Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Melanoma: HELP
Articles by Jean-Jacques Grob
Based on 80 articles published since 2008
||||

Between 2008 and 2019, J. J. Grob wrote the following 80 articles about Melanoma.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
Pages: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4
1 Guideline Diagnosis and treatment of melanoma. European consensus-based interdisciplinary guideline--Update 2012. 2012

Garbe, Claus / Peris, Ketty / Hauschild, Axel / Saiag, Philippe / Middleton, Mark / Spatz, Alan / Grob, Jean-Jacques / Malvehy, Josep / Newton-Bishop, Julia / Stratigos, Alexander / Pehamberger, Hubert / Eggermont, Alexander M / Anonymous220737 / Anonymous230737 / Anonymous240737. ·University Department of Dermatology, Tuebingen, Germany. claus.garbe@med.uni-tuebingen.de ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #22981501.

ABSTRACT: Cutaneous melanoma (CM) is potentially the most dangerous form of skin tumour and causes 90% of skin cancer mortality. A unique collaboration of multi-disciplinary experts from the European Dermatology Forum (EDF), the European Association of Dermato-Oncology (EADO) and the European Organization of Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) was formed to make recommendations on CM diagnosis and treatment, based on systematic literature reviews and the experts' experience. Diagnosis is made clinically and staging is based upon the AJCC system. CMs are excised with one to two centimetre safety margins. Sentinel lymph node dissection (SLND) is routinely offered as a staging procedure in patients with tumours more than 1mm in thickness, although there is as yet no clear survival benefit for this approach. Interferon-α treatment may be offered to patients with stage II and III melanoma as an adjuvant therapy, as this treatment increases at least the disease-free survival (DFS) and less clear the overall survival (OS) time. The treatment is however associated with significant toxicity. In distant metastasis, all options of surgical therapy have to be considered thoroughly. In the absence of surgical options, systemic treatment is indicated. BRAF inhibitors like vemurafenib for BRAF mutated patients as well as the CTLA-4 antibody ipilimumab offer new therapeutic opportunities apart from conventional chemotherapy. Therapeutic decisions in stage IV patients should be primarily made by an interdisciplinary oncology team ('tumour board').

2 Guideline Diagnosis and treatment of melanoma: European consensus-based interdisciplinary guideline. 2010

Garbe, Claus / Peris, Ketty / Hauschild, Axel / Saiag, Philippe / Middleton, Mark / Spatz, Alain / Grob, Jean-Jacques / Malvehy, Josep / Newton-Bishop, Julia / Stratigos, Alexander / Pehamberger, Hubert / Eggermont, Alexander. ·Center for Dermatooncology, Department of Dermatology, 72076 Tübingen, Germany. claus.garbe@med.uni-tuebingen.de ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #19959353.

ABSTRACT: Cutaneous melanoma (CM) is potentially the most dangerous form of skin tumour and causes 90% of skin cancer mortality. A unique collaboration of multi-disciplinary experts from the European Dermatology Forum, the European Association of Dermato-Oncology and the European Organization of Research and Treatment of Cancer was formed to make recommendations on CM diagnosis and treatment, based on systematic literature reviews and the experts' experience. Diagnosis is made clinically and staging is based upon the AJCC system. CMs are excised with one to two centimetre safety margins. Sentinel lymph node dissection is routinely offered as a staging procedure in patients with tumours more than 1mm in thickness, although there is as yet no resultant survival benefit. Interferon-alpha treatment can be offered to patients with more than 1.5mm in thickness and stage II to III melanoma as an adjuvant therapy, as this treatment increases the relapse-free survival. The lack of a clear survival benefit and the presence of toxicity however limit its use in practice. In distant metastasis, all options of surgical therapy have to be considered thoroughly. In the absence of surgical options, systemic medical treatment is indicated, but with, to date, low response rates. Therapeutic decisions should be made by the melanoma team and the informed patient after full discussion of the options.

3 Editorial The role of BRAF V600 mutation in melanoma. 2012

Ascierto, Paolo A / Kirkwood, John M / Grob, Jean-Jacques / Simeone, Ester / Grimaldi, Antonio M / Maio, Michele / Palmieri, Giuseppe / Testori, Alessandro / Marincola, Francesco M / Mozzillo, Nicola. ·Department of Melanoma, Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione G, Pascale, Naples, Italy. paolo.ascierto@gmail.com ·J Transl Med · Pubmed #22554099.

ABSTRACT: BRAF is a serine/threonine protein kinase activating the MAP kinase/ERK-signaling pathway. About 50 % of melanomas harbors activating BRAF mutations (over 90 % V600E). BRAFV600E has been implicated in different mechanisms underlying melanomagenesis, most of which due to the deregulated activation of the downstream MEK/ERK effectors. The first selective inhibitor of mutant BRAF, vemurafenib, after highly encouraging results of the phase I and II trial, was compared to dacarbazine in a phase III trial in treatment-naïve patients (BRIM-3). The study results showed a relative reduction of 63 % in risk of death and 74 % in risk of tumor progression. Considering all trials so far completed, median overall survival reached approximately 16 months for vemurafenib compared to less than 10 months for dacarbazine treatment. Vemurafenib has been extensively tested on melanoma patients expressing the BRAFV600E mutated form; it has been demonstrated to be also effective in inhibiting melanomas carrying the V600K mutation. In 2011, both FDA and EMA therefore approved vemurafenib for metastatic melanoma carrying BRAFV600 mutations. Some findings suggest that continuation of vemurafenib treatment is potentially beneficial after local therapy in a subset of patients with disease progression (PD). Among who continued vemurafenib >30 days after local therapy of PD lesion(s), a median overall survival was not reached, with a median follow-up of 15.5 months from initiation of BRAF inhibitor therapy. For patients who did not continue treatment, median overall survival from the time of disease progression was 1.4 months. A clinical phase I/II trial is evaluating the safety, tolerability and efficacy of vemurafenib in combination with the CTLA-4 inhibitor mAb ipilimumab. In the BRIM-7 trial vemurafenib is tested in association with GDC-0973, a potent and highly selective inhibitor of MEK1/2. Preliminary data seem to indicate that an additional inhibitor of mutated BRAF, GSK2118436, might be also active on a wider range of BRAF mutations (V600E-K-D-R); actually, treatment with such a compound is under evaluation in a phase III study among stage III-IV melanoma patients positive for BRAF mutations. Overall, BRAF inhibitors were well tolerated; common adverse events are arthralgia, rash, fatigue, alopecia, keratoacanthoma or cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma, photosensitivity, nausea, and diarrhea, with some variants between different inhibitors.

4 Editorial [Which diagnostic tools in melanoma and why?]. 2008

Grob, J-J. · ·Ann Dermatol Venereol · Pubmed #19084689.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

5 Review Survival of patients with advanced metastatic melanoma: the impact of novel therapies-update 2017. 2017

Ugurel, Selma / Röhmel, Joachim / Ascierto, Paolo A / Flaherty, Keith T / Grob, Jean Jacques / Hauschild, Axel / Larkin, James / Long, Georgina V / Lorigan, Paul / McArthur, Grant A / Ribas, Antoni / Robert, Caroline / Schadendorf, Dirk / Garbe, Claus. ·Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany. Electronic address: selma.ugurel@uk-essen.de. · Bremen, Germany. · Melanoma, Immunotherapy and Innovative Therapy Unit, Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione "G. Pascale", Naples, Italy. · Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. · Department of Dermatology, Timone Hospital and Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany. · Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. · Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, and Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia. · University of Manchester, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK. · Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia and University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia. · University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. · Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif Grand-Paris, France. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany. · Center for Dermatooncology, Department of Dermatology, University of Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany. ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #28756137.

ABSTRACT: The treatment of metastatic melanoma is still undergoing a process of major change. The two most important novel therapeutic strategies, selective kinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint blockers, both significantly prolong survival times of patients with advanced metastatic disease. Different agents, dose regimens and combinations have been tested against each other vigorously within these two groups. However, results from prospective head-to-head comparative studies of both strategies are still lacking. We performed an exploratory analysis of survival data from selected clinical trials representative for the new treatment strategies in advanced metastatic melanoma. Eighty-three Kaplan-Meier survival curves from 25 trials were digitised and grouped by therapeutic strategy and treatment line. For each of these groups, mean survival curves were generated for progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) by weighted averaging. Survival curves grouped together by therapeutic strategy revealed a high concordance, particularly in the first-line setting. For kinase inhibitors, the most favourable PFS and OS in all therapy lines were observed for combined BRAF plus MEK inhibition. For immune checkpoint inhibitors, combined PD-1 plus CTLA-4 inhibition demonstrated the best survival outcome in all categories except for OS in first-line therapy. For the latter, combined PD-1 plus CTLA-4 inhibition showed similar outcomes as single-agent PD-1 inhibition. Comparison of kinase inhibitors and checkpoint blockers revealed a superiority of combined BRAF plus MEK inhibition within the first 6 months, later changing to a superiority of PD-1 blockers alone or in combination with CTLA-4 blockers. These results need confirmation by prospective clinical trials.

6 Review Survival of patients with advanced metastatic melanoma: The impact of novel therapies. 2016

Ugurel, Selma / Röhmel, Joachim / Ascierto, Paolo A / Flaherty, Keith T / Grob, Jean Jacques / Hauschild, Axel / Larkin, James / Long, Georgina V / Lorigan, Paul / McArthur, Grant A / Ribas, Antoni / Robert, Caroline / Schadendorf, Dirk / Garbe, Claus. ·Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, University Duisburg-Essen, 45122 Essen, Germany. Electronic address: selma.ugurel@uk-essen.de. · 28355 Bremen, Germany. · Melanoma, Immunotherapy and Innovative Therapy Unit, Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Fondazione "G. Pascale", Naples, Italy. · Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. · Dermatology Department, Timone Hospital and Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France. · University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, 24105 Kiel, Germany. · Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. · Melanoma Institute Australia and The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. · University of Manchester, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK. · Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia. · University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. · Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif Grand-Paris, France. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, University Duisburg-Essen, 45122 Essen, Germany. · Center for Dermatooncology, Department of Dermatology, University Tuebingen, 72074 Tuebingen, Germany. ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #26707829.

