Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Melanoma: HELP
Articles by Frank Stephen Hodi
Based on 148 articles published since 2010
(Why 148 articles?)

Between 2010 and 2020, F. S. Hodi wrote the following 148 articles about Melanoma.
+ Citations + Abstracts
Pages: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6
1 Guideline An update on the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer consensus statement on tumor immunotherapy for the treatment of cutaneous melanoma: version 2.0. 2018

Sullivan, Ryan J / Atkins, Michael B / Kirkwood, John M / Agarwala, Sanjiv S / Clark, Joseph I / Ernstoff, Marc S / Fecher, Leslie / Gajewski, Thomas F / Gastman, Brian / Lawson, David H / Lutzky, Jose / McDermott, David F / Margolin, Kim A / Mehnert, Janice M / Pavlick, Anna C / Richards, Jon M / Rubin, Krista M / Sharfman, William / Silverstein, Steven / Slingluff, Craig L / Sondak, Vernon K / Tarhini, Ahmad A / Thompson, John A / Urba, Walter J / White, Richard L / Whitman, Eric D / Hodi, F Stephen / Kaufman, Howard L. ·Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. · Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 20057, USA. · University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA. · St. Luke's Cancer Center and Temple University, Center Valley, PA, 18034, USA. · Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, IL, 60153, USA. · Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, 14263, USA. · University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. · University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA. · Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. · Emory Winship Cancer Institute, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA. · Mt. Sinai Medical Center, Miami Beach, FL, 33140, USA. · Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, 02215, USA. · City of Hope, Duarte, CA, 91010, USA. · Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, 08901, USA. · New York University Cancer Institute, New York, NY, 10016, USA. · Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, IL, 60068, USA. · The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, 21231, USA. · Melanoma Research Foundation, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, 07077, USA. · University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 22908, USA. · H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, 33612, USA. · Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Center, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. · Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA, 98109, USA. · Earle A. Chiles Research Institute, Providence Cancer Center, Portland, OR, 97213, USA. · Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC, 28204, USA. · Carol G. Simon Cancer Center, Morristown, NJ, 07046, USA. · Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, 02215, USA. · Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. howardkaufman6@gmail.com. ·J Immunother Cancer · Pubmed #29848375.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Cancer immunotherapy has been firmly established as a standard of care for patients with advanced and metastatic melanoma. Therapeutic outcomes in clinical trials have resulted in the approval of 11 new drugs and/or combination regimens for patients with melanoma. However, prospective data to support evidence-based clinical decisions with respect to the optimal schedule and sequencing of immunotherapy and targeted agents, how best to manage emerging toxicities and when to stop treatment are not yet available. METHODS: To address this knowledge gap, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) Melanoma Task Force developed a process for consensus recommendations for physicians treating patients with melanoma integrating evidence-based data, where available, with best expert consensus opinion. The initial consensus statement was published in 2013, and version 2.0 of this report is an update based on a recent meeting of the Task Force and extensive subsequent discussions on new agents, contemporary peer-reviewed literature and emerging clinical data. The Academy of Medicine (formerly Institute of Medicine) clinical practice guidelines were used as a basis for consensus development with an updated literature search for important studies published between 1992 and 2017 and supplemented, as appropriate, by recommendations from Task Force participants. RESULTS: The Task Force considered patients with stage II-IV melanoma and here provide consensus recommendations for how they would incorporate the many immunotherapy options into clinical pathways for patients with cutaneous melanoma. CONCLUSION: These clinical guidleines provide physicians and healthcare providers with consensus recommendations for managing melanoma patients electing treatment with tumor immunotherapy.

2 Guideline Melanoma, Version 2.2016, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. 2016

Coit, Daniel G / Thompson, John A / Algazi, Alain / Andtbacka, Robert / Bichakjian, Christopher K / Carson, William E / Daniels, Gregory A / DiMaio, Dominick / Ernstoff, Marc / Fields, Ryan C / Fleming, Martin D / Gonzalez, Rene / Guild, