patient derived xenografts were created from 4/4 pretreatment tumor biopsies from the 7 patients. A randomized PDX trial with all combinations of treatments is underway with PDX from responding and resistant patients to determine if the addition of HCQ to D+T is significantly contributing to the activity of this regimen. 

Stage IIIB/C treated with adjuvant BRAFi = 100% 6 month survival vs 28.6% with standard care!!!

Treatment with neoadjuvant + adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib (D+T) is associated with improved relapse-free survival (RFS) versus standard of care (SOC) therapy in patients with high-risk resectable BRAF-mutant melanoma.  Amaria, et al.

The treatment of stage IV melanoma has been revolutionized by targeted therapy and immune checkpoint blockade, and there is a strong rationale to evaluate these agents in earlier stages of disease. The current SOC in patients (pts) with high-risk resectable melanoma (stage IIIB/IIIC) is upfront surgery +/- adjuvant therapy, but relapse rates are high. We hypothesized that treatment with neoadjuvant + adjuvant D+T in this population would result in lower relapse rates compared to SOC. Methods: We conducted a prospective randomized clinical trial (NCT02231775) in pts with resectable Stage IIIB/C or oligometastatic stage IV BRAF-mutant melanoma. Pts were randomized in a 1:2 fashion to SOC (Arm A) or neo + adjuvant D+T (Arm B, 8 wks neoadjuvant + 44 wks adjuvant). Planned enrollment was 84 pts. Primary endpoint was RFS. Results: Randomization was halted after 21 pts were enrolled (arm A=7, arm B=14). Arms were well matched for gender and stage of disease, though pts in arm A were younger. Perioperative complication rates were similar and toxicity in arm B was manageable. At week 8 the RECIST response rate with D+T was 77% and the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate was 58%. Early analysis revealed a significantly higher RFS in the D+T arm over SOC, with 6-month survival estimated at 100% in Arm B and 28.6% in Arm A, leading to trial closure. Conclusions: Treatment with neoadjuvant + adjuvant D+T is well tolerated, results in high clinical response and pCR rates, and markedly improves RFS in pts with high-risk resectable metastatic melanoma. Correlative analyses are underway to characterize mechanisms of response and resistance to neo + adjuvant D+T.   

T-VEC plus ipi = OOR of 50% vs 27.5% for ipi alone.

Interim analysis of a randomized, open-label phase 2 study of talimogene laherparepvec (T) and ipilimumab (I) vs I alone in unresected, stage IIIB-IV melanoma.  Chesney, et al.  

T is a herpes simplex virus 1-based oncolytic immunotherapy designed to selectively replicate in tumors, produce GM-CSF and stimulate antitumor immune responses. I (anti-CTLA-4 Ab) blocks inhibition of antitumor T-cells. Both T and I monotherapy are approved in the US and EU for the treatment of advanced melanoma. The primary endpoint for the phase 2 part was ORR by immune-related response criteria. Key secondary endpoints are safety, progression-free survival, time to response, duration of response, and survival. Key entry criteria are unresectable stage IIIB-IV melanoma, with 2 or fewer prior tx, measurable/injectable tumor(s), and no symptomatic autoimmunity or clinically significant immunosuppression. T was given on d1 w1; w4, then q2w in arm 1 until no injectable tumors, disease progression, or intolerance. I started with the 3rd dose of T in arm 1 or alone in arm 2 at 3 mg/kg IV q3w x 4. An interim analysis (IA) for efficacy was performed when 82 patients (pts) had ≥48 w of follow up. 173 pts were randomized: 88 T+I; 85 I. Characteristics for all pts were similar: 54% stage IIIB-IVM1a, 45% IVM1b/c. Median follow up time for 82 pts in the efficacy set was 61.2 w. Confirmed ORR was 35.7% (T+I) and 17.5% (I); unconfirmed ORR was 50% (T+I) and 27.5% (I). Of 165 pts in the safety set (85 T+I, 80 I), most common adverse events (AEs) for T+I, I (%) were fatigue (52, 39), chills (51, 3), diarrhea (39, 34), pyrexia (39, 8), rash (39, 31) and pruritus (38, 35). 20% T+I and 18% I pts had grade 3/4 tx-related AE. A grade 5 autoimmune hepatitis occurred in the T+I arm (investigator attributed to I). ORR was higher for T+I vs I alone at this IA. AEs were comparable between arms except for increased fatigue, chills, and pyrexia in the T+I arm. 

