Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Melanoma: HELP
Articles by Ralf Gutzmer
Based on 89 articles published since 2008
||||

Between 2008 and 2019, R. Gutzmer wrote the following 89 articles about Melanoma.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
Pages: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4
1 Guideline S3-guideline "diagnosis, therapy and follow-up of melanoma" -- short version. 2013

Pflugfelder, Annette / Kochs, Corinna / Blum, Andreas / Capellaro, Marcus / Czeschik, Christina / Dettenborn, Therese / Dill, Dorothee / Dippel, Edgar / Eigentler, Thomas / Feyer, Petra / Follmann, Markus / Frerich, Bernhard / Ganten, Maria-Katharina / Gärtner, Jan / Gutzmer, Ralf / Hassel, Jessica / Hauschild, Axel / Hohenberger, Peter / Hübner, Jutta / Kaatz, Martin / Kleeberg, Ulrich R / Kölbl, Oliver / Kortmann, Rolf-Dieter / Krause-Bergmann, Albrecht / Kurschat, Peter / Leiter, Ulrike / Link, Hartmut / Loquai, Carmen / Löser, Christoph / Mackensen, Andreas / Meier, Friedegund / Mohr, Peter / Möhrle, Matthias / Nashan, Dorothee / Reske, Sven / Rose, Christian / Sander, Christian / Satzger, Imke / Schiller, Meinhard / Schlemmer, Heinz-Peter / Strittmatter, Gerhard / Sunderkötter, Cord / Swoboda, Lothar / Trefzer, Uwe / Voltz, Raymond / Vordermark, Dirk / Weichenthal, Michael / Werner, Andreas / Wesselmann, Simone / Weyergraf, Ansgar J / Wick, Wolfgang / Garbe, Claus / Schadendorf, Dirk / Anonymous5740759. ·Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Tübingen, Germany. ·J Dtsch Dermatol Ges · Pubmed #23721604.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

2 Review Practical clinical guide on the use of talimogene laherparepvec monotherapy in patients with unresectable melanoma in Europe. 2018

Gutzmer, Ralf / Harrington, Kevin J / Hoeller, Christoph / Lebbé, Celeste / Malvehy, Josep / Öhrling, Katarina / Downey, Gerald / Dummer, Reinhard. ·Haut-Tumour-Zentrum Hannover (HTZH), Klinik für Dermatologie, Allergologie und Venerologie, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover (MHH), Hannover, Germany. · NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK. · Universitätsklinik für Dermatologie, Medizinische Universität Wien, Wien, Austria. · APHP Dermatology and CIC department INSERM U976, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Université Paris Diderot, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris, France. · Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, IDIBAPS, CIBER de Enfermedades Raras, FIS del Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Barcelona, Spain. · Medical Development, Amgen (Europe) GmbH, Rotkreuz, Switzerland. · Biostatistics, Amgen Ltd, Cambridge, UK. · Skin Cancer Centre/Dermatology Clinic, Universitätsspital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. ·Eur J Dermatol · Pubmed #30698145.

ABSTRACT: Talimogene laherparepvec, a herpes simplex virus type 1-based intralesional oncolytic immunotherapy, is approved in Europe for the treatment of adults with unresectable stage IIIB-IVM1a melanoma, with no bone, brain, lung or other visceral disease. It has direct oncolytic effects in injected lesions, leading to the release of tumour-derived antigens and systemic immune effects mediated by the induction of anti-tumour immunity, which is enhanced by the production of granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor. Responses (which occur in >40% of stage IIIB-IVM1a patients) are often durable (>50% last ≥6 months) and occur in injected and uninjected lesions (in stage IIIB-IVM1c patients, 64%/34% of evaluable injected/uninjected non-visceral lesions, respectively, decreased in size by ≥50%). As with other immunotherapies, responses may be delayed or can arise after pseudoprogression. The pattern of treatment-emergent adverse events is distinct, being mostly grade 1/2, easy to manage, and rarely leading to treatment discontinuation. Systemic therapy represents the backbone of care for many metastatic melanoma patients. Nonetheless, the potential for durable locoregional control with a locally injected agent may make talimogene laherparepvec suitable for selected patients with stage IIIB/C disease, for whom surgery is not possible (e.g. with in-transit metastases, multiple melanoma lesions at different body sites, or those relapsing rapidly after repeated rounds of surgery) and slowly progressing disease. Here, we discuss which patients could be suitable for talimogene laherparepvec monotherapy based on the European indication, review the patterns/timing of response, and discuss the incidence/management of adverse events. Its potential use combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors is also discussed.

3 Review Melanoma. 2018

Schadendorf, Dirk / van Akkooi, Alexander C J / Berking, Carola / Griewank, Klaus G / Gutzmer, Ralf / Hauschild, Axel / Stang, Andreas / Roesch, Alexander / Ugurel, Selma. ·Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany; German Cancer Consortium, Heidelberg, Germany. Electronic address: dirk.schadendorf@uk-essen.de. · Department of Surgical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, Netherlands. · Department of Dermatology and Allergy, University Hospital Munich, Munich, Germany. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany; German Cancer Consortium, Heidelberg, Germany. · Department of Dermatology, Hannover Medical School, Skin Cancer Centre Hannover, Hannover, Germany. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital, Kiel, Germany. · Centre of Clinical Epidemiology, Institute of Medical Informatics, Biometry, and Epidemiology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany; Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA. ·Lancet · Pubmed #30238891.

ABSTRACT: Cutaneous melanoma causes 55 500 deaths annually. The incidence and mortality rates of the disease differ widely across the globe depending on access to early detection and primary care. Once melanoma has spread, this type of cancer rapidly becomes life-threatening. For more than 40 years, few treatment options were available, and clinical trials during that time were all unsuccessful. Over the past 10 years, increased biological understanding and access to innovative therapeutic substances have transformed advanced melanoma into a new oncological model for treating solid cancers. Treatments that target B-Raf proto-oncogene serine/threonine-kinase (BRAF)

4 Review Safe Administration of An Anti-PD-1 Antibody to Kidney-transplant Patients: 2 Clinical Cases and Review of the Literature. 2017

Winkler, Julia K / Gutzmer, Ralf / Bender, Carolin / Lang, Nina / Zeier, Martin / Enk, Alexander H / Hassel, Jessica C. ·*Department of Dermatology and National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) ‡Department of Nephrology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg †Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Hannover Medical School, Skin Cancer Center, Hannover, Germany. ·J Immunother · Pubmed #29028789.