ABSTRACT: The survival of advanced metastatic melanoma has been greatly improved within the past few years. New therapeutic strategies like kinase inhibitors for BRAF-mutant melanoma and immune checkpoint blockers proved to prolong survival times within clinical trials, and many of them have already entered routine clinical use. However, these different treatment modalities have not yet been tested against each other, which complicate therapy decisions. We performed an explorative analysis of survival data from recent clinical trials. Thirty-five Kaplan-Meier survival curves from 17 trials were digitised, re-grouped by matching inclusion criteria and treatment line, and averaged by therapy strategy. Notably, the survival curves grouped by therapy strategy revealed a very high concordance, even if different agents were used. The greatest survival improvement was observed with the combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors as well as with Programmed-death-1 (PD1) blockers with or without cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4) blockers, respectively, with these two treatment strategies showing similar survival outcomes. For first-line therapy, averaged survival proportions of patients alive at 12 months were 74.5% with BRAF plus MEK inhibitor treatment versus 71.9% with PD-1 blockade. This explorative comparison shows the kinase inhibitors as similarly effective as immune checkpoint blockers with regard to survival. However, to confirm these first trends for implementation into an individualised treatment of melanoma patients, data from prospective clinical trials comparing the different treatment strategies head-to-head have to be awaited.

7 Review Melanoma. 2015

Schadendorf, Dirk / Fisher, David E / Garbe, Claus / Gershenwald, Jeffrey E / Grob, Jean-Jacques / Halpern, Allan / Herlyn, Meenhard / Marchetti, Michael A / McArthur, Grant / Ribas, Antoni / Roesch, Alexander / Hauschild, Axel. ·Department of Dermatology, University Duisburg-Essen, University Hospital Essen, Hufelandstrasse 55, 45147 Essen, Germany. · German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Heidelberg, Germany. · Department of Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. · Department of Dermatology, University Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. · Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. · Department of Dermatology and Skin Cancers, APHM Timone Hospital Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France. · Dermatology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA. · Melanoma Research Center, Wistar Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. · Division of Cancer Medicine and Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. · Departments of Medicine, Surgery, and Medical and Molecular Pharmacology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH), Kiel, Germany. ·Nat Rev Dis Primers · Pubmed #27188223.

ABSTRACT: Melanoma is a common cancer in the Western world with an increasing incidence. Sun exposure is still considered to be the major risk factor for melanoma. The prognosis of patients with malignant (advanced-stage) melanoma differs widely between countries, but public campaigns advocating early detection have led to significant reductions in mortality rates. As well as sun exposure, distinct genetic alterations have been identified as associated with melanoma. For example, families with melanoma who have germline mutations in CDKN2A are well known, whereas the vast majority of sporadic melanomas have mutations in the mitogen-activated protein kinase cascade, which is the pathway with the highest oncogenic and therapeutic relevance for this disease. BRAF and NRAS mutations are typically found in cutaneous melanomas, whereas KIT mutations are predominantly observed in mucosal and acral melanomas. GNAQ and GNA11 mutations prevail in uveal melanomas. Additionally, the PI3K-AKT-PTEN pathway and the immune checkpoint pathways are important. The finding that programmed cell death protein 1 ligand 1 (PDL1) and PDL2 are expressed by melanoma cells, T cells, B cells and natural killer cells led to the recent development of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD1)-specific antibodies (for example, nivolumab and pembrolizumab). Alongside other new drugs - namely, BRAF inhibitors (vemurafenib and dabrafenib) and MEK inhibitors (trametinib and cobimetinib) - these agents are very promising and have been shown to significantly improve prognosis for patients with advanced-stage metastatic disease. Early signs are apparent that these new treatment modalities are also improving long-term clinical benefit and the quality of life of patients. This Primer summarizes the current understanding of melanoma, from mechanistic insights to clinical progress. For an illustrated summary of this Primer, visit: http://go.nature.com/vX2N9s.

8 Review Disease kinetics for decision-making in advanced melanoma: a call for scenario-driven strategy trials. 2015

Grob, Jean Jacques / Long, Georgina V / Schadendorf, Dirk / Flaherty, Keith. ·Aix-Marseille University and APHM Hospital CHU Timone, Marseille, France. Electronic address: jean-jacques.grob@ap-hm.fr. · Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, and Mater Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia. · University Hospital Essen and German Cancer Consortium, Essen, Germany. · Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #26433825.

ABSTRACT: In the past 5 years, the treatment of metastatic melanoma has changed from almost no effective treatment to the use of targeted and immune therapies with proven improvements in survival. The time has now come to define the optimal drug combinations, sequence of treatment, and drug regimens (intermittent vs continuous dosing) in the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma. In view of the prevalence of advanced melanoma, finite resources, and the heterogeneity of disease characteristics, not all possibilities can be tested in therapeutic trials starting from an unselected population of patients with metastatic melanoma. In practice, clinicians rely on a few clinically derived signals, especially dynamic signals, to categorise patients into scenarios, from fast disease kinetics to slow disease kinetics, which drive clinicians' therapeutic decision making. The realistic goals of therapy are different in each scenario. We recommend that these scenarios are incorporated into clinical trials as either patient inclusion criteria or stratification factors. This approach is not only feasible but is also the only way to generate evidence for more effective and individualised treatment strategies for patients with metastatic melanoma.

9 Review [Systemic treatment of melanoma brain metastases]. 2015

Le Rhun, É / Mateus, C / Mortier, L / Dhermain, F / Guillot, B / Grob, J-J / Lebbe, C / Thomas, M / Jouary, T / Leccia, M-T / Robert, C. ·Neuro-oncologie, département de neurochirurgie, hôpital Roger-Salengro, CHRU, rue Émile-Laine, 59037 Lille cedex, France; Oncologie médicale, centre Oscar-Lambret, 3, rue Frédéric-Combemale, BP 307, 59020 Lille cedex, France; Inserm U1192, laboratoire Prism, université Lille 1, bâtiment SN3 1(er) étage, 59655 Villeneuve-d'Ascq cedex, France; Groupe de réflexion sur la prise en charge des métastases cérébrales (GRPCMaC), 13273 Marseille cedex 09, France. Electronic address: emilie.lerhun@chru-lille.fr. · Département de dermatologie, institut de cancérologie Gustave-Roussy, 114, rue Édouard-Vaillant, 94805 Villejuif cedex, France. · Département de dermatologie, centre hospitalier régional et universitaire de Lille, 2, avenue Oscar-Lambret, 59037 Lille cedex, France. · Groupe de réflexion sur la prise en charge des métastases cérébrales (GRPCMaC), 13273 Marseille cedex 09, France; Département de radiothérapie, institut de cancérologie Gustave-Roussy, 114, rue Édouard-Vaillant, 94805 Villejuif cedex, France; Réunion de concertation pluridisciplinaire de neuro-oncologie, institut de cancérologie Gustave-Roussy, 114, rue Édouard-Vaillant, 94805 Villejuif cedex, France. · Département de dermatologie, centre hospitalier universitaire, 80, avenue Augustin-Fliche, 34295 Montpellier cedex 5, France; Université Montpellier 1, 5, boulevard Henri-IV, CS 19044, 34967 Montpellier cedex 2, France. · Département de dermatologie, centre hospitalo-universitaire, AP-HM, 264, rue Saint-Pierre, 13385 Marseille cedex 05, France. · Département de dermatologie, hôpital Saint-Louis, Assistance publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, 1, avenue Claude-Vellefaux, 75010 Paris, France. · Service de dermatologie, pôle d'oncologie-radiothérapie, de dermatologie et des soins palliatifs, groupe hospitalier Saint-André, centre hospitalier universitaire de Bordeaux, 1, rue Jean-Burguet, 33075 Bordeaux, France. · Clinique de dermatologie, d'allergologie et de photobiologie, centre hospitalier Albert-Michallon, boulevard de la Chantourne, BP 217, 38043 Grenoble cedex 9, France; Inserm U832, institut A.-Bonniot, 38043 Grenoble cedex 09, France. ·Cancer Radiother · Pubmed #25656856.

ABSTRACT: Melanomas have a high rate of brain metastases. Both the functional prognosis and the overall survival are poor in these patients. Until now, surgery and radiotherapy represented the two main modalities of treatment. Nevertheless, due to the improvement in the management of the extracerebral melanoma, the systemic treatment may be an option in patients with brain metastases. Immunotherapy with anti-CTLA4 (cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4) - ipilimumab - or BRAF (serine/threonine-protein kinase B-raf) inhibitors - vemurafenib, dabrafenib - has shown efficacy in the management of brain metastases in a- or pauci-symptomatic patients. Studies are ongoing with anti-PD1 (programmed cell death 1) and combinations of targeted therapies associating anti-RAF (raf proto-oncogene, serine/threonine kinase) and anti-MEK (mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase).

10 Review Treatment algorithms in stage IV melanoma. 2015

Espinosa, Enrique / Grob, Jean-Jacques / Dummer, Reinhard / Rutkowski, Piotr / Robert, Caroline / Gogas, Helen / Kefford, Richard / Eggermont, Alexander M M / Martin Algarra, Salvador / Hauschild, Axel / Schadendorf, Dirk. ·1Service of Oncology, Hospital La Paz, Madrid, Spain · 2Department of Dermatology, Hopital Ste Marguerite, Marseille, France · 3Department of Dermatology, University Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland · 4Department of Sarcoma and Melanoma, M. Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland · 5Department of Dermatology (CR), and General Director (AE), Institute Gustave Roussy, Villejuif Cedex, France · 6First Department of Medicine, University of Athens Medical School, Athens, Greece · 7Department of Oncology, Westmead Hospital and Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia · 8Service of Oncology, Clinica Universitaria de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain · 9Department of Dermatology, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany · and 10Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. ·Am J Ther · Pubmed #24413374.