Intra tumoral HF10 plus ipi = good! 

A Phase 2 multicenter trial to evaluate efficacy and safety of HF10, oncolytic virus immunotherapy and ipilimumab in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Andtbacka, Ross, ...Agarwala,... Daud, et al. 

HF10 (intratumoral injection) shows activity in injected lesions and non-injected metastatic lesions presumably via an antitumor immune response elicited by viral destruction of injected lesions. An ongoing Phase 2 study of HF10 combined with ipilimumab (ipi) in melanoma pts is assessing whether the antitumor effect of HF10 is enhanced by concurrent ipi treatment. Efficacy and safety of HF10+ipi treatment are reported herein. An immunologic correlative data analysis is currently ongoing. Ipi naïve adults with stage IIIB, IIIC or IV unresectable melanoma with measurable non-visceral lesion(s) received HF10 injections into single or multiple tumors; 4 injections qwk; then up to 15 injections q3wk. Ipi (4X at 3 mg/kg, IV) was administered per SOC. Tumor responses were assessed at 12, 18, 24wks, and 36, 48wks for pts continuing HF10 monotherapy. Best Overall Response Rate (BORR) was determined at 24wks. Of 46 pts treated, 20% were stage IIIB, 43% stage IIIC, and 37% stage IV. Most HF10-related AEs were ≤G2, similar to HF10 monotherapy. No DLTs were reported; 3 G4 AEs reported, all not treatment related. 30.4% had G3 AEs. HF10-related G3 AEs (n=3) were left groin pain, thromboembolic event, lymphedema, hypoglycemia, and diarrhea. Of 43 efficacy evaluable pts, preliminary BORR at 24 wks per irRC was 41.8% (11.6% CR, 30.2% PR), disease stability rate 67.4% (25.6% SD). 8 responders (53%) were stage IV. Overall study BORR, including those after 24 weeks, by irRC was 48.8% (18.6% CR, 30.2% PR), disease stability was 67.4% (18.6% SD). In summary, HF10+ipi treatment does not appear to exacerbate ipi toxicity, is safe and well tolerated, has both local and systemic antitumor activity, with promising response rates when combined with ipi.

Ipi/Nivo for Stage 3 mel.

(Neo-)adjuvant ipilimumab + nivolumab (IPI+NIVO) in palpable stage 3 melanoma – the OpACIN trial.  Blank, et al. 

 IPI+NIVO induces high response rates and improved overall survival in late stage melanoma. T cell checkpoint inhibition is of greatest value at the moment of TCR triggering and therefore depends on the amount of antigen present, arguing for that adjuvant immunotherapy willwork most efficiently, when initiated prior to surgery. Two-arm Phase 1b feasibility trial consisting of 20 high risk AJCC stage 3B/C melanoma patients with palpable nodal disease receiving the combination of IPI 3mg/kg and NIVO 1mg/kg, either adjuvant four courses after surgery, or split neo-adjuvant and adjuvant. To date, 17 patients are evaluable (9 neoadjuvant; updated data and first analyses of melanoma specific T cell responses will be presented.). Neo-adjuvant application of IPI+NIVO was feasible and no surgery-associated adverse events were attributed to (neo-)adjuvant therapy. 15/17 patients (88%) had to stop earlier due to grade 3/4 toxicities. ORR in the neo-adjuvant IPI+NIVO arm was 78% (3 pCR, 3 near pCRs [minimal remaining micrometastasis], 1 pPR [remaining metastasis of 0.5mm], 1 SD and 1 PD). So far, post-surgery, none of the responders in the neoadjuvant arm has relapsed. Relapse was observed for 1 neoadjuvant SD patient and for 3 patients within the adjuvant arm. The combination of IPI+NIVO in the (neo-)adjuvant treatment setting for high risk stage 3 melanoma patients is feasible. However, severe grade 3/4 toxicity was more frequent than expected from stage 4 melanoma patient study data. In parallel, response rate and depth of response also may be higher than in stage 4 melanoma patients. These results indicate that IPI+NIVO is a promising combination for neo-adjuvant treatment in stage 3 melanoma, which will be tested in adjusted schemes in the upcoming phase 2 OpACIN-neo trial, with the aim of preserving efficacy, but reducing toxicity. 

Brain mets post SRS/crani: nivo vs pembro.