ABSTRACT: Antiprogrammed cell-death protein 1 (PD-1) antibodies have revolutionized therapy of metastatic melanoma and other tumors, but some subgroups of patients such as immunosuppressed patients after solid-organ transplantation, have regularly been excluded from clinical studies. We report 2 cases of kidney-transplant patients who received an anti-PD-1 antibody to treat metastatic melanoma. Treatment was tolerated well with no relevant adverse events and stable kidney functions, but the melanoma progressed in both patients. Factors potentially affecting risk of allograft rejection and response to treatment, for example, immunosuppressive regimen and therapeutic sequence, are discussed on the basis of current literature. Further studies are necessary to determine the risk of allograft rejection and the therapeutic benefit of anti-PD-1 antibodies for organ-transplanted patients, in particular as these checkpoint inhibitors have become therapeutic standard in a variety of tumors other than melanoma.

5 Review Combined immune checkpoint blockade (anti-PD-1/anti-CTLA-4): Evaluation and management of adverse drug reactions. 2017

Hassel, Jessica C / Heinzerling, Lucie / Aberle, Jens / Bähr, Oliver / Eigentler, Thomas K / Grimm, Marc-Oliver / Grünwald, Victor / Leipe, Jan / Reinmuth, Niels / Tietze, Julia K / Trojan, Jörg / Zimmer, Lisa / Gutzmer, Ralf. ·Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Germany. Electronic address: jessica.hassel@med.uni-heidelberg.de. · Center for Internal Medicine, University Hospital Erlangen, Germany. Electronic address: lucie.heinzerling@uk-erlangen.de. · Department of Internal Medicine III, University Hospital Hamburg Eppendorf, Germany. Electronic address: aberle@uke.de. · Dr. Senckenberg Institute of Neurooncology, Goethe University Hospital, Frankfurt, Germany. Electronic address: oliver.baehr@med.uni-frankfurt.de. · Department of Dermatology, Center for Dermatooncology, University Medical Center Tübingen, Germany. Electronic address: thomas.eigentler@med.uni-tuebingen.de. · Department for Urology, University Hospital Jena, Germany. Electronic address: marc-oliver.grimm@med.uni-jena.de. · Department of Hematology, Hemostasis, Oncology and Stem Cell Transplantation, Hannover Medical School, Germany. Electronic address: Gruenwald.Viktor@mh-hannover.de. · Division of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik IV, University of Munich, Germany. Electronic address: jan.leipe@med.uni-muenchen.de. · Department of Thoracic Oncology, Asklepios Fachkliniken München-Gauting, Germany. Electronic address: n.reinmuth@asklepios.com. · Department of Dermatology and Allergy, University Hospital Munich, Munich, Germany. Electronic address: julia.tietze@med.uni-muenchen.de. · Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Goethe University Hospital, Frankfurt, Germany. Electronic address: trojan@em.uni-frankfurt.de. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital University, Essen-Duisburg, Germany. Electronic address: lisa.zimmer@uk-essen.de. · Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Skin Cancer Center Hannover, Hannover Medical School, Germany. Electronic address: gutzmer.ralf@mh-hannover.de. ·Cancer Treat Rev · Pubmed #28550712.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Combined immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) provides unprecedented efficacy gains in numerous cancer indications, with PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab plus CTLA-4 inhibitor ipilimumab in advanced melanoma as first-ever approved therapies for combined ICB. However, gains in efficacy must be balanced against a higher frequency and severity of adverse drug reactions (ADR). Because delays in diagnosis and management might result in symptom worsening and further complications, clinicians shall be well trained to identify ADR promptly and monitor patients adequately. This paper reviews safety data assessed by the European Medicines Agency for the anti-PD-1/CTLA-4 combination and provides a literature overview on published case reports for rare ADR with suspected potential underreporting. Incidences and kinetics of immune-related ADR are described. Recommendations for the evaluation and management of ADR are convened by an interdisciplinary expert panel focusing on rare but clinically important side effects arising from combined ICB. Pooled safety data from 1551 patients with advanced melanoma, treated either with 3mg/kg ipilimumab plus 1mg/kg nivolumab (N=407), or nivolumab alone (N=787), or ipilimumab alone (N=357) demonstrate that immune-related ADR occur more frequently for the combination, with a shorter time-to-onset, and tend to be more severe. The majority of events is reversible after systemic use of glucocorticoids, notably methylprednisolone or equivalents; in certain cases of long-lasting and refractory immune toxicities, non-steroidal immunosuppressants may be used, once ICB is interrupted or terminated. Combined ICB has considerable toxicities, therefore close monitoring and high experience in diagnosis and treatment of ADR is necessary.

6 Review [Systemic treatment of inoperable metastasized malignant melanoma]. 2016

Gutzmer, R / Rauschenberg, R / Meier, F. ·Haut-Tumor-Zentrum Hannover (HTZH), Klinik für Dermatologie, Allergologie und Venerologie, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover (MHH), Carl-Neuberg Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Deutschland. gutzmer.ralf@mh-hannover.de. · Klinik und Poliklinik für Dermatologie, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus an der Technischen Universität Dresden, Dresden, Deutschland. ·Hautarzt · Pubmed #27164828.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The medical therapy of inoperable malignant melanoma has changed dramatically over the last few years. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this article is to summarize the current state of systemic medical treatment of malignant melanoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical studies and guidelines in the therapy of malignant melanoma are reviewed. RESULTS: Medical therapy of inoperable melanoma changed due to developments in immunotherapies (checkpoint inhibitors) and molecular-targeted therapies (BRAF and MEK inhibitors). Checkpoint inhibitors are antibodies administered as infusions every 2-3 weeks, blocking the checkpoints PD-1 or CTLA-4, thus, preventing downregulation of the immune system. BRAF and MEK inhibitors are small molecules, they are given orally and block a certain signaling pathway in tumor cells. The activation of this pathway has to be demonstrated by molecular analysis of tumor tissue first. This strategy is currently registered for 40-50 % of melanomas harboring a BRAF V600 mutation, while the combination of a BRAF plus MEK inhibitor has been proven more efficient than a BRAF inhibitor alone. DISCUSSION: A fascinating development has started in the melanoma field due to immunotherapeutic and molecular-targeted treatment strategies. The continuation of this development needs further clinical and translational studies. This includes particular clinical studies with the new substances in the adjuvant situation, and sequences and combinations in the metastatic setting. Translational studies are needed to develop biomarkers for response and side effects.

7 Review [For the benefit of the patient: the sentinel node excision]. 2011

Satzger, Imke / Klein, Martin / Löser, Christoph / Möhrle, Matthias / Reske, Sven / Kapp, Alexander / Gutzmer, Ralf. ·Klinik für Dermatologie, Allergologie und Venerologie, Hauttumorzentrum Hannover (HTZH), Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover. ·J Dtsch Dermatol Ges · Pubmed #22026360.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

8 Review Does basal cell carcinoma belong to the spectrum of sorafenib-induced epithelial skin cancers? 2010

Degen, A / Satzger, I / Voelker, B / Kapp, A / Hauschild, A / Gutzmer, R. ·Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Hannover Medical School, Skin Cancer Center Hannover, Hannover, Germany. Annette.Degen@gmx.net ·Dermatology · Pubmed #20720388.