ABSTRACT: The molecular classification of melanoma and the advent of new drugs are changing the paradigm of therapy for advanced melanoma. A review of the recent key studies was performed, followed by a discussion in an expert forum. The aim of this review was to generate a therapeutic algorithm for stage IV melanoma. Tumor genotyping for BRAF and/or KIT should be performed before selection of therapy. For most BRAF-mutated melanoma patients and particularly those with a high tumor load, vemurafenib or other BRAF inhibitors such as dabrafenib are the treatment of choice. KIT inhibitors can be effective in KIT-mutant tumors, especially in those patients with mutations at exons 11 and 13. Ipilimumab is a good option for patients with nontargetable or nondetected mutations and those who progress under therapy with vemurafenib or a KIT inhibitor. There is still a role for conventional chemotherapy either as first-line treatment in BRAF wild-type patients or as salvage therapy in second or third line, or after other treatment modalities. Participation in clinical trials is strongly encouraged, either in first or in subsequent lines. New therapeutic options for advanced melanoma are guided by tumor genotyping. The current therapeutic algorithm includes kinase inhibitors, anti-CTLA4 therapy, immunotherapy, and chemotherapy, depending on the tumor genotype and response to previous treatments. Participation in clinical trials should always be encouraged because the treatment goal is long-term survival and potential cure in a subset of patients.

11 Review Adjuvant interferon alfa in malignant melanoma: an interdisciplinary and multinational expert review. 2013

Ascierto, Paolo A / Gogas, Helen J / Grob, Jean Jacques / Algarra, Salvador Martín / Mohr, Peter / Hansson, Johan / Hauschild, Axel. ·Unit of Melanoma, Cancer Immunotherapy and Innovative Therapy, Istituto Nazionale per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori "Fondazione G. Pascale," Naples, Italy. paolo.ascierto@gmail.com ·Crit Rev Oncol Hematol · Pubmed #22874771.

ABSTRACT: Interferon alfa (IFNα) and pegylated IFNα2b (PegIFNα2b) are the only agents currently approved for the adjuvant treatment of resected melanoma at high risk of recurrence. Meta-analyses showed statistically significant disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) benefits versus controls but did not clarify optimal dose/duration. We review data from all recent clinical trials to provide the latest information on dose, duration, and potential predictive factors of treatment success. Recent data largely confirm DFS and OS benefits but optimal dose/duration is not clarified. The data suggest greater responses in patients with stage III micro-metastatic versus macro-metastatic disease, and ulceration may also predict greater sensitivity to therapy, although further investigation is needed. Presently, IFNα and PegIFNα2b remain valid adjuvant therapies following resection of high-risk melanoma; the most appropriate treatment regimen should be determined on an individual patient basis according to patient lifestyle and approach, potential for toxicity, and the available clinical evidence.

12 Review [Actinic keratosis: diagnostic difficulties and misinterpretation]. 2012

Grob, Jean-Jacques. ·Service de dermatologie, Hôpital La Timone, 264 rue Saint-Pierre, 13385 Marseille Cedex France. ·Eur J Dermatol · Pubmed #23269758.

ABSTRACT: The diagnosis of actinic keratosis (AK) is seemingly easy, but errors by excess or default are multiple and frequent, even if they generally do not entail short-term harmful consequences. A review of possible errors and simple rules allowing to reduce them is presented here. From a practical point of view, the main risk is to misinterpret an invasive carcinoma as an AK, and to treat it as an AK, and over all a lentigo maligna. However, the misappreciation of the nosology of AK also exposes to frequent erroneous interpretations that are potentially harmful to the patients.

13 Review Management of pegylated interferon alpha toxicity in adjuvant therapy of melanoma. 2012

Daud, Adil / Soon, Christopher / Dummer, Reinhard / Eggermont, Alexander M M / Hwu, Wen-Jen / Grob, Jean Jacques / Garbe, Claus / Hauschild, Axel. ·University of California, San Francisco, Melanoma Program, San Francisco 1600 Divisadero St, Rm A741, Box 1770, San Francisco, CA 94115, USA. adaud@medicine.ucsf.edu ·Expert Opin Biol Ther · Pubmed #22694288.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Both native IFNα2b and pegylated IFNα2b (PegIFNα2b) are approved for the adjuvant treatment of high-risk melanoma. AREAS COVERED: This review compares the toxicity profiles of high-dose IFNα2b (HDI) and PegIFNα2b, and provides recommendations on the management of common PegIFNα2b-related toxicities, based on available clinical data and published literature. EXPERT OPINION: The toxicity profile of PegIFNα2b at the approved dose (6 μg/kg/week for 8 weeks then 3 μg/kg/week for up to 5 years) is qualitatively similar to HDI in melanoma. The most common adverse events (AEs) are fatigue, anorexia, hepatotoxicity, flu-like symptoms, injection site reactions and depression. However, fatigue and flu-like symptoms appear less severe with PegIFNα2b, and toxicity seems to occur earlier, whereas with HDI toxicity may increase with time. Most AEs can be managed effectively by dose modification and aggressive symptom control. Dosing to tolerance using a three-step dose reduction schedule to maintain an ECOG performance status of 0 - 1 may enable patients experiencing toxicity to remain on treatment; this can be applied readily in clinical practice. PegIFNα2b is therefore a valuable alternative option for adjuvant treatment in melanoma, with a toxicity profile similar to that of HDI overall but a more convenient administration schedule.

14 Clinical Trial MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic as adjuvant therapy for patients with resected, MAGE-A3-positive, stage III melanoma (DERMA): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. 2018

Dreno, Brigitte / Thompson, John F / Smithers, Bernard Mark / Santinami, Mario / Jouary, Thomas / Gutzmer, Ralf / Levchenko, Evgeny / Rutkowski, Piotr / Grob, Jean-Jacques / Korovin, Sergii / Drucis, Kamil / Grange, Florent / Machet, Laurent / Hersey, Peter / Krajsova, Ivana / Testori, Alessandro / Conry, Robert / Guillot, Bernard / Kruit, Wim H J / Demidov, Lev / Thompson, John A / Bondarenko, Igor / Jaroszek, Jaroslaw / Puig, Susana / Cinat, Gabriela / Hauschild, Axel / Goeman, Jelle J / van Houwelingen, Hans C / Ulloa-Montoya, Fernando / Callegaro, Andrea / Dizier, Benjamin / Spiessens, Bart / Debois, Muriel / Brichard, Vincent G / Louahed, Jamila / Therasse, Patrick / Debruyne, Channa / Kirkwood, John M. ·Department of Dermatooncology, Hotel Dieu Nantes University Hospital, Nantes, France. · Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. · Queensland Melanoma Project, Discipline of Surgery, The University of Queensland, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, QLD, Australia. · Melanoma Sarcoma Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan, Italy. · Service d'Oncologie Médicale, Hôpital François Mitterrand, Pau, France. · Skin Cancer Center Hannover, Department of Dermatology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany. · Petrov Research Institute of Oncology, St Petersburg, Russia. · Department of Soft Tissue, Bone Sarcoma, and Melanoma, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Institute, Oncology Center, Warsaw, Poland. · Department of Dermatology and Skin Cancers, La Timone APHM Hospital, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France. · Department of Skin and Soft Tissue Tumours, National Cancer Institute, Kiev, Ukraine. · Swissmed Centrum Zdrowia, Gdansk, Poland; Department of Surgical Oncology, Gdansk Medical University, Gdansk, Poland. · Dermatology Department, Hôpital Robert Debré, Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne, Reims, France. · Department of Dermatology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Tours, France; UFR de Médecine, Université François-Rabelais, Tours, France. · Melanoma Immunology and Oncology Group, Centenary Institute, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Melanoma Institute Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia. · Dermato-oncology Department, General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic. · Columbus Clinic Center, Milan, Italy. · Division of Hematology & Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. · Département de Dermatologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Hôpital Saint-Éloi, Montpellier, France. · Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer institute, Rotterdam, Netherlands. · Cancer Research Center, Moscow, Russia. · Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. · Department of Oncology and Medical Radiology, Dnipropetrovsk State Medical Academy, Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine. · Centrum Medyczne Bieńkowski, Klinika Chirurgii Plastycznej, Bydgoszcz, Poland; Department of Oncological Surgery, Oncology Center, Bydgoszcz, Poland. · Melanoma Unit, Dermatology Department, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Raras, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Barcelona, Spain. · Instituto de Oncología Ángel H Roffo, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina. · Department of Dermatology, Venereology, and Allergology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany. · Medical Statistics, Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands. · GlaxoSmithKline, Rixensart, Belgium. Electronic address: fernando.x.ulloa-montoya@GSK.com. · GlaxoSmithKline, Rixensart, Belgium. · GlaxoSmithKline, Rixensart, Belgium; Immunology Translational Medicine, UCB, Brussels, Belgium. · GlaxoSmithKline, Rixensart, Belgium; Biostatistics Department, Janssen Research & Development, Beerse, Belgium. · GlaxoSmithKline, Rixensart, Belgium; ViaNova Biosciences, Brussels, Belgium. · GlaxoSmithKline, Rixensart, Belgium; Laboratoires Servier, Paris, France. · GlaxoSmithKline, Rixensart, Belgium; University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. · UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #29908991.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Despite newly approved treatments, metastatic melanoma remains a life-threatening condition. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic in patients with stage IIIB or IIIC melanoma in the adjuvant setting. METHODS: DERMA was a phase 3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial done in 31 countries and 263 centres. Eligible patients were 18 years or older and had histologically proven, completely resected, stage IIIB or IIIC, MAGE-A3-positive cutaneous melanoma with macroscopic lymph node involvement and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0 or 1. Randomisation and treatment allocation at the investigator sites were done centrally via the internet. We randomly assigned patients (2:1) to receive up to 13 intramuscular injections of recombinant MAGE-A3 with AS15 immunostimulant (MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic; 300 μg MAGE-A3 antigen plus 420 μg CpG 7909 reconstituted in AS01B to a total volume of 0·5 mL), or placebo, over a 27-month period: five doses at 3-weekly intervals, followed by eight doses at 12-weekly intervals. The co-primary outcomes were disease-free survival in the overall population and in patients with a potentially predictive gene signature (GS-positive) identified previously and validated here via an adaptive signature design. The final analyses included all patients who had received at least one dose of study treatment; analyses for efficacy were in the as-randomised population and for safety were in the as-treated population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00796445. FINDINGS: Between Dec 1, 2008, and Sept 19, 2011, 3914 patients were screened, 1391 randomly assigned, and 1345 started treatment (n=895 for MAGE-A3 and n=450 for placebo). At final analysis (data cutoff May 23, 2013), median follow-up was 28·0 months [IQR 23·3-35·5] in the MAGE-A3 group and 28·1 months [23·7-36·9] in the placebo group. Median disease-free survival was 11·0 months (95% CI 10·0-11·9) in the MAGE-A3 group and 11·2 months (8·6-14·1) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·01, 0·88-1·17, p=0·86). In the GS-positive population, median disease-free survival was 9·9 months (95% CI 5·7-17·6) in the MAGE-A3 group and 11·6 months (5·6-22·3) in the placebo group (HR 1·11, 0·83-1·49, p=0·48). Within the first 31 days of treatment, adverse events of grade 3 or worse were reported by 126 (14%) of 894 patients in the MAGE-A3 group and 56 (12%) of 450 patients in the placebo group, treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse by 36 (4%) patients given MAGE-A3 vs six (1%) patients given placebo, and at least one serious adverse event by 14% of patients in both groups (129 patients given MAGE-A3 and 64 patients given placebo). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or worse were neoplasms (33 [4%] patients in the MAGE-A3 group vs 17 [4%] patients in the placebo group), general disorders and administration site conditions (25 [3%] for MAGE-A3 vs four [<1%] for placebo) and infections and infestations (17 [2%] for MAGE-A3 vs seven [2%] for placebo). No deaths were related to treatment. INTERPRETATION: An antigen-specific immunotherapeutic alone was not efficacious in this clinical setting. Based on these findings, development of the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic for use in melanoma has been stopped. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA.