Control of brain metastases with anti-PD-1 therapy in patients with melanoma post-SRS/craniotomy.  Ozgun, et al. 

While anti-PD-1 antibodies have shown significant clinical benefit in patients (pts) with advanced melanoma, a majority of these pts develop brain metastases for which standard treatments remain radiation therapy and/or surgery. We examined outcomes in pts who were diagnosed with melanoma brain metastases (MBM) and received upfront locoregional therapy, to determine how well their subsequent anti-PD-1 therapy could control their MBM. We retrospectively reviewed 146 pts with advanced melanoma who were treated with anti-PD-1 therapy, to identify 23 pts who had received prior stereotactic radioasurgery (SRS) or craniotomy for MBM. There were 13 men and 10 women, with median age 56 (27-85). Most common site of metastases was in the frontal lobe (n=13, 57%). Primary treatment for the MBM was SRS in 17 (74%), and craniotomy in 6 (26%) pts. Median follow-up was 2 years post-locoregional therapy. Eleven pts subsequently received pembrolizumab and 12 pts received nivolumab; median duration of therapy was 5 months. Eight pts received these drugs as their first-line systemic therapy post-SRS/craniotomy, 13 as second line therapy, and 2 as third-line; other first-line therapies included ipilimumab, chemotherapy or BRAF-targeted therapies. While receiving their anti-PD-1 therapy, five (22%) pts had no recurrence of any brain metastases (n=2 with pembro, n=3 with nivo) and eight (35%) pts had stable MRI brain imaging with no new or growing lesions. However, ten pts (44%) had progession of their brain metastases while on anti-PD-1 therapy (n=3 with nivo, n=7 with pembro). Median overall survival from time of SRS or craniotomy was 24 months (5.6-32) for pts treated with pembro and 36 months (1.7-84) with nivo. While there may be a suggestion of improved outcome with nivolumab in MBM after locoregional therapy, larger analyses are needed for definitive conclusions.  

Aspirin helps NRAS affected mice!

Acetylsalicylic acid governs the effect of Sorafenib in mutant NRAS melanoma. Hammerlindl, et al. 

To date no therapies directly targeting mutant NRAS melanoma have been approved, leaving chemotherapy with very low response rates or immunotherapy for the treatment of mutant NRAS melanoma patients. Here we report a novel strategy to target mutant NRAS melanoma by combining the multi kinase inhibitor Sorafenib and the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug acetylsalicylic acid (Aspirin), both of which are clinically tested and approved. The addition of Aspirin, but not isobutylphenylpropanoic acid (Ibruprofen) or Celecoxib significantly increased the invitro cytotoxicity of Sorafenib resulting in a fivefold reduced effective Sorafenib dose in WM1366, WM832, and WM1361 mutant NRAS melanoma cells. Mechanistically, combined exposure resulted in the simultaneous hyperactivation of AMPK and ERK pathways. Combining Sorafenib with other AMPK activators like Metformin or A769662 was not sufficient to induce cell death due to sole activation of the AMPK pathway. Accordingly, cytotoxicity of Sorafenib and Aspirin was blocked by concurrent inhibition of AMPK or ERK pathways using pharmacological inhibitors of RAF (LY3009120), MEK (Trametinib) and AMPK (Compound C) or shRNA targeting BRAF or AMPKα1/2. The combination was found to be specific for mutant NRAS and had no significant effect in wild type RAS keratinocytes or melanoma cells. In-vivo the treatment of SCID mouse xenografts with Sorafenib and Aspirin significantly reduced tumour volume compared to single treatment alone. Combined Sorafenib and Aspirin selectively target mutant NRAS melanoma cells by simultaneously affecting two independent pathways. The combination represents a novel treatment strategy for mutant NRAS melanoma by repurposing clinically approved drugs with the potential to reduce Sorafenib induced adverse effects while maintaining clinical efficiency. 

Ok.  I'm tired now.  But...some pretty interesting stuff. For what it's worth - c

BRAFi as neoadjuvant - Now we're talk'n!!!

BRAF inhibition for advanced locoregional BRAF V600E mutant melanoma:  a potential neoadjuvant strategy.  Sloot, Zager, Kedchadkar...Weber, Sondak, Gibney.  Melanoma Res. 2/2016.