ABSTRACT: The multikinase inhibitor sorafenib is therapeutically used in various malignancies. Multiple cutaneous side effects are well described but recent reports indicated a possible association of epithelial skin cancer growth during sorafenib therapy. To our knowledge, few cases of actinic keratoses and variants of squamous cell carcinomas associated with sorafenib have been published. We report 2 patients who developed a basal cell carcinoma (BCC) while treated with sorafenib. Interestingly BCC is a tumor which has not been described yet in association with sorafenib therapy. The tumors were excised completely. After termination of sorafenib treatment, no new BCCs or other epithelial skin cancers occurred. There is accumulating evidence in the literature that sorafenib and possibly other targeted agents are associated with an increased occurrence of epithelial skin cancers. These observations are summarized here and complemented by the new observation that also BCCs might be associated with sorafenib therapy. The pathogenetic mechanisms are unclear so far but induction of the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway in wild-type RAF cells by RAF inhibitors might play a role. Patients should be informed of this possible side effect and undergo regular dermatological controls before and during sorafenib therapy.

9 Review Anal mucosal melanoma with KIT-activating mutation and response to imatinib therapy--case report and review of the literature. 2010

Satzger, Imke / Küttler, Uta / Völker, Bernward / Schenck, Florian / Kapp, Alexander / Gutzmer, Ralf. ·Skin Cancer Center Hannover, Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany. satzger.imke @ mh-hannover.de ·Dermatology · Pubmed #19996579.

ABSTRACT: Previously an increased frequency of KIT aberrations in mucosal melanomas was reported, whereas c-KIT in most types of cutaneous melanomas does not appear to be of pathogenetic importance. Imatinib has become the standard of care in other cancers with KIT mutations such as gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Recently 12 cases of metastatic melanoma and KIT-activating mutations have been published to be successfully treated with c-KIT blockers such as imatinib, sunitinib, dasatinib or sorafenib. We report here on one of our patients with KIT-activating mutation in metastatic anal mucosal melanoma, who showed a response to imatinib therapy and summarize the available literature regarding this new therapeutic option.

10 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.

11 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 .).

12 Clinical Trial Encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma (COLUMBUS): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. 2018

Dummer, Reinhard / Ascierto, Paolo A / Gogas, Helen J / Arance, Ana / Mandala, Mario / Liszkay, Gabriella / Garbe, Claus / Schadendorf, Dirk / Krajsova, Ivana / Gutzmer, Ralf / Chiarion-Sileni, Vanna / Dutriaux, Caroline / de Groot, Jan Willem B / Yamazaki, Naoya / Loquai, Carmen / Moutouh-de Parseval, Laure A / Pickard, Michael D / Sandor, Victor / Robert, Caroline / Flaherty, Keith T. ·Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Zürich Skin Cancer Center, Zürich, Switzerland. Electronic address: reinhard.dummer@usz.ch. · Melanoma Unit, Cancer Immunotherapy and Innovative Therapies, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione Pascale, Naples, Italy. · Department of Internal Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Laikon Hospital, Athens, Greece. · Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. · Department of Oncology and Haematology, Papa Giovanni XXIII Cancer Center Hospital, Bergamo, Italy. · Department of Dermatology, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Tüebingen, Tüebingen, Germany. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany; German Cancer Consortium, Heidelberg, Germany. · Department of Dermato-oncology, University Hospital Prague, Charles University First Medical Faculty, Prague, Czech Republic. · Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Skin Cancer Center Hannover, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany. · Melanoma Cancer Unit, Oncology Institute of Veneto IRCCS, Padua, Italy. · Department of Oncologic Dermatology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux, Hôpital Saint-André, Bordeaux, France. · Department of Medical Oncology, Isala, Zwolle, Netherlands. · Department of Dermatologic Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. · Department of Dermatology, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany. · Translational Clinical Oncology, Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. · Array BioPharma, Boulder, CO, USA. · Service of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, Paris-Sud University, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France. · Cancer Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #29573941.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Combined BRAF-MEK inhibitor therapy is the standard of care for BRAF METHODS: COLUMBUS was conducted as a two-part, randomised, open-label phase 3 study at 162 hospitals in 28 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had histologically confirmed locally advanced (American Joint Committee on Cancer [AJCC] stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV), unresectable or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, or unknown primary melanoma; a BRAF FINDINGS: Between Dec 30, 2013, and April 10, 2015, 577 of 1345 screened patients were randomly assigned to either the encorafenib plus binimetinib group (n=192), the encorafenib group (n=194), or the vemurafenib group (n=191). With a median follow-up of 16·6 months (95% CI 14·8-16·9), median progression-free survival was 14·9 months (95% CI 11·0-18·5) in the encorafenib plus binimetinib group and 7·3 months (5·6-8·2) in the vemurafenib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54, 95% CI 0·41-0·71; two-sided p<0·0001). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events seen in more than 5% of patients in the encorafenib plus binimetinib group were increased γ-glutamyltransferase (18 [9%] of 192 patients), increased creatine phosphokinase (13 [7%]), and hypertension (11 [6%]); in the encorafenib group they were palmoplantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (26 [14%] of 192 patients), myalgia (19 [10%]), and arthralgia (18 [9%]); and in the vemurafenib group it was arthralgia (11 [6%] of 186 patients). There were no treatment-related deaths except for one death in the combination group, which was considered possibly related to treatment by the investigator. INTERPRETATION: Encorafenib plus binimetinib and encorafenib monotherapy showed favourable efficacy compared with vemurafenib. Overall, encorafenib plus binimetinib appears to have an improved tolerability profile compared with encorafenib or vemurafenib. Encorafenib plus binimetinib could represent a new treatment option for patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma. FUNDING: Array BioPharma, Novartis.

13 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.

14 Clinical Trial Binimetinib versus dacarbazine in patients with advanced NRAS-mutant melanoma (NEMO): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. 2017