15 Clinical Trial Adjuvant Pembrolizumab versus Placebo in Resected Stage III Melanoma. 2018

Eggermont, Alexander M M / Blank, Christian U / Mandala, Mario / Long, Georgina V / Atkinson, Victoria / Dalle, Stéphane / Haydon, Andrew / Lichinitser, Mikhail / Khattak, Adnan / Carlino, Matteo S / Sandhu, Shahneen / Larkin, James / Puig, Susana / Ascierto, Paolo A / Rutkowski, Piotr / Schadendorf, Dirk / Koornstra, Rutger / Hernandez-Aya, Leonel / Maio, Michele / van den Eertwegh, Alfonsus J M / Grob, Jean-Jacques / Gutzmer, Ralf / Jamal, Rahima / Lorigan, Paul / Ibrahim, Nageatte / Marreaud, Sandrine / van Akkooi, Alexander C J / Suciu, Stefan / Robert, Caroline. ·From the Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus Grand Paris and University Paris-Saclay, Villejuif (A.M.M.E., C.R.), Hospices Civils de Lyon Cancer Institute, Cancer Research Center of Lyon, Lyon University, Lyon (S.D.), and Aix-Marseille University, Hôpital de la Timone, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Marseille, Marseille (J.-J.G.) - all in France · Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek (C.U.B., A.C.J.A.) and VU University Medical Center (A.J.M.E.), Amsterdam, and Radboud University Medical Center Nijmegen, Nijmegen (R.K.) - all in the Netherlands · Azienda Ospedaliera Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo (M. Mandala), Istituto Nazionale Tumori Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico Fondazione G. Pascale, Naples (P.A.A.), and Universita Degli Studi Di Siena-Policlinico le Scotte, Siena (M. Maio) - all in Italy · Melanoma Institute Australia, the University of Sydney, and Mater and Royal North Shore Hospitals (G.V.L.) and Westmead and Blacktown Hospitals, Melanoma Institute Australia and the University of Sydney (M.S.C.), Sydney, Princess Alexandra Hospital, University of Queensland, Brisbane (V.A.), Alfred Hospital (A.H.) and Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre (S. Sandhu), Melbourne, VIC, and Fiona Stanley Hospital-University of Western Australia-Edith Cowan University Perth, Perth (A.K.) - all in Australia · Cancer Research Center, Moscow (M.L.) · Royal Marsden Hospital, London (J.L.) · Hospital Clinic Universitari de Barcelona, Barcelona (S.P.) · Maria Sklodowska-Curie Institute-Oncology Center, Warsaw, Poland (P.R.) · University Hospital Essen, Essen and German Cancer Consortium, Heidelberg (D.S.), and the Skin Cancer Center, Department of Dermatology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover (R.G.) - all in Germany · Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis (L.H.-A.) · Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM), Centre de Recherche du CHUM, Montreal (R.J.) · Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom (P.L.) · Merck, Kenilworth, NJ (N.I.) · and the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Headquarters, Brussels (S.M., S. Suciu). ·N Engl J Med · Pubmed #29658430.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab has been found to prolong progression-free and overall survival among patients with advanced melanoma. We conducted a phase 3 double-blind trial to evaluate pembrolizumab as adjuvant therapy in patients with resected, high-risk stage III melanoma. METHODS: Patients with completely resected stage III melanoma were randomly assigned (with stratification according to cancer stage and geographic region) to receive 200 mg of pembrolizumab (514 patients) or placebo (505 patients) intravenously every 3 weeks for a total of 18 doses (approximately 1 year) or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxic effects occurred. Recurrence-free survival in the overall intention-to-treat population and in the subgroup of patients with cancer that was positive for the PD-1 ligand (PD-L1) were the primary end points. Safety was also evaluated. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 15 months, pembrolizumab was associated with significantly longer recurrence-free survival than placebo in the overall intention-to-treat population (1-year rate of recurrence-free survival, 75.4% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 71.3 to 78.9] vs. 61.0% [95% CI, 56.5 to 65.1]; hazard ratio for recurrence or death, 0.57; 98.4% CI, 0.43 to 0.74; P<0.001) and in the subgroup of 853 patients with PD-L1-positive tumors (1-year rate of recurrence-free survival, 77.1% [95% CI, 72.7 to 80.9] in the pembrolizumab group and 62.6% [95% CI, 57.7 to 67.0] in the placebo group; hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.69; P<0.001). Adverse events of grades 3 to 5 that were related to the trial regimen were reported in 14.7% of the patients in the pembrolizumab group and in 3.4% of patients in the placebo group. There was one treatment-related death due to myositis in the pembrolizumab group. CONCLUSIONS: As adjuvant therapy for high-risk stage III melanoma, 200 mg of pembrolizumab administered every 3 weeks for up to 1 year resulted in significantly longer recurrence-free survival than placebo, with no new toxic effects identified. (Funded by Merck; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02362594 ; EudraCT number, 2014-004944-37 .).

16 Clinical Trial Adjuvant Nivolumab versus Ipilimumab in Resected Stage III or IV Melanoma. 2017

Weber, Jeffrey / Mandala, Mario / Del Vecchio, Michele / Gogas, Helen J / Arance, Ana M / Cowey, C Lance / Dalle, Stéphane / Schenker, Michael / Chiarion-Sileni, Vanna / Marquez-Rodas, Ivan / Grob, Jean-Jacques / Butler, Marcus O / Middleton, Mark R / Maio, Michele / Atkinson, Victoria / Queirolo, Paola / Gonzalez, Rene / Kudchadkar, Ragini R / Smylie, Michael / Meyer, Nicolas / Mortier, Laurent / Atkins, Michael B / Long, Georgina V / Bhatia, Shailender / Lebbé, Celeste / Rutkowski, Piotr / Yokota, Kenji / Yamazaki, Naoya / Kim, Tae M / de Pril, Veerle / Sabater, Javier / Qureshi, Anila / Larkin, James / Ascierto, Paolo A / Anonymous401125. ·From New York University Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York (J.W.) · Papa Giovanni XXIII Cancer Center Hospital, Bergamo (M. Mandala), Medical Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Milan (M.D.V.), Oncology Institute of Veneto Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Padua (V.C.-S.), Center for Immuno-Oncology, University Hospital of Siena, Istituto Toscano Tumori, Siena (M. Maio), Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa (P.Q.), and Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione Pascale, Naples (P.A.A.) - all in Italy · National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens (H.J.G.) · Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Barcelona (A.M.A.), and General University Hospital Gregorio Marañón, Madrid (I.M.-R.) - both in Spain · Texas Oncology-Baylor Cancer Center, Dallas (C.L.C.) · Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pierre Bénite (S.D.), Aix-Marseille University, Hospital de la Timone, Marseille (J.-J.G.), Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse and Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU), Toulouse (N.M.), Université Lille, INSERM Unité 1189, CHU Lille, Lille (L.M.), and Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Dermatology and Centres d'Investigation Clinique, INSERM Unité 976, Hôpital Saint Louis, Université Paris Diderot, Paris (C.L.) - all in France · Oncology Center Sf. Nectarie, Craiova, Romania (M. Schenker) · Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto (M.O.B.), and Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, AB (M. Smylie) - both in Canada · the Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford (M.R.M.), and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London (J.L.) - both in the United Kingdom · Gallipoli Medical Research Foundation and University of Queensland, Queensland, VIC (V.A.), and Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, and Royal North Shore and Mater Hospitals, Sydney (G.V.L.) - all in Australia · University of Colorado, Denver (R.G.) · Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta (R.R.K.) · Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington DC (M.B.A.) · University of Washington, Seattle (S.B.) · Maria Sklodowska-Curie Institute-Oncology Center, Warsaw, Poland (P.R.) · Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya (K.Y.), and the National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo (N.Y.) - both in Japan · Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea (T.M.K.) · and Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ (V.P, J.S., A.Q.). ·N Engl J Med · Pubmed #28891423.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Nivolumab and ipilimumab are immune checkpoint inhibitors that have been approved for the treatment of advanced melanoma. In the United States, ipilimumab has also been approved as adjuvant therapy for melanoma on the basis of recurrence-free and overall survival rates that were higher than those with placebo in a phase 3 trial. We wanted to determine the efficacy of nivolumab versus ipilimumab for adjuvant therapy in patients with resected advanced melanoma. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 906 patients (≥15 years of age) who were undergoing complete resection of stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV melanoma to receive an intravenous infusion of either nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks (453 patients) or ipilimumab at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses and then every 12 weeks (453 patients). The patients were treated for a period of up to 1 year or until disease recurrence, a report of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. The primary end point was recurrence-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: At a minimum follow-up of 18 months, the 12-month rate of recurrence-free survival was 70.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 66.1 to 74.5) in the nivolumab group and 60.8% (95% CI, 56.0 to 65.2) in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.65; 97.56% CI, 0.51 to 0.83; P<0.001). Treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported in 14.4% of the patients in the nivolumab group and in 45.9% of those in the ipilimumab group; treatment was discontinued because of any adverse event in 9.7% and 42.6% of the patients, respectively. Two deaths (0.4%) related to toxic effects were reported in the ipilimumab group more than 100 days after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing resection of stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV melanoma, adjuvant therapy with nivolumab resulted in significantly longer recurrence-free survival and a lower rate of grade 3 or 4 adverse events than adjuvant therapy with ipilimumab. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 238 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02388906 ; Eudra-CT number, 2014-002351-26 .).

17 Clinical Trial Overall Survival with Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma. 2017

Wolchok, Jedd D / Chiarion-Sileni, Vanna / Gonzalez, Rene / Rutkowski, Piotr / Grob, Jean-Jacques / Cowey, C Lance / Lao, Christopher D / Wagstaff, John / Schadendorf, Dirk / Ferrucci, Pier F / Smylie, Michael / Dummer, Reinhard / Hill, Andrew / Hogg, David / Haanen, John / Carlino, Matteo S / Bechter, Oliver / Maio, Michele / Marquez-Rodas, Ivan / Guidoboni, Massimo / McArthur, Grant / Lebbé, Celeste / Ascierto, Paolo A / Long, Georgina V / Cebon, Jonathan / Sosman, Jeffrey / Postow, Michael A / Callahan, Margaret K / Walker, Dana / Rollin, Linda / Bhore, Rafia / Hodi, F Stephen / Larkin, James. ·From the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York (J.D.W., M.A.P., M.K.C.) · Oncology Institute of Veneto Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS), Padua (V.C.-S.), European Institute of Oncology, Milan (P.F.F.), Center for Immuno-Oncology, University Hospital of Siena, Istituto Toscano Tumori, Siena (M.M.), the Immunotherapy and Somatic Cell Therapy Unit, IRCCS Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori, Meldola (M.G.), and Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione Pascale, Naples (P.A.A.) - all in Italy · University of Colorado, Denver (R.G.) · Maria Sklodowska-Curie Institute-Oncology Center, Warsaw, Poland (P.R.) · Aix-Marseille University, Hôpital de la Timone, Marseille (J.-J.G.), and Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Dermatology and Centres d'Investigation Clinique, INSERM Unité 976, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Université Paris Diderot, Paris (C.L.) - both in France · Texas Oncology-Baylor Cancer Center, Dallas (C.L.C.) · University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (C.D.L.) · the College of Medicine, Swansea University, Swansea (J.W.), and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London (J.L.) - both in the United Kingdom · the Department of Dermatology, University of Essen, Essen, and the German Cancer Consortium, Heidelberg - both in Germany (D.S.) · Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, AB (M.S.), and Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto (D.H.) - both in Canada · Universitäts Spital, Zurich, Switzerland (R.D.) · Tasman Oncology Research, Southport Gold Coast, QLD (A.H.), Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney (M.S.C.), and Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, and Royal North Shore and Mater Hospitals (G.V.L.), Sydney, and Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre (G.M.) and the Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute, University of Melbourne (J.C.), Melbourne, VIC - all in Australia · Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam (J.H.) · University Hospitals Leuven, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (O.B.) · General University Hospital Gregorio Marañón, Madrid (I.M.-R.) · Northwestern University, Chicago (J.S.) · Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ (D.W., L.R., R.B.) · and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston (F.S.H.). ·N Engl J Med · Pubmed #28889792.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Nivolumab combined with ipilimumab resulted in longer progression-free survival and a higher objective response rate than ipilimumab alone in a phase 3 trial involving patients with advanced melanoma. We now report 3-year overall survival outcomes in this trial. METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, patients with previously untreated advanced melanoma to receive nivolumab at a dose of 1 mg per kilogram of body weight plus ipilimumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks; nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks plus placebo; or ipilimumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses plus placebo, until progression, the occurrence of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. Randomization was stratified according to programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status, BRAF mutation status, and metastasis stage. The two primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and in the nivolumab group versus the ipilimumab group. RESULTS: At a minimum follow-up of 36 months, the median overall survival had not been reached in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and was 37.6 months in the nivolumab group, as compared with 19.9 months in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio for death with nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.55 [P<0.001]; hazard ratio for death with nivolumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.65 [P<0.001]). The overall survival rate at 3 years was 58% in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 52% in the nivolumab group, as compared with 34% in the ipilimumab group. The safety profile was unchanged from the initial report. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 59% of the patients in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group, in 21% of those in the nivolumab group, and in 28% of those in the ipilimumab group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced melanoma, significantly longer overall survival occurred with combination therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or with nivolumab alone than with ipilimumab alone. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 067 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844505 .).

18 Clinical Trial Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab for advanced melanoma: final overall survival results of a multicentre, randomised, open-label phase 3 study (KEYNOTE-006). 2017

Schachter, Jacob / Ribas, Antoni / Long, Georgina V / Arance, Ana / Grob, Jean-Jacques / Mortier, Laurent / Daud, Adil / Carlino, Matteo S / McNeil, Catriona / Lotem, Michal / Larkin, James / Lorigan, Paul / Neyns, Bart / Blank, Christian / Petrella, Teresa M / Hamid, Omid / Zhou, Honghong / Ebbinghaus, Scot / Ibrahim, Nageatte / Robert, Caroline. ·Division of Oncology, Ella Lemelbaum Institute for Melanoma, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel. Electronic address: jacob.schachter@sheba.health.gov.il. · Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. · Department of Medical Oncology and Translational Research, Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Mater Hospital and Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia. · Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. · Department of Dermatology and Skin Cancer, Aix Marseille University, Hôpital de la Timone, Marseille, France. · Department of Dermatology, Université Lille, INSERM U1189, CHU Lille, F-59000, France. · Department of Hematology/Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. · Department of Medical Oncology, Westmead and Blacktown Hospitals, Melanoma Institute Australia, and The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. · Department of Medical Oncology, Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, and Melanoma Institute Australia, Camperdown, Australia. · Department of Melanoma and Cancer Immunotherapy, Sharett Institute of Oncology, Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel. · Department of Medical Oncology, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK. · Department of Medical Oncology University of Manchester and the Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK. · Department of Medical Oncology, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Brussels, Belgium. · Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands. · Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology/Hematology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, Toronto, ON, Canada. · Department of Hematology/Oncology, The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA, USA. · Department of BARDS, Merck & Co, Kenilworth, NJ, USA. · Department of Clinical Oncology, Merck & Co, Kenilworth, NJ, USA. · Department of Oncology, Gustave Roussy and Paris-Sud University, Villejuif, France. ·Lancet · Pubmed #28822576.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Interim analyses of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-006 study showed superior overall and progression-free survival of pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma. We present the final protocol-specified survival analysis. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients from 87 academic institutions, hospitals, and cancer centres in 16 countries (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Colombia, France, Germany, Israel, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, UK, and USA). We randomly assigned participants (1:1:1) to one of two dose regimens of pembrolizumab, or one regimen of ipilimumab, using a centralised, computer-generated allocation schedule. Treatment assignments used blocked randomisation within strata. Eligible patients were at least 18 years old, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, at least one measurable lesion per Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1), unresectable stage III or IV melanoma (excluding ocular melanoma), and up to one previous systemic therapy (excluding anti-CTLA-4, PD-1, or PD-L1 agents). Secondary eligibility criteria are described later. Patients were excluded if they had active brain metastases or active autoimmune disease requiring systemic steroids. The primary outcome was overall survival (defined as the time from randomisation to death from any cause). Response was assessed per RECIST v1.1 by independent central review at week 12, then every 6 weeks up to week 48, and then every 12 weeks thereafter. Survival was assessed every 12 weeks, and final analysis occurred after all patients were followed up for at least 21 months. Primary analysis was done on the intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned patients) and safety analyses were done in the treated population (all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment). Data cutoff date for this analysis was Dec 3, 2015. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01866319. FINDINGS: Between Sept 18, 2013, and March 3, 2014, 834 patients with advanced melanoma were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive intravenous pembrolizumab every 2 weeks (n=279), intravenous pembrolizumab every 3 weeks (n=277), or intravenous ipilimumab every 3 weeks (ipilimumab for four doses; n=278). One patient in the pembrolizumab 2 week group and 22 patients in the ipilimumab group withdrew consent and did not receive treatment. A total of 811 patients received at least one dose of study treatment. Median follow-up was 22·9 months; 383 patients died. Median overall survival was not reached in either pembrolizumab group and was 16·0 months with ipilimumab (hazard ratio [HR] 0·68, 95% CI 0·53-0·87 for pembrolizumab every 2 weeks vs ipilimumab; p=0·0009 and 0·68, 0·53-0·86 for pembrolizumab every 3 weeks vs ipilimumab; p=0·0008). 24-month overall survival rate was 55% in the 2-week group, 55% in the 3-week group, and 43% in the ipilimumab group. INTERPRETATION: Substantiating the results of the interim analyses of KEYNOTE-006, pembrolizumab continued to provide superior overall survival versus ipilimumab, with no difference between pembrolizumab dosing schedules. These conclusions further support the use of pembrolizumab as a standard of care for advanced melanoma. FUNDING: Merck & Co.