"Selective BRAF inhibitors (BRAFi) yield objective responses in 50% of patients with metastatic BRAF V600E mutant melanoma. Adding an MEK inhibitor increases this response rate to 70%. Limited data are available on the outcomes of unresectable stage III patients, and it remains unclear whether BRAF-targeted therapy can be utilized as a neoadjuvant strategy. Data on patients with advanced locoregional BRAF V600E mutant melanoma treated with BRAF-targeted therapy at Moffitt Cancer Center were analyzed to determine response rates, subsequent resection rates after tumor downsizing, pathologic responses, and patient survival. Fifteen patients with locoregional disease treated with BRAF-targeted therapy, either BRAFi alone (vemurafenib; 11 patients) or a combination of BRAFi and an MEK inhibitor (dabrafenib plus trametinib or placebo; four patients), were identified. The median age was 50 years; the median follow-up was 25.4 months. The median BRAF-targeted therapy treatment duration was 6.0 months. Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors-based evaluation demonstrated objective response in 11 patients (73.3%). Six patients underwent resection of the remaining disease after therapy. Pathological analysis showed complete pathologic response (n=2), partial pathologic response (n=2), or no pathologic response (n=2). Four of six patients undergoing surgery have been alive for more than 2 years, including three patients currently free from active disease. No complications attributable to BRAF-targeted therapy were observed in the perioperative period. Dose reduction or discontinuation because of toxicities occurred in 10/15 patients. Neoadjuvant BRAF-targeted therapy may be effective in advanced locoregional BRAF V600E mutant melanoma patients in increasing resectability, yielding pathological responses, and achieving prolonged survival."

Adjuvant treatment provides positive benefits!  Here's more adjuvant trial results:  From my NED nivo/Opdivo trial as well as one with ipi!

Here are a few amazing quotes:  

 From the Nivo trial (published Dec 2014!!!) ~ "Our data suggest that nivo is clinically active in resected stage IIIC/IV melanoma, based on low rate of relapse (10 of 33), impressive relapse-free survival - estimated RFS of 47.1 months, and median overall survival not yet reached with over 32 months of follow up."

And this from the ipi ~ "Adjuvant ipi significantly improved recurrence-free survival for patients with completely resected high-risk stage III melanoma."

What are we waiting on???  Come on researchers!  FDA?!!!  Drug companies????!!!!  Hang in there, Ratties.  You rock! - 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

Adjuvant treatments in melanoma - They WORK!!! Now, let's make sure people can get them!!!!!

It was certainly good news when the FDA (FINALLY!!!) approved ipi as an adjuvant treatment for melanoma.  And....it works!  ASCO 2017: Ipi 3 mg vs 10 mg in advanced melanoma and as adjuvant

We also KNOW that anti-PD-1 works EVEN BETTER, with fewer side effects, as an adjuvant treatment in melanoma. The trial that I and my fellow ratties started in 2010 proved that...and so have other studies since:  Nivo better than ipi as adjuvant treatment for melanoma! Surprise, surprise, surprise!!!

We also KNOW that BRAF/MEK inhibitors are extremely effective as an adjuvant therapy in patients with BRAF positive melanoma:  2016: Straight Outta Boston!!! Latest melanoma research ~
One abstract included in that link notes:

Stage IIIB/C treated with adjuvant BRAFi = 100% 6 month survival vs 28.6% with standard care!!!

Treatment with neoadjuvant + adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib (D+T) is associated with improved relapse-free survival (RFS) versus standard of care (SOC) therapy in patients with high-risk resectable BRAF-mutant melanoma.  Amaria, et al.

The treatment of stage IV melanoma has been revolutionized by targeted therapy and immune checkpoint blockade, and there is a strong rationale to evaluate these agents in earlier stages of disease. The current SOC in patients (pts) with high-risk resectable melanoma (stage IIIB/IIIC) is upfront surgery +/- adjuvant therapy, but relapse rates are high. We hypothesized that treatment with neoadjuvant + adjuvant D+T in this population would result in lower relapse rates compared to SOC. Methods: We conducted a prospective randomized clinical trial (NCT02231775) in pts with resectable Stage IIIB/C or oligometastatic stage IV BRAF-mutant melanoma. Pts were randomized in a 1:2 fashion to SOC (Arm A) or neo + adjuvant D+T (Arm B, 8 wks neoadjuvant + 44 wks adjuvant). Planned enrollment was 84 pts. Primary endpoint was RFS. Results: Randomization was halted after 21 pts were enrolled (arm A=7, arm B=14). Arms were well matched for gender and stage of disease, though pts in arm A were younger. Perioperative complication rates were similar and toxicity in arm B was manageable. At week 8 the RECIST response rate with D+T was 77% and the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate was 58%. Early analysis revealed a significantly higher RFS in the D+T arm over SOC, with 6-month survival estimated at 100% in Arm B and 28.6% in Arm A, leading to trial closure. Conclusions: Treatment with neoadjuvant + adjuvant D+T is well tolerated, results in high clinical response and pCR rates, and markedly improves RFS in pts with high-risk resectable metastatic melanoma. Correlative analyses are underway to characterize mechanisms of response and resistance to neo + adjuvant D+T.  