Dummer, Reinhard / Schadendorf, Dirk / Ascierto, Paolo A / Arance, Ana / Dutriaux, Caroline / Di Giacomo, Anna Maria / Rutkowski, Piotr / Del Vecchio, Michele / Gutzmer, Ralf / Mandala, Mario / Thomas, Luc / Demidov, Lev / Garbe, Claus / Hogg, David / Liszkay, Gabriella / Queirolo, Paola / Wasserman, Ernesto / Ford, James / Weill, Marine / Sirulnik, L Andres / Jehl, Valentine / Bozón, Viviana / Long, Georgina V / Flaherty, Keith. ·Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Zürich Skin Cancer Center, Zürich, Switzerland. Electronic address: reinhard.dummer@usz.ch. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany; German Cancer Consortium, Heidelberg, Germany. · Melanoma Unit, Cancer Immunotherapy and Innovative Therapies, Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione Pascale, Via Mariano Semmola, Naples, Italy. · Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. · Department of Oncologic Dermatology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux, Hôpital Saint-André, Bordeaux, France. · Medical Oncology and Immunotherapy, University Hospital of Siena, Viale Bracci, Siena, Italy. · Department of Soft Tissue/Bone Sarcoma and Melanoma, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland. · Department of Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Via Giacomo Venezian, Milan, Italy. · Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Skin Cancer Center Hannover, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany. · Department of Oncology and Haematology, Papa Giovanni XXIII Cancer Center Hospital, Bergamo, Italy. · Department of Dermatology, Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Lyons Cancer Research Center, Lyon 1 University, Pierre Bénite, France. · N N Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center, Ministry of Health, Moscow, Russian Federation. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany. · Department of Medicine, University Health Network/Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. · Department of Dermatology, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary. · Department of Medical Oncology, Institute for Cancer Research, IRCCS San Martino, Largo Rosanna Benzi, Genova, Italy. · Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, One Health Plaza, East Hanover, NJ, USA. · Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. · Array BioPharma, Boulder, CO, USA. · Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Royal North Shore and Mater Hospitals, Sydney, NSW, Australia. · Department of Medical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #28284557.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: There are no established therapies specific for NRAS-mutant melanoma despite the emergence of immunotherapy. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the MEK inhibitor binimetinib versus that of dacarbazine in patients with advanced NRAS-mutant melanoma. METHODS: NEMO is an ongoing, randomised, open-label phase 3 study done at 118 hospitals in 26 countries. Patients with advanced, unresectable, American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IIIC or stage IV NRAS-mutant melanoma who were previously untreated or had progressed on or after previous immunotherapy were randomised (2:1) to receive either binimetinib 45 mg orally twice daily or dacarbazine 1000 mg/m FINDINGS: Between Aug 19, 2013, and April 28, 2015, 402 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 269 to binimetinib and 133 to dacarbazine. Median follow-up was 1·7 months (IQR 1·4-4·1). Median progression-free survival was 2·8 months (95% CI 2·8-3·6) in the binimetinib group and 1·5 months (1·5-1·7) in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio 0·62 [95% CI 0·47-0·80]; one-sided p<0·001). Grade 3-4 adverse events seen in at least 5% of patients the safety population in either group were increased creatine phosphokinase (52 [19%] of 269 patients in the binimetinib group vs none of 114 in the dacarbazine group), hypertension (20 [7%] vs two [2%]), anaemia (five [2%] vs six [5%]), and neutropenia (two [1%] vs ten [9%]). Serious adverse events (all grades) occurred in 91 (34%) patients in the binimetinib group and 25 (22%) patients in the dacarbazine group. INTERPRETATION: Binimetinib improved progression-free survival compared with dacarbazine and was tolerable. Binimetinib might represent a new treatment option for patients with NRAS-mutant melanoma after failure of immunotherapy. FUNDING: Array BioPharma and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

15 Clinical Trial Ipilimumab alone or in combination with nivolumab after progression on anti-PD-1 therapy in advanced melanoma. 2017

Zimmer, Lisa / Apuri, Susmitha / Eroglu, Zeynep / Kottschade, Lisa A / Forschner, Andrea / Gutzmer, Ralf / Schlaak, Max / Heinzerling, Lucie / Krackhardt, Angela M / Loquai, Carmen / Markovic, Svetomir N / Joseph, Richard W / Markey, Kelly / Utikal, Jochen S / Weishaupt, Carsten / Goldinger, Simone M / Sondak, Vernon K / Zager, Jonathan S / Schadendorf, Dirk / Khushalani, Nikhil I. ·Department of Dermatology, University Hospital, University Duisburg-Essen, Germany & German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Heidelberg, Germany. Electronic address: lisa.zimmer@uk-essen.de. · Hematology/Oncology Fellowship Program, H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute/University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA. · Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. · Department of Oncology, Hematology and Immunology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Tübingen, Germany. · Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Skin Cancer Center Hannover, Hannover Medical School, Germany. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Cologne, Skin Cancer Center, Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO) Köln Bonn, Germany. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Germany. · III. Medical Department, Technische Universität München (TUM) Munich, Germany. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Mainz, Germany. · Skin Cancer Unit, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Ruprecht-Karl University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Münster, Germany. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital, University Duisburg-Essen, Germany & German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Heidelberg, Germany. ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #28214657.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The anti-programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors pembrolizumab and nivolumab alone or in combination with ipilimumab have shown improved objective response rates and progression-free survival compared to ipilimumab only in advanced melanoma patients. Anti-PD-1 therapy demonstrated nearly equal clinical efficacy in patients who had progressed after ipilimumab or were treatment-naïve. However, only limited evidence exists regarding the efficacy of ipilimumab alone or in combination with nivolumab after treatment failure to anti-PD-therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study in advanced melanoma patients who were treated with nivolumab (1 or 3 mg/kg) and ipilimumab (1 mg or 3 mg/kg) or ipilimumab (3 mg/kg) alone after treatment failure to anti-PD-1 therapy was performed. Patient, tumour, pre- and post-treatment characteristics were analysed. RESULTS: In total, 47 patients were treated with ipilimumab (ipi-group) and 37 patients with ipilimumab and nivolumab (combination-group) after treatment failure to anti-PD-1 therapy. Overall response rates for the ipi- and the combination-group were 16% and 21%, respectively. Disease control rate was 42% for the ipi-group and 33% for the combination-group. One-year overall survival rates for the ipi- and the combination-group were 54% and 55%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Ipilimumab should be considered as a viable treatment option for patients with failure to prior anti-PD-1 therapy, including those with progressive disease as best response to prior anti-PD-1. In contrast, the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab appears significantly less effective in this setting compared to treatment-naïve patients.

16 Clinical Trial Prospective assessment of a gene signature potentially predictive of clinical benefit in metastatic melanoma patients following MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic (PREDICT). 2016