19 Clinical Trial Health-related quality of life results from the phase III CheckMate 067 study. 2017

Schadendorf, Dirk / Larkin, James / Wolchok, Jedd / Hodi, F Stephen / Chiarion-Sileni, Vanna / Gonzalez, Rene / Rutkowski, Piotr / Grob, Jean-Jacques / Cowey, C Lance / Lao, Christopher / Wagstaff, John / Callahan, Margaret K / Postow, Michael A / Smylie, Michael / Ferrucci, Pier Francesco / Dummer, Reinhard / Hill, Andrew / Taylor, Fiona / Sabater, Javier / Walker, Dana / Kotapati, Srividya / Abernethy, Amy / Long, Georgina V. ·Department of Dermatology, University of Essen, Essen, Germany; German Cancer Consortium, Heidelberg, Germany. · Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK. · Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. · Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. · Istituto Oncologico Veneto, Veneto, Italy. · University of Colorado, Denver, CO, USA. · Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland. · Hospital de la Timone, Marseille, France. · Texas Oncology-Baylor Cancer Center, Dallas, TX, USA. · University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. · The College of Medicine, Swansea University, Swansea, UK. · Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. · Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. · Istituto Europeo di Oncologia, Milan, Italy. · University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. · Tasman Oncology Research, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. · Adelphi Values, Boston, MA, USA. · Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA. · Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. · Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Royal North Shore and Mater Hospitals, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Electronic address: georgina.long@sydney.edu.au. ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #28651159.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Nivolumab, a monoclonal antibody of immune checkpoint programmed death 1 on T cells (PD-1), combined with ipilimumab, an immune checkpoint cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor, as combination therapy on the one hand and nivolumab as monotherapy on the other, have both demonstrated improved efficacy compared with ipilimumab alone in the CheckMate 067 study. However, the combination resulted in a higher frequency of grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs), which could result in diminished health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Here we report analyses of HRQoL for patients with advanced melanoma in clinical trial CheckMate 067. PATIENTS AND METHODS: HRQoL was assessed at weeks 1 and 5 per 6-week cycle for the first 6 months, once every 6 weeks thereafter, and at two follow-up visits using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Care Core Quality of Life Questionnaire and the EuroQoL Five Dimensions Questionnaire. In addition to the randomised population, patient subgroups, including BRAF mutation status, partial or complete response, treatment-related AEs of grade 3/4, and those who discontinued due to any reason and due to an AE, were investigated. RESULTS: Nivolumab and ipilimumab combination and nivolumab alone both maintained HRQoL, and no clinically meaningful deterioration was observed over time compared with ipilimumab. In addition, similar results were observed across patient subgroups, and no clinically meaningful changes in HRQoL were observed during follow-up visits for patients who discontinued due to any cause. CONCLUSION: These results further support the clinical benefit of nivolumab monotherapy and nivolumab and ipilimumab combination therapy in patients with advanced melanoma. The finding that the difference in grade 3/4 AEs between the arms did not translate into clinically meaningful differences in the reported HRQoL may be relevant in the clinical setting. STUDY NUMBER: NCT01844505.

20 Clinical Trial Three-year pooled analysis of factors associated with clinical outcomes across dabrafenib and trametinib combination therapy phase 3 randomised trials. 2017

Schadendorf, Dirk / Long, Georgina V / Stroiakovski, Daniil / Karaszewska, Boguslawa / Hauschild, Axel / Levchenko, Evgeny / Chiarion-Sileni, Vanna / Schachter, Jacob / Garbe, Claus / Dutriaux, Caroline / Gogas, Helen / Mandalà, Mario / Haanen, John B A G / Lebbé, Céleste / Mackiewicz, Andrzej / Rutkowski, Piotr / Grob, Jean-Jacques / Nathan, Paul / Ribas, Antoni / Davies, Michael A / Zhang, Ying / Kaper, Mathilde / Mookerjee, Bijoyesh / Legos, Jeffrey J / Flaherty, Keith T / Robert, Caroline. ·Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, Hufelandstrasse 55, 45122 Essen, Germany; German Cancer Consortium, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany. Electronic address: Dirk.Schadendorf@uk-essen.de. · Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia; Mater Hospital, North Sydney, NSW, Australia; Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW, Australia. · Moscow City Oncology Hospital No 62, Moscow 143423, Russia. · Przychodnia Lekarska KOMED, Wojska Polskiego 6, 62-500 Konin, Poland. · Department of Dermatology, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Arnold-Heller-Straße 3, 24105 Kiel, Germany. · Petrov Research Institute of Oncology, 68 Leningradskaya Street, Saint Petersburg 197758, Russia. · Melanoma and Esophageal Oncology Unit, Veneto Oncology Institute-IRCCS, Via Gattamelata 64, 35128 Padova, Italy. · Oncology Division, Sheba Medical Center, Tel HaShomer, Emek HaEla St 1, Ramat Gan, Israel. · Department of Dermatology, University of Tübingen, Geschwister-Scholl-Platz, 72074 Tübingen, Germany. · Service de Dermatologie et Dermatologie Pédiatrique, Hôpital Saint-André, 1 Rue Jean Burguet, 33000 Bordeaux, France. · First Department of Medicine, "Laiko" General Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens 157 72, Greece. · Department of Oncology and Hematology, Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Bergamo, Italy. · Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · APHP Dermatology and CIC Departments, INSERM U976, University Paris Diderot, Paris, France. · Department of Cancer Immunology, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 15 Garbary Street, 61-866 Poznań, Poland. · Department of Soft Tissue/Bone Sarcoma and Melanoma, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Wawelska 15B, 02-034 Warsaw, Poland. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Center, Timone Hospital, Aix Marseille University, 264 Rue St Pierre, 13885 Marseille Cedex 05, France. · Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Rickmansworth Road, HA6 2RN Northwood, UK. · Department of Medicine, Hematology/Oncology, UCLA Medical Center, 100 UCLA Medical Plaza, Suite 550, Los Angeles, CA, USA. · Melanoma Medical Oncology and Systems Biology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston 77030, TX, USA. · Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, 1 Health Plaza, East Hanover 07936, NJ, USA. · Developmental Therapeutics and Melanoma Programs, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, 55 Fruit Street, Boston 02114, MA, USA. · Department of Medical Oncology, Dermatology Service, Gustave Roussy Comprehensive Cancer Center and Faculty of Medicine, University Paris-South, F-94805, Villejuif, France. ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #28648698.

ABSTRACT: AIM: Understanding predictors of long-term benefit with currently available melanoma therapies is the key for optimising individualised treatments. A prior pooled analysis of dabrafenib plus trametinib (D + T)-randomised trials (median follow-up, 20.0 months) identified baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and number of organ sites with metastasis as predictive factors for progression-free (PFS) and overall (OS) survival. However, longer-term follow-up analyses are needed to confirm which patients treated with D + T can achieve maximum benefit. METHODS: Three-year landmark data were retrospectively pooled for D + T patients in phase 3 trials (COMBI-d [NCT01584648]; COMBI-v [NCT01597908]). Univariate and multivariate analyses assessed prognostic values of predefined baseline factors; regression tree analysis determined hierarchy and interactions between variables. RESULTS: Long-term pooled outcomes were consistent with individual trial results (N = 563; 3-year PFS, 23%; 3-year OS, 44%). Baseline LDH level and number of organ sites remained strongly associated with and/or predictive of PFS and OS. In addition, baseline sum of lesion diameters (SLD) was identified as a predictor for progression. In the most favourable prognostic group (normal LDH, SLD <66 mm, <3 organ sites; n = 183/563 [33%]), 3-year PFS was 42%. Baseline number of organ sites was also predictive of outcomes in patients with PFS ≥ 6 months. CONCLUSION: Using the largest phase 3 data set available for BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination therapy in melanoma, these results demonstrate that durable responses lasting ≥3 years are possible in subsets of patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma receiving D + T. Although the best predictive model evolved with longer follow-up, factors predicting clinical outcomes with the combination remained consistent with previous analyses.