Now...there's this:  

Adjuvant Dabrafenib plus Trametinib in Stage III BRAF-Mutated Melanoma. Long, Hauschild, Santinami, et al. N Engl J Med. 2017 Sep 10. 

Combination therapy with the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib plus the MEK inhibitor trametinib improved survival in patients with advanced melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations. We sought to determine whether adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib would improve outcomes in patients with resected, stage III melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations. 

In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 870 patients with completely resected, stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations to receive oral dabrafenib at a dose of 150 mg twice daily plus trametinib at a dose of 2 mg once daily (combination therapy, 438 patients) or two matched placebo tablets (432 patients) for 12 months. The primary end point was relapse-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, distant metastasis-free survival, freedom from relapse, and safety. 

At a median follow-up of 2.8 years, the estimated 3-year rate of relapse-free survival was 58% in the combination-therapy group and 39% in the placebo group. The 3-year overall survival rate was 86% in the combination-therapy group and 77% in the placebo group, but this level of improvement did not cross the prespecified interim analysis boundary of P=0.000019. Rates of distant metastasis-free survival and freedom from relapse were also higher in the combination-therapy group than in the placebo group. The safety profile of dabrafenib plus trametinib was consistent with that observed with the combination in patients with metastatic melanoma. 

Adjuvant use of combination therapy with dabrafenib plus trametinib resulted in a significantly lower risk of recurrence in patients with stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations than the adjuvant use of placebo and was not associated with new toxic effects.

Relapse free survival...58% with treatment, 39% with placebo!  Sounds good to me...of course you have to be BRAF positive....but it's something!!!

Now this is something "new"....and VERY old!!!  Remember this post:  Immunotherapy....The Original Super Heroes and Ratties!!!!  When you talk about CpG-B - Coley's toxin comes to mind, who, in the 1890's, injected bacteria into tumors and found that they would GO AWAY!!!  In 1983 an underlying DNA component of the bacteria, responsible for the effect, was discovered.  And in 1995, the specific DNA molecules (CpG) were found to be the component that specifically stimulated the immune response, with the B group in particular, causing B cell and monocyte maturation.  And since some of the patients were also given GM-CSF in the study below, here's a reminder about what that is:  Sargramostim ~ aka GM-CSF or leukine (and other related posts)  Here's the latest:

Local Adjuvant Treatment with Low-Dose CpG-B Offers Durable Protection against Disease Recurrence in Clinical Stage I-II Melanoma: Data from Two Randomized Phase II Trials. Koster, Van den Hout, Sluijter, et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2017 Oct 1.  

Although risk of recurrence after surgical removal of clinical stage I-II melanoma is considerable, there is no adjuvant therapy with proven efficacy. Here, we provide clinical evidence that a local conditioning regimen, aimed at immunologic arming of the tumor-draining lymph nodes, may provide durable protection against disease recurrence (median follow-up, 88.8 months).

In two randomized phase II trials, patients, diagnosed with stage I-II melanoma after excision of the primary tumor, received local injections at the primary tumor excision site within 7 days preceding re-excision and sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy of either a saline placebo (n = 22) or low-dose CpG type B (CpG-B) with (n = 9) or without (n = 21) low-dose GM-CSF.

CpG-B treatment was shown to be safe, to boost locoregional and systemic immunity, to be associated with lower rates of tumor-involved SLN (10% vs. 36% in controls), and, at a median follow-up of 88.8 months, to profoundly improve recurrence-free survival, even for patients with histologically confirmed (i.e., pathologic) stage I-II disease.