Saiag, P / Gutzmer, R / Ascierto, P A / Maio, M / Grob, J-J / Murawa, P / Dreno, B / Ross, M / Weber, J / Hauschild, A / Rutkowski, P / Testori, A / Levchenko, E / Enk, A / Misery, L / Vanden Abeele, C / Vojtek, I / Peeters, O / Brichard, V G / Therasse, P. ·General Dermatology and Oncology Service, Ambroise-Paré Hospital, AP-HP, University of Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Boulogne, France philippe.saiag@uvsq.fr. · Skin Cancer Center Hannover, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany. · National Institute for Tumors Foundation 'G. Pascale', Napoli. · Medical Oncology and Immunotherapy, Department of Oncology, University Hospital of Siena, Istituto Toscano Tumori, Siena, Italy. · Department of Dermatology and Skin Cancers, La Timone APHM Hospital, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France. · Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Poznań University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland. · Dermatology Clinic, Hôtel-Dieu Hospital, CHU Nantes, Nantes, France. · Department of Surgical Oncology, UTMD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. · Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, USA. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany. · Department of Soft Tissue/Bone Sarcoma and Melanoma, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Center and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland. · Melanoma and Soft Tissue Sarcoma Division, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy. · Petrov Research Institute of Oncology, St Petersburg, Russian Federation. · Department of Dermatology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital of Brest, Brest, France. · GSK Vaccines, Rixensart, Belgium. ·Ann Oncol · Pubmed #27502712.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Genomic profiling of tumor tissue may aid in identifying predictive or prognostic gene signatures (GS) in some cancers. Retrospective gene expression profiling of melanoma and non-small-cell lung cancer led to the characterization of a GS associated with clinical benefit, including improved overall survival (OS), following immunization with the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic. The goal of the present study was to prospectively evaluate the predictive value of the previously characterized GS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An open-label prospective phase II trial ('PREDICT') in patients with MAGE-A3-positive unresectable stage IIIB-C/IV-M1a melanoma. RESULTS: Of 123 subjects who received the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic, 71 (58.7%) displayed the predictive GS (GS+). The 1-year OS rate was 83.1%/83.3% in the GS+/GS- populations. The rate of progression-free survival at 12 months was 5.8%/4.1% in GS+/GS- patients. The median time-to-treatment failure was 2.7/2.4 months (GS+/GS-). There was one complete response (GS-) and two partial responses (GS+). The MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic was similarly immunogenic in both populations and had a clinically acceptable safety profile. CONCLUSION: Treatment of patients with MAGE-A3-positive unresectable stage IIIB-C/IV-M1a melanoma with the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic demonstrated an overall 1-year OS rate of 83.5%. GS- and GS+ patients had similar 1-year OS rates, indicating that in this study, GS was not predictive of outcome. Unexpectedly, the objective response rate was lower in this study than in other studies carried out in the same setting with the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic. Investigation of a GS to predict clinical benefit to adjuvant MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic treatment is ongoing in another melanoma study.This study is registered at www.clinicatrials.gov NCT00942162.

17 Clinical Trial Adjuvant treatment with pegylated interferon α-2a versus low-dose interferon α-2a in patients with high-risk melanoma: a randomized phase III DeCOG trial. 2016

Eigentler, T K / Gutzmer, R / Hauschild, A / Heinzerling, L / Schadendorf, D / Nashan, D / Hölzle, E / Kiecker, F / Becker, J / Sunderkötter, C / Moll, I / Richtig, E / Pönitzsch, I / Pehamberger, H / Kaufmann, R / Pföhler, C / Vogt, T / Berking, C / Praxmarer, M / Garbe, C / Anonymous1090871. ·Department of Dermatology, Center for Dermatooncology, University Medical Center Tübingen, Tübingen thomas.eigentler@med.uni-tuebingen.de. · Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Hannover Medical School, Hannover. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Kiel, Kiel. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen. · Department of Dermatology, University Essen-Duisburg, Essen. · Department of Dermatology, Hospital Dortmund, Dortmund. · Department of Dermatology, Hospital Oldenburg, Oldenburg. · Department of Dermatology, Charité Berlin, Berlin. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Münster, Münster. · Department of Dermatology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Graz, Graz, Austria. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. · Department of Dermatology, AKH Wien, University Hospital Vienna, Vienna, Austria. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt/Main. · Department of Dermatology, Saarland University Medical School, Homburg/Saar. · Department of Dermatology and Allergy, University Hospital of Munich, Munich, Germany. · Assign Group, Innsbruck, Austria. · Department of Dermatology, Center for Dermatooncology, University Medical Center Tübingen, Tübingen. ·Ann Oncol · Pubmed #27287206.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Adjuvant treatment with interferon (IFN)-α-2a improved disease-free survival (DFS) and showed a trend for improving overall survival (OS) in melanoma. This trial was designed to examine whether PEG-IFN is superior to IFN with regard to distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), DFS and OS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label, prospective randomized phase III trial, patients with resected cutaneous melanoma stage IIA(T3a)-IIIB (AJCC 2002) were randomized to receive PEG-IFN (180 μg subcutaneously 1×/week; 24 months) or IFN α-2a (3MIU subcutaneously 3×/week; 24 months). Randomization was stratified for stage, number of metastatic nodes, age and previous IFN treatment. The primary end point was DMFS; secondary end points were OS, DFS, quality of life (QoL) and tolerability. RESULTS: A total of 909 patients were enrolled (451 PEG-IFN versus 458 IFN). Neither 5-year DMFS [PEG-IFN 61.0% versus IFN 67.3%; hazard ratio (HR) 1.16, P = 0.21] nor 5-year OS (PEG-IFN 73.2% versus IFN 75.2%; HR 1.05, P = 0.70) nor 5-year DFS (PEG-IFN 57.3% versus IFN 60.9%; HR 1.09, P = 0.40) showed significant differences. Subgroup analyses in patients ± ulcerated primaries and of different tumor stages did not find differences in DMFS, OS or DFS between the treatment groups. One hundred and eighteen patients (26.2%) in the PEG-IFN and 61 patients (13.3%) in the IFN population did not receive the full dosage and length of treatment due to adverse events (P < 0.001). Leukopenia and elevation of liver enzymes were more common in the PEG-IFN arm (56% versus 23.5% LCP; 19.1% versus 9.4% AST; 33.0% versus 16.5% ALT). QoL was identical for nearly all domains. CONCLUSION: PEG-IFN did not improve the outcome over IFN. A higher percentage of patients under PEG-IFN discontinued treatment due to toxicity. CLINICAL TRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT00204529.

18 Clinical Trial [Reduction of relapse in the radiation area by adjuvant lymph-node field radiotherapy in metastatic malignant melanoma patients at high risk of recurrence]. 2016

Gutzmer, Ralf / Christiansen, Hans. ·Haut-Tumor-Zentrums Hannover (HTZH), Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Deutschland. Gutzmer.Ralf@mh-hannover.de. · Klinik für Strahlentherapie und Spezielle Onkologie, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Deutschland. Christiansen.Hans@mh-hannover.de. ·Strahlenther Onkol · Pubmed #26795392.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

19 Clinical Trial Intermittent High-Dose Intravenous Interferon Alfa-2b for Adjuvant Treatment of Stage III Melanoma: Final Analysis of a Randomized Phase III Dermatologic Cooperative Oncology Group Trial. 2015