21 Clinical Trial Dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAF 2017

Davies, Michael A / Saiag, Philippe / Robert, Caroline / Grob, Jean-Jacques / Flaherty, Keith T / Arance, Ana / Chiarion-Sileni, Vanna / Thomas, Luc / Lesimple, Thierry / Mortier, Laurent / Moschos, Stergios J / Hogg, David / Márquez-Rodas, Iván / Del Vecchio, Michele / Lebbé, Céleste / Meyer, Nicolas / Zhang, Ying / Huang, Yingjie / Mookerjee, Bijoyesh / Long, Georgina V. ·Melanoma Medical Oncology and Systems Biology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: mdavies@mdanderson.org. · Service de Dermatologie Générale et Oncologique, Hôpital A Paré, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Boulogne Billancourt, France; EA 4340, Université Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Boulogne Billancourt, France. · Gustave Roussy, Département de Médecine Oncologique, Service de Dermatologie et Université Paris-Sud, Faculté de Médecine, Villejuif, France. · Service de Dermatologie, Centre Hospitalo-Universitaire Timone, Aix Marseille University, Marseille, France. · Developmental Therapeutics and Melanoma Programs, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA. · Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Carrer de Villarroel, Barcelona, Spain. · Melanoma and Oesophageal Oncology Unit, Veneto Oncology Institute-IRCCS, Padova, Italy. · Service de Dermatologie, Centre Hospitalier Lyon-Sud, Pierre-Bénite, France. · Oncologie Dermatologique, Centre Eugène Marquis, Rennes, France. · Clinique de Dermatologie, Unité d'Onco-Dermatologie, Le Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Lille, University Lille 2, Lille, France. · Melanoma Program, Medical Oncology, UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. · Clinical Cancer Research Unit, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada. · Servicio de Oncología Médica; Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañon, Madrid, Spain. · Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy. · APHP Dermatology and CIC Departments, INSERM U976, University Paris Diderot, Hôpital Saint Louis Paris, Paris, France. · Medical Oncology, Institut Universitaire du Cancer Toulouse Oncopole, Toulouse, France. · Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA. · Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Royal North Shore and Mater Hospitals, Sydney, NSW, Australia. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #28592387.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Dabrafenib plus trametinib improves clinical outcomes in BRAF METHODS: This ongoing, multicentre, multicohort, open-label, phase 2 study evaluated oral dabrafenib (150 mg twice per day) plus oral trametinib (2 mg once per day) in four patient cohorts with melanoma brain metastases enrolled from 32 hospitals and institutions in Europe, North America, and Australia: (A) BRAF FINDINGS: Between Feb 28, 2014, and Aug 5, 2016, 125 patients were enrolled in the study: 76 patients in cohort A; 16 patients in cohort B; 16 patients in cohort C; and 17 patients in cohort D. At the data cutoff (Nov 28, 2016) after a median follow-up of 8·5 months (IQR 5·5-14·0), 44 (58%; 95% CI 46-69) of 76 patients in cohort A achieved an intracranial response. Intracranial response by investigator assessment was also achieved in nine (56%; 95% CI 30-80) of 16 patients in cohort B, seven (44%; 20-70) of 16 patients in cohort C, and ten (59%; 33-82) of 17 patients in cohort D. The most common serious adverse events related to study treatment were pyrexia for dabrafenib (eight [6%] of 125 patients) and decreased ejection fraction (five [4%]) for trametinib. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events, regardless of study drug relationship, were pyrexia (four [3%] of 125) and headache (three [2%]). INTERPRETATION: Dabrafenib plus trametinib was active with a manageable safety profile in this melanoma population that was consistent with previous dabrafenib plus trametinib studies in patients with BRAF FUNDING: Novartis.

22 Clinical Trial Dabrafenib plus trametinib versus dabrafenib monotherapy in patients with metastatic BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma: long-term survival and safety analysis of a phase 3 study. 2017

Long, G V / Flaherty, K T / Stroyakovskiy, D / Gogas, H / Levchenko, E / de Braud, F / Larkin, J / Garbe, C / Jouary, T / Hauschild, A / Chiarion-Sileni, V / Lebbe, C / Mandalà, M / Millward, M / Arance, A / Bondarenko, I / Haanen, J B A G / Hansson, J / Utikal, J / Ferraresi, V / Mohr, P / Probachai, V / Schadendorf, D / Nathan, P / Robert, C / Ribas, A / Davies, M A / Lane, S R / Legos, J J / Mookerjee, B / Grob, J-J. ·Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, and Royal North Shore and Mater Hospitals, North Sydney, Australia. · Developmental Therapeutics and Melanoma Programs, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, USA. · Moscow City Oncology Hospital #62, Moscow, Russia. · First Department of Medicine, "Laiko" General Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece. · Petrov Research Institute of Oncology, Saint Petersburg, Russia. · Dipartimento di Medicina Oncologica, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy. · Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. · Department of Dermatology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. · Service D'oncologie Médicale, Hopital Francois Mitterrand, Pau, France. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany. · Melanoma and Oesophageal Oncology Unit, Veneto Oncology Institute-IRCCS, Padova, Italy. · APHP Dermatology and CIC Departments, INSERM U976, University Paris Diderot, Paris, France. · Department of Oncology and Hematology, Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Bergamo, Italy. · Medical Oncology Department, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Australia. · Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. · Dnipropetrovsk State Medical Academy, Clinical Hospital #4, Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine. · Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. · Skin Cancer Unit, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Ruprecht-Karls University of Heidelberg, Mannheim and Heidelberg, Germany. · Department of Medical Oncology A, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy. · Dermatologisches Zentrum Buxtehude, Elbe Kliniken Buxtehude, Buxtehude, Germany. · Dnipropetrovsk Clinical Oncology Center of Dnipropetrovsk State Council, Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. · German Cancer Consortium, Heidelberg, Germany. · Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK. · Gustave Roussy, Département de Médecine Oncologique, Service de Dermatologie et Université Paris-Sud, Faculté de Médecine, Villejuif, France. · Department of Medicine, Hematology/Oncology, UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, USA. · Melanoma Medical Oncology and Systems Biology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA. · Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, USA. · Service de Dermatologie, Centre Hospitalo-Universitaire Timone, Aix-Marseille Université, Marseille, France. ·Ann Oncol · Pubmed #28475671.

ABSTRACT: Background: Previous analysis of COMBI-d (NCT01584648) demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with combination dabrafenib and trametinib versus dabrafenib monotherapy in BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. This study was continued to assess 3-year landmark efficacy and safety after ≥36-month follow-up for all living patients. Patients and methods: This double-blind, phase 3 study enrolled previously untreated patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma. Patients were randomized to receive dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) plus trametinib (2 mg once daily) or dabrafenib plus placebo. The primary endpoint was PFS; secondary endpoints were OS, overall response, duration of response, safety, and pharmacokinetics. Results: Between 4 May and 30 November 2012, a total of 423 of 947 screened patients were randomly assigned to receive dabrafenib plus trametinib (n = 211) or dabrafenib monotherapy (n = 212). At data cut-off (15 February 2016), outcomes remained superior with the combination: 3-year PFS was 22% with dabrafenib plus trametinib versus 12% with monotherapy, and 3-year OS was 44% versus 32%, respectively. Twenty-five patients receiving monotherapy crossed over to combination therapy, with continued follow-up under the monotherapy arm (per intent-to-treat principle). Of combination-arm patients alive at 3 years, 58% remained on dabrafenib plus trametinib. Three-year OS with the combination reached 62% in the most favourable subgroup (normal lactate dehydrogenase and <3 organ sites with metastasis) versus only 25% in the unfavourable subgroup (elevated lactate dehydrogenase). The dabrafenib plus trametinib safety profile was consistent with previous clinical trial observations, and no new safety signals were detected with long-term use. Conclusions: These data demonstrate that durable (≥3 years) survival is achievable with dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma and support long-term first-line use of the combination in this setting.

23 Clinical Trial Incidence, course, and management of toxicities associated with cobimetinib in combination with vemurafenib in the coBRIM study. 2017

Dréno, B / Ribas, A / Larkin, J / Ascierto, P A / Hauschild, A / Thomas, L / Grob, J-J / Koralek, D O / Rooney, I / Hsu, J J / McKenna, E F / McArthur, G A. ·Department of Dermato Cancerology, Nantes University, Nantes, France. · Department of Medicine, Hematology/Oncology, Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, The University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, USA. · Department of Medicine, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. · Unit of Melanoma, Cancer Immunotherapy and Innovative Therapy, Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione G. Pascale, Naples, Italy. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany. · Department of Dermatology, Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Lyon 1 University, Lyons Cancer Research Center, France. · Dermatology and Cutaneous Oncology, Aix-Marseille University Hôpital de la Timone AP-HM, Marseille, France. · Department of Clinical Development, Genentech Inc., South San Francisco, USA. · Product Development Oncology, Genentech Inc., South San Francisco, USA. · Biostatistics, Genentech Inc., South San Francisco, USA. · Medical Affairs, Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, USA. · Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia. ·Ann Oncol · Pubmed #28444112.

ABSTRACT: Background: In the coBRIM phase III trial, the addition of cobimetinib, an MEK inhibitor, to vemurafenib, a BRAF inhibitor, significantly improved progression-free survival [hazard ratio (HR), 0.58; P < 0.0001] and overall survival (HR, 0.70; P = 0.005) in advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma. Here, we report on the incidence, course, and management of key adverse events (AEs) in the coBRIM study. Patients and methods: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive vemurafenib (960 mg twice a day) and either cobimetinib (60 mg once a day, 21 days on/7 days off) or placebo. In addition to standard safety evaluations, patients underwent regular ophthalmic, cardiac, and dermatologic surveillance examinations. Results: Of 495 patients recruited to the study, 493 patients received treatment and constituted the safety population (cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib, 247; vemurafenib, 246). At data cut-off (30 September 2015), median follow-up was 18.5 months. Nearly every patient experienced an AE. In patients who received cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib, the frequency of grade ≥3 AEs was higher than in patients who received vemurafenib alone (75% versus 61%). Most AEs, including grade ≥3 AEs, occurred within the first treatment cycle. After the first cycle (28 days), the incidence of common AEs (rash, diarrhoea, photosensitivity, elevated creatine phosphokinase, serous retinopathy, pyrexia, and liver laboratory abnormalities) decreased substantially over time. Most AEs were managed conservatively by supportive care measures, dose modifications of study treatment, and, occasionally, permanent treatment discontinuation. Conclusions: These data indicate that most AEs arising from treatment with cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib generally occur early in the treatment course, are mild or moderate and are manageable by patient monitoring, dose modification and supportive care. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01689519.