Potentially offering durable protection, local low-dose CpG-B administration in early-stage melanoma provides an adjuvant treatment option for a large group of patients currently going untreated despite being at considerable risk for disease recurrence. Once validated in a larger randomized phase III trial, this nontoxic immunopotentiating regimen may prove clinically transformative. 

What's not to like????? 

And there's this....  Here, CancerVax (canvaxin) was given along with BCG.  

Long-Term Survival after Complete Surgical Resection and Adjuvant Immunotherapy for Distant Melanoma Metastases. Faries, Mozzillo, Kashani-Sabet, et al.  Ann Surg Oncol. 2017 Oct 10. 

This phase III study was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy of an allogeneic whole-cell vaccine (Canvaxin™) plus bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) after complete resection of stage IV melanoma.  After complete resection of ≤5 distant metastases, patients were randomly assigned to BCG+Canvaxin (BCG/Cv) or BCG+placebo (BCG/Pl). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS), and immune response measured by skin test.  Beginning in May 1998, 496 patients were randomized. In April 2005, the Data Safety Monitoring Board recommended stopping enrollment due to a low probability of efficacy. At that time, median OS and 5-year OS rate were 38.6 months and 44.9%, respectively, for BCG/Pl versus 31.4 months and 39.6% in the BCG/Cv group (hazard ratio (HR), 1.18; p = 0.250). Follow-up was extended at several trial sites through March 2010. Median OS and 5-year and 10-year survival was 39.1 months, 43.3 and 33.3%, respectively, for BCG/Pl versus 34.9 months, 42.5 and 36.4%, in the BCG/Cv group. Median DFS, 5- and 10-year DFS were 7.6 months, 23.8 and 21.7%, respectively, for BCG/Pl versus 8.5 months, 30.0%, and 30.0%, respectively, for the BCG/Cv group. Positive DTH skin testing correlated with increased survival.  In this, the largest study of postsurgical adjuvant therapy for stage IV melanoma reported to date, BCG/Cv did not improve outcomes over BCG/placebo. Favorable long-term survival among study patients suggests that metastasectomy should be considered for selected patients with stage IV melanoma.

So...that adjuvant therapy is a big NO!!!  As much as I love the idea of a vaccine (peptide vaccines - 6 of them actually - were included in my trial and DID NOT HELP!!!!) as treatment for melanoma, and have hope that someday....  Well, so far - it has been a no go!!!  But...we have all the options noted above that DO WORK!!!

I have been yelling about melanoma adjuvant treatment options since 2003!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Could we please take some action?????

The 2017 complete overhaul of adjuvant therapies for high-risk melanoma and its consequences for staging and management of melanoma patients. Eggermont, Dummer.  Eur J Cancer. 2017 Sep 28.  

The spectacular outcomes of the phase III trials regarding nivolumab versus ipilimumab in fully resected stage IIIB/C-IV and of the combination of dabrafenib (D) plus trametinib (T) in BRAF-mutant stage III patients demonstrate that effective treatments in advanced melanoma are also highly effective in the adjuvant setting. [No shit!!!!] In 2016, an overall survival benefit with adjuvant high-dose ipilimumab was demonstrated, and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer trial 1325 comparing pembrolizumab versus placebo will complete the picture in the early 2018. Toxicity profiles are in line with the experience in advanced melanoma, i.e. favourable for the anti-PD1 agents and for D + T and problematic for ipilimumab. The 2017 outcomes are practice changing and put an end to the use of interferon (IFN) and ipilimumab. [No shit!  And...ABOUT TIME!!!] In countries with only access to IFN, its use can be restricted to patients with ulcerated melanoma, based on the individual patient data meta-analysis recently published. Because of the results of the Melanoma Sentinel Lymph node Trial-2 (MSLT-2) trial, completion lymph node dissection (CLND) will decrease sharply, leading to a lack of optimal prognostic information. Prognosis in sentinel node-positive stage IIIA/B patients is extremely heterogeneous with 5-year survival rates varying from 90% to 40% and depends mostly on the number of positive nodes identified by CLND. This information is crucial for clinical decision-making. How to guarantee optimal staging information needs to be discussed urgently. Further improvements of adjuvant therapies will have to address all these questions as well as the exploration of neoadjuvant use of active drugs and combination approaches. Important paradigm shifts in the management of high-risk melanoma patients are upon us.

"Important paradigm shifts in the management of high-risk melanoma patients are upon us." I hope so!!!  It is more than time!  So many ratties have done the work.  Let's make this so!!!! - c