Mohr, Peter / Hauschild, Axel / Trefzer, Uwe / Enk, Alexander / Tilgen, Wolfgang / Loquai, Carmen / Gogas, Helen / Haalck, Thomas / Koller, Josef / Dummer, Reinhard / Gutzmer, Ralf / Brockmeyer, Norbert / Hölzle, Erhard / Sunderkötter, Cord / Mauch, Cornelia / Stein, Annette / Schneider, Lars A / Podda, Maurizio / Göppner, Daniela / Schadendorf, Dirk / Weichenthal, Michael. ·Peter Mohr, Elbe-Klinikum Buxtehude, Buxtehude · Axel Hauschild and Michael Weichenthal, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel · Uwe Trefzer, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin · Alexander Enk, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg · Wolfgang Tilgen, University Hospital, Homburg/Saarland · Carmen Loquai, University of Mainz, Mainz · Thomas Haalck, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg · Ralf Gutzmer, Hannover Medical School, Hannover · Norbert Brockmeyer, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum · Erhard Hölzle, Oldenburg Hospital, Oldenburg · Cord Sunderkötter, University of Münster, Münster · Cornelia Mauch, University of Cologne, Cologne · Annette Stein, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden · Lars A. Schneider, University of Ulm, Ulm · Maurizio Podda, Darmstadt Hospital, Darmstadt · Daniela G[uml]oppner, University Hospital Magdeburg, Magdeburg · Dirk Schadendorf, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany · Helen Gogas, Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group, Athens, Greece · Josef Koller, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria · and Reinhard Dummer, University Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. ·J Clin Oncol · Pubmed #26503196.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, tolerability, and quality of life (QoL) in patients receiving intravenous, intermittent high-dose interferon alfa-2b (IFN-α-2b [iHDI]) compared with standard high-dose IFN-α-2b (HDI). PATIENT AND METHODS: Patients with stage III resected lymph node or in-transit metastasis from cutaneous malignant melanoma were randomly assigned to receive either a standard HDI regimen or three courses of IFN-α-2b 20 MIU/m(2) administered intravenously 5 days a week for 4 weeks then repeated every 4 months. Distant metastasis-free survival was the primary end point for efficacy analysis. In addition, relapse-free survival, overall survival, safety as determined by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events criteria, and QoL were secondary end points. RESULTS: Of 649 patients enrolled, 22 patients were excluded from the intent-to-treat analysis. The remaining 627 patients were well balanced between the arms according to sex, age, and stage. After a median follow-up of 55 months, a multivariable Cox model revealed no significant differences for distant metastasis-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.21; P = .12) or overall survival (HR, 1.01; P = .85). In contrast, the difference for relapse-free survival was significant (HR, 1.27; P = .03), favoring standard HDI. Early termination of treatment because of adverse events or QoL occurred significantly more often with HDI than with iHDI (26.0% v 14.8%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Although the safety and QoL profiles for the intermittent regimen were favorable, no significant difference was observed for survival while the HR for relapse with iHDI was increased. Therefore, an iHDI regimen, as tested here, cannot be recommended as adjuvant treatment for high-risk melanoma.

20 Clinical Trial A randomized, controlled phase III trial of nab-Paclitaxel versus dacarbazine in chemotherapy-naïve patients with metastatic melanoma. 2015

Hersh, E M / Del Vecchio, M / Brown, M P / Kefford, R / Loquai, C / Testori, A / Bhatia, S / Gutzmer, R / Conry, R / Haydon, A / Robert, C / Ernst, S / Homsi, J / Grob, J J / Kendra, K / Agarwala, S S / Li, M / Clawson, A / Brachmann, C / Karnoub, M / Elias, I / Renschler, M F / Hauschild, A. ·Department of Medicine, Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, USA ehersh@azcc.arizona.edu. · Department of Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS National Tumor Institute, Milan, Italy. · Cancer Clinical Trials Unit, Royal Adelaide Hospital and School of Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide. · Sydney West Cancer Trials Centre/Westmead Hospital and Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, North Sydney, Australia. · Department of Dermatology, University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany. · Melanoma and Muscle Cutaneous Sarcoma Division, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy. · Department of Medicine, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, USA. · Department of Dermatology and Oncology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany. · Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, USA. · Department of Medical Oncology, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. · Demartology Unit, Department of Medicine, The Gustave Roussy Cancer Institute, Villejuif, France. · Department of Medical Oncology, London Health Sciences Center-London Regional Cancer Program, London, Canada. · Department of Medical Oncology, Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center, Gilbert, USA. · Department of Dermatology, Timone Hospital, APHM and Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France. · Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus. · Department of Hematology and Oncology, St Luke's Cancer Center and Temple University, Bethlehem. · Biometrics and Data Operations/Translational Medicine/Biometrics and Data Operations/Clinical Research & Development/Global Medical Affairs, Celgene Corporation, Summit, USA. · Department of Dermatology, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany. ·Ann Oncol · Pubmed #26410620.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of nab-paclitaxel versus dacarbazine in patients with metastatic melanoma was evaluated in a phase III randomized, controlled trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve patients with stage IV melanoma received nab-paclitaxel 150 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks or dacarbazine 1000 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent radiologic review; the secondary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 529 patients were randomized to nab-paclitaxel (n = 264) or dacarbazine (n = 265). Baseline characteristics were well balanced. The majority of patients were men (66%), had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status of 0 (71%), and had M1c stage disease (65%). The median PFS (primary end point) was 4.8 months with nab-paclitaxel and 2.5 months with dacarbazine [hazard ratio (HR), 0.792; 95.1% confidence interval (CI) 0.631-0.992; P = 0.044]. The median OS was 12.6 months with nab-paclitaxel and 10.5 months with dacarbazine (HR, 0.897; 95.1% CI 0.738-1.089; P = 0.271). Independently assessed overall response rate was 15% versus 11% (P = 0.239), and disease control rate (DCR) was 39% versus 27% (P = 0.004) for nab-paclitaxel versus dacarbazine, respectively. The most common grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events were neuropathy (nab-paclitaxel, 25% versus dacarbazine, 0%; P < 0.001), and neutropenia (nab-paclitaxel, 20% versus dacarbazine, 10%; P = 0.004). There was no correlation between secreted protein acidic and rich in cysteine (SPARC) status and PFS in either treatment arm. CONCLUSIONS: nab-Paclitaxel significantly improved PFS and DCR compared with dacarbazine, with a manageable safety profile.