24 Clinical Trial Ipilimumab 10 mg/kg versus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma: a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial. 2017

Ascierto, Paolo A / Del Vecchio, Michele / Robert, Caroline / Mackiewicz, Andrzej / Chiarion-Sileni, Vanna / Arance, Ana / Lebbé, Céleste / Bastholt, Lars / Hamid, Omid / Rutkowski, Piotr / McNeil, Catriona / Garbe, Claus / Loquai, Carmen / Dreno, Brigitte / Thomas, Luc / Grob, Jean-Jacques / Liszkay, Gabriella / Nyakas, Marta / Gutzmer, Ralf / Pikiel, Joanna / Grange, Florent / Hoeller, Christoph / Ferraresi, Virginia / Smylie, Michael / Schadendorf, Dirk / Mortier, Laurent / Svane, Inge Marie / Hennicken, Delphine / Qureshi, Anila / Maio, Michele. ·Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione Pascale, Naples, Italy. Electronic address: paolo.ascierto@gmail.com. · Medical Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Milan, Italy. · Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus Grand Paris, Villejuif, France. · Department of Diagnostics and Cancer Immunology, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Poznan Medical University, Poznan, Poland. · IOV-IRCCS, Melanoma Oncology Unit, Padova, Italy. · Hospital Clinic and Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi I Sunyer, Barcelona, Spain. · AP-HP Dermatology CIC Departments, Saint-Louis Hospital, INSERM U976, Université Paris Diderot, Paris, France. · Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. · The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA, USA. · Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center, Warsaw, Poland. · Chris O'Brien Lifehouse and Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, NSW, Australia; Melanoma Institute Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia. · Eberhard Karls University, Tübingen, Germany. · University Medical Center, Mainz, Germany. · Department of Oncodermatology, INSERM Research Unit 892, Nantes University Hospital, Nantes, France. · Department of Dermatology, Centre Hospitalier Lyon-Sud, Pierre-Bénite, France. · Hospital de la Timone, Marseille, France. · National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary. · Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. · Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Germany. · Wojewodzkie Centrum Oncologii, Gdańsk, Poland. · Department of Dermatology, Reims University Hospital, Reims, France. · Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. · Istituti Fisioterapici Ospitalieri, Rome, Italy. · Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, AB, Canada. · University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. · Hôspital Claude Huriez, Lille, France. · Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Herlev, Denmark. · Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA. · University Hospital of Siena, Istituto Toscano Tumori, Siena, Italy. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #28359784.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: A phase 2 trial suggested increased overall survival and increased incidence of treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events with ipilimumab 10 mg/kg compared with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg in patients with advanced melanoma. We report a phase 3 trial comparing the benefit-risk profile of ipilimumab 10 mg/kg versus 3 mg/kg. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial was done in 87 centres in 21 countries worldwide. Patients with untreated or previously treated unresectable stage III or IV melanoma, without previous treatment with BRAF inhibitors or immune checkpoint inhibitors, were randomly assigned (1:1) with an interactive voice response system by the permuted block method using block size 4 to ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or 3 mg/kg, administered by intravenous infusion for 90 min every 3 weeks for four doses. Patients were stratified by metastasis stage, previous treatment for metastatic melanoma, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. The patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population and safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is completed and was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01515189. FINDINGS: Between Feb 29, and July 9, 2012, 727 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to ipilimumab 10 mg/kg (365 patients; 364 treated) or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (362 patients; all treated). Median follow-up was 14·5 months (IQR 4·6-42·3) for the ipilimumab 10 mg/kg group and 11·2 months (4·9-29·4) for the ipilimumab 3 mg/kg group. Median overall survival was 15·7 months (95% CI 11·6-17·8) for ipilimumab 10 mg/kg compared with 11·5 months (9·9-13·3) for ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (hazard ratio 0·84, 95% CI 0·70-0·99; p=0·04). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea (37 [10%] of 364 patients in the 10 mg/kg group vs 21 [6%] of 362 patients in the 3 mg/kg group), colitis (19 [5%] vs nine [2%]), increased alanine aminotransferase (12 [3%] vs two [1%]), and hypophysitis (ten [3%] vs seven [2%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 133 (37%) patients in the 10 mg/kg group and 66 (18%) patients in the 3 mg/kg group; four (1%) versus two (<1%) patients died from treatment-related adverse events. INTERPRETATION: In patients with advanced melanoma, ipilimumab 10 mg/kg resulted in significantly longer overall survival than did ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, but with increased treatment-related adverse events. Although the treatment landscape for advanced melanoma has changed since this study was initiated, the clinical use of ipilimumab in refractory patients with unmet medical needs could warrant further assessment. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

25 Clinical Trial Health-related quality of life with adjuvant ipilimumab versus placebo after complete resection of high-risk stage III melanoma (EORTC 18071): secondary outcomes of a multinational, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. 2017

Coens, Corneel / Suciu, Stefan / Chiarion-Sileni, Vanna / Grob, Jean-Jacques / Dummer, Reinhard / Wolchok, Jedd D / Schmidt, Henrik / Hamid, Omid / Robert, Caroline / Ascierto, Paolo A / Richards, Jon M / Lebbé, Celeste / Ferraresi, Virginia / Smylie, Michael / Weber, Jeffrey S / Maio, Michele / Bottomley, Andrew / Kotapati, Srividya / de Pril, Veerle / Testori, Alessandro / Eggermont, Alexander M M. ·EORTC Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium. Electronic address: corneel.coens@eortc.be. · EORTC Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium. · IOV-IRCCS, Melanoma Oncology Unit, Padova, Italy. · Hôpital de la Timone, Marseille, France. · University of Zürich Hospital, Zürich, Switzerland. · Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. · Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. · The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA, USA. · Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus Grand Paris, Villejuif, France. · Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione "G. Pascale", Naples, Italy. · Oncology Specialists S C, Park Ridge, IL, USA. · Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris. · Istituti Fisioterapici Ospitalieri, Rome, Italy. · Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, AB, Canada. · H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. · University Hospital of Siena, Istituto Toscano Tumori, Siena, Italy. · Bristol-Myers Squibb, Wallingford, CT, USA. · Bristol-Myers Squibb, Braine-l'Alleud, Belgium. · European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #28162999.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The EORTC 18071 phase 3 trial compared adjuvant ipilimumab with placebo in patients with stage III melanoma. The primary endpoint, recurrence-free survival, was significantly longer in the ipilimumab group than in the placebo group. Investigator-reported toxic effects of ipilimumab consisted mainly of skin, gastrointestinal, endocrine, and hepatic immune-related adverse events. Adjuvant treatment with ipilimumab in this setting was approved in October, 2014, by the US Food and Drug Administration based on the results of the primary outcome of this trial. Here, we report the results of the secondary endpoint, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), of this trial. METHODS: EORTC 18071 was a multinational, double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial in patients with stage III cutaneous melanoma (excluding lymph node metastasis ≤1 mm or in-transit metastasis) in 19 countries worldwide. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by an interactive voice response system, to receive either ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo every 3 weeks for four doses, then every 3 months for up to 3 years. Using a minimisation technique, randomisation was stratified by disease stage and geographical region. HRQoL was assessed with the EORTC QLQ-C30 quality-of-life instrument at baseline, weeks 4, 7, 10, and 24, and every 12 weeks thereafter up to 2 years, irrespective of disease progression. Results were summarised by timepoint and in a longitudinal manner in the intention-to-treat population. Two summary scores were calculated for each HRQoL scale: the average score reported during induction (ipilimumab or placebo at a dose of 10 mg/kg, administered as one single dose at the start of days 1, 22, 43, and 64-ie, four doses in 3 weeks), and the average score reported after induction. A predefined threshold of a 10 point difference between arms was considered clinically relevant. The primary HRQoL endpoint was the global health scale, with the predefined hypothesis of no clinically relevant differences after induction between groups. This trial is registered with EudraCT, number 2007-001974-10, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00636168. FINDINGS: Between July 10, 2008, and Aug 1, 2011, 951 patients were randomly assigned to treatment: 475 in the ipilimumab group and 476 in the placebo group. Compliance with completing the HRQoL questionnaire was 893 (94%) of 951 patients at baseline, 693 (75%) of 924 at week 24, and 354 (51%) of 697 at week 108. Patient mean global health scores during (77·32 [SD 17·36] vs 72·96 [17·82]; p=0·00011) and after induction (76·48 [17·52] vs 72·32 [18·60]; p=0·00067) were statistically significantly different between groups but were not clinically relevant. Mean global health scores differed most between the groups at week 7 (77 [SD 19] in the placebo group vs 72 [22] in the ipilimumab group) and week 10 (77 [20] vs 70 [23]). Mean HRQoL scores differed by more than 10 points at week 10 between treatment groups for diarrhoea (7·67 [SD 17·05] for placebo vs 18·17 [28·35] for ipilimumab) and insomnia (15·17 [22·53] vs 25·60 [29·19]). INTERPRETATION: Despite increased toxicity, which led to treatment discontinuation for most patients during the induction phase of ipilimumab administration, overall HRQoL, as measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30, was similar between groups, as no clinically relevant differences (10 points or more) in global health status scores were observed during or after induction. Clinically relevant deterioration for some symptoms was observed at week 10, but after induction, no clinically relevant differences remained. Together with the primary analysis, results from this trial show that treatment with ipilimumab results in longer recurrence-free survival compared with that for treatment with placebo, with little impairment in HRQoL despite grade 3-4 investigator-reported adverse events. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Next