21 Clinical Trial Nivolumab versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma who progressed after anti-CTLA-4 treatment (CheckMate 037): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial. 2015

Weber, Jeffrey S / D'Angelo, Sandra P / Minor, David / Hodi, F Stephen / Gutzmer, Ralf / Neyns, Bart / Hoeller, Christoph / Khushalani, Nikhil I / Miller, Wilson H / Lao, Christopher D / Linette, Gerald P / Thomas, Luc / Lorigan, Paul / Grossmann, Kenneth F / Hassel, Jessica C / Maio, Michele / Sznol, Mario / Ascierto, Paolo A / Mohr, Peter / Chmielowski, Bartosz / Bryce, Alan / Svane, Inge M / Grob, Jean-Jacques / Krackhardt, Angela M / Horak, Christine / Lambert, Alexandre / Yang, Arvin S / Larkin, James. ·Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. Electronic address: jeffrey.weber@moffitt.org. · Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. · California Pacific Center for Melanoma Research, San Francisco, CA, USA. · Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. · Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Germany. · Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Brussels, Belgium. · Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. · Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA. · Segal Cancer Centre, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. · University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. · Washington University, St Louis, MO, USA. · Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lyon, Lyon, France. · Christie Hospital, Manchester, UK. · Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. · German Cancer Research Centre University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany. · Medical Oncology and Immunotherapy, University Hospital of Siena, Istituto Toscano Tumori, Siena, Italy. · Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, CT, USA. · Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione G Pascale, Naples, Italy. · Elbe Kliniken Buxtehude, Buxtehude, Germany. · Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. · Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA. · Department of Oncology, Herlev Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. · Aix-Marseille University, Hopital de la Timone, Marseille, France. · Technische Universität München School of Medicine, II Medical Department, Munich, Germany. · Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA. · Bristol-Myers Squibb, Braine-I'Alleud, Belgium. · Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #25795410.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor antibody, can result in durable responses in patients with melanoma who have progressed after ipilimumab and BRAF inhibitors. We assessed the efficacy and safety of nivolumab compared with investigator's choice of chemotherapy (ICC) as a second-line or later-line treatment in patients with advanced melanoma. METHODS: In this randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients at 90 sites in 14 countries. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, had unresectable or metastatic melanoma, and progressed after ipilimumab, or ipilimumab and a BRAF inhibitor if they were BRAF(V 600) mutation-positive. Participating investigators randomly assigned (with an interactive voice response system) patients 2:1 to receive an intravenous infusion of nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or ICC (dacarbazine 1000 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks or paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) combined with carboplatin area under the curve 6 every 3 weeks) until progression or unacceptable toxic effects. We stratified randomisation by BRAF mutation status, tumour expression of PD-L1, and previous best overall response to ipilimumab. We used permuted blocks (block size of six) within each stratum. Primary endpoints were the proportion of patients who had an objective response and overall survival. Treatment was given open-label, but those doing tumour assessments were masked to treatment assignment. We assessed objective responses per-protocol after 120 patients had been treated with nivolumab and had a minimum follow-up of 24 weeks, and safety in all patients who had had at least one dose of treatment. The trial is closed and this is the first interim analysis, reporting the objective response primary endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01721746. FINDINGS: Between Dec 21, 2012, and Jan 10, 2014, we screened 631 patients, randomly allocating 272 patients to nivolumab and 133 to ICC. Confirmed objective responses were reported in 38 (31·7%, 95% CI 23·5-40·8) of the first 120 patients in the nivolumab group versus five (10·6%, 3·5-23·1) of 47 patients in the ICC group. Grade 3-4 adverse events related to nivolumab included increased lipase (three [1%] of 268 patients), increased alanine aminotransferase, anaemia, and fatigue (two [1%] each); for ICC, these included neutropenia (14 [14%] of 102), thrombocytopenia (six [6%]), and anaemia (five [5%]). We noted grade 3-4 drug-related serious adverse events in 12 (5%) nivolumab-treated patients and nine (9%) patients in the ICC group. No treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Nivolumab led to a greater proportion of patients achieving an objective response and fewer toxic effects than with alternative available chemotherapy regimens for patients with advanced melanoma that has progressed after ipilimumab or ipilimumab and a BRAF inhibitor. Nivolumab represents a new treatment option with clinically meaningful durable objective responses in a population of high unmet need. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

22 Clinical Trial Intralesional treatment of stage III metastatic melanoma patients with L19-IL2 results in sustained clinical and systemic immunologic responses. 2014

Weide, Benjamin / Eigentler, Thomas K / Pflugfelder, Annette / Zelba, Henning / Martens, Alexander / Pawelec, Graham / Giovannoni, Leonardo / Ruffini, Pier Adelchi / Elia, Giuliano / Neri, Dario / Gutzmer, Ralf / Becker, Jürgen C / Garbe, Claus. ·Authors' Affiliations: Departments of Dermatology, Center of Dermato-Oncology and benjamin.weide@med.uni-tuebingen.de. · Authors' Affiliations: Departments of Dermatology, Center of Dermato-Oncology and. · Internal Medicine II, Section for Transplantation Immunology and Immunohematology, University Medical Center, Tübingen; · Philogen S.p.A., La Lizza, Siena, Italy; · Philochem AG, Otelfingen; · Department of Chemistry and Applied Biosciences, Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; and. · Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Hannover Medical School, Skin Cancer Center, Hannover, Germany; · Department of Dermatology and Venereology, Universitätsklinik Graz, Graz, Austria. ·Cancer Immunol Res · Pubmed #24906352.

ABSTRACT: L19-IL2 is a recombinant protein comprising the cytokine IL2 fused to the single-chain monoclonal antibody L19. In previous studies, intralesional injection with IL2 has shown efficacy for the locoregional treatment of cutaneous/subcutaneous metastases in patients with advanced melanoma. The objectives of this study were to investigate whether (i) intralesional delivery of a targeted form of IL2 would yield similar results, with reduction of injection frequency and treatment duration; and (ii) systemic immune responses were induced by the local treatment. Patients with stage IIIB/IIIC melanoma and cutaneous/subcutaneous injectable metastases received weekly intratumoral injections of L19-IL2 at a maximum dose of 10 MIU/week for 4 consecutive weeks. Tumor response was evaluated 12 weeks after the first treatment. Twenty-four of 25 patients were evaluable for therapy-induced responses. A complete response (CR) by modified immune-related response criteria (irRC) of all treated metastases was achieved in 6 patients (25%), with long-lasting responses in most cases (5 patients for ≥24 months). Objective responses were documented in 53.9% of all index lesions [44.4% CR and 9.5% partial responses (by irRC)], and 36.5% of these remained stable, while 9.5% progressed. Toxicity was comparable with that of free IL2, and no serious adverse events were recorded. A significant temporary increase of peripheral regulatory T cells and natural killer cells, sustained increase of absolute CD4(+) lymphocytes, and decrease of myeloid-derived suppressor cells were observed upon treatment. Finally, we recorded encouraging data about the progression time to distant metastases and overall survival.

23 Clinical Trial Cutaneous side effects of combined therapy with sorafenib and pegylated interferon alpha-2b in metastatic melanoma (phase II DeCOG trial). 2013

Degen, Annette / Weichenthal, Michael / Ugurel, Selma / Trefzer, Uwe / Kilian, Katharina / Garbe, Claus / Egberts, Friederike / Poppe, Lìdia Marilia / Hauschild, Axel / Gutzmer, Ralf. ·Department of Dermatology and Allergology, Hannover Medical School, Germany. ·J Dtsch Dermatol Ges · Pubmed #23879405.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: During a clinical study with combined therapy of sorafenib and pegylated interferon alpha-2b (SoraPeg study) of the German Dermatologic Oncology Group (ADO/DeCOG), multiple and severe cutaneous side effects were observed. This study sought to analyze these cutaneous side effects, particularly because future studies with combinations of interferon alpha and targeted therapies are planned. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a multicenter phase-II-DeCOG study (NCT00623402) in 10 dermato-oncology centers, 55 patients with metastatic melanoma received a combination of sorafenib (2 x 400 mg/day orally) and pegylated interferon alpha-2b (3 μg/kg body weight 1 x/week subcutaneously). All cutaneous side effects were documented. RESULTS: Forty-one patients (74.5 %) developed cutaneous side effects, particularly exanthems (51.2 %), hand-foot syndrome (36.5 %), alopecia (36.5 %) and pruritus (24.4 %). Due to the cutaneous side effects, dose reductions were required in 10 patients, interruption of therapy in 10 cases and permanent discontinuation of therapy and in one patient with extensive follicular-cystic lesions. Exanthems were seen more frequently in women (76.2 %) than in men (23.8 %). The occurrence of cutaneous side effects was not correlated with clinical outcome or prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of sorafenib/pegylated interferon alpha-2b caused more cutaneous side effects than have been reported for single agents. Despite intensive dermatologic management of the cutaneous side effects 24 % of patients required a dose modification.

24 Clinical Trial Selumetinib plus dacarbazine versus placebo plus dacarbazine as first-line treatment for BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma: a phase 2 double-blind randomised study. 2013

Robert, Caroline / Dummer, Reinhard / Gutzmer, Ralf / Lorigan, Paul / Kim, Kevin B / Nyakas, Marta / Arance, Ana / Liszkay, Gabriella / Schadendorf, Dirk / Cantarini, Mireille / Spencer, Stuart / Middleton, Mark R. ·Institute Gustave Roussy, Paris, France. caroline.robert@igr.fr ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #23735514.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic melanoma, 50% of whose tumours harbour a BRAF mutation, have a poor prognosis. Selumetinib, a MEK1/2 inhibitor, has shown antitumour activity in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma and in preclinical models when combined with chemotherapy. This study was designed to look for a signal of improved efficacy by comparing the combination of selumetinib and dacarbazine with dacarbazine alone. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 study investigated selumetinib plus dacarbazine versus placebo plus dacarbazine as first-line treatment in patients older than 18 years with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced BRAF-mutant cutaneous or unknown primary melanoma. Patients were randomly assigned by central interactive voice response system (1:1 ratio, block size four) to take either oral selumetinib (75 mg twice daily in a 21-day cycle) or placebo; all patients received intravenous dacarbazine (1000 mg/m(2) on day 1 of a 21-day cycle). Patients, investigators, and the study team were masked to the treatment assigned. The primary endpoint was overall survival analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00936221. FINDINGS: Between July 20, 2009, and April 8, 2010, 91 patients were randomly assigned to receive dacarbazine in combination with selumetinib (n=45) or placebo (n=46). Overall survival did not differ significantly between groups (median 13·9 months, 80% CI 10·2-15·6, in the selumetinib plus dacarbazine group and 10·5 months, 9·6-14·7, in the placebo plus dacarbazine group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·93, 80% CI 0·67-1·28, one-sided p=0·39). However, progression-free survival was significantly improved in the selumetinib plus dacarbazine group versus the placebo plus dacarbazine group (HR 0·63, 80% CI 0·47-0·84, one-sided p=0·021), with a median of 5·6 months (80% CI 4·9-5·9) versus 3·0 months (2·8-4·6), respectively. The most frequent adverse events included nausea (28 [64%] of 44 patients on selumetinib vs 25 [56%] of 45 on placebo), acneiform dermatitis (23 [52%] vs one [2%]), diarrhoea (21 [48%] vs 13 [29%]), vomiting (21 [48%] vs 15 [33%]), and peripheral oedema (19 [43%] vs three [7%]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse event was neutropenia (six [14%] patients in the selumetinib plus dacarbazine group vs four [9%] in the placebo plus dacarbazine group). INTERPRETATION: Selumetinib plus dacarbazine showed clinical activity in patients with BRAF-mutant cutaneous or unknown primary melanoma, reflected by a significant benefit in progression-free survival compared with placebo plus dacarbazine group, although no significant change in overall survival was noted. The tolerability of this combination was generally consistent with monotherapy safety profiles. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

25 Clinical Trial Adjuvant therapy with pegylated interferon alfa-2b (36 months) versus low-dose interferon alfa-2b (18 months) in melanoma patients without macrometastatic nodes: an open-label, randomised, phase 3 European Association for Dermato-Oncology (EADO) study. 2013

Grob, Jean Jacques / Jouary, Thomas / Dréno, Brigitte / Asselineau, Julien / Gutzmer, Ralf / Hauschild, Axel / Leccia, Marie Thérèse / Landthaler, Michael / Garbe, Claus / Sassolas, Bruno / Herbst, Rudolf A / Guillot, Bernard / Chene, Genevieve / Pehamberger, Hubert. ·Aix-Marseille University, CRO2, Service de Dermatologie, Hopital de Timone, 264 Rue St Pierre, 13885 Marseille CEDEX 05, Marseille, France. jean-jacques.grob@ap-hm.fr ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #22975216.

ABSTRACT: AIM: Both low-dose interferon (IFN) alfa-2b and pegylated interferon (Peg-IFN) alfa-2b have been shown to be superior to observation in the adjuvant treatment of melanoma without macrometastatic nodes, but have never been directly compared. Peg-IFN facilitates prolongation of treatment, which could provide additional benefit. This multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial compared standard low-dose interferon IFN and prolonged treatment with Peg-IFN. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with resected melanoma ≥1.5mm thick and without clinically detectable node metastases were randomised 1:1 to treatment with IFN 3 MU subcutaneously (SC) three times weekly for 18 months or Peg-IFN 100 μg SC once weekly for 36 months. Sentinel lymph node dissection (SLND) was optional. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary endpoints included distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs) grade 3-4. RESULTS: Of 898 patients enrolled, 896 (443 Peg-IFN, 453 IFN) were eligible for evaluation (median follow-up 4.7 years). SLND was performed in 68.2% of patients. There were no statistical differences between the two arms for the primary outcome of DFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-1.15) or the secondary outcomes of DMFS (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.80-1.32) and OS (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.82-1.45). Peg-IFN was associated with higher rates of grade 3-4 AEs (47.3% versus 25.2%; p<0.0001) and discontinuations (54.3% versus 30.4%) compared with IFN. CONCLUSION: This trial did not show superiority for adjuvant Peg-IFN over conventional low-dose IFN in melanoma patients without clinically detectable nodes. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00221702.

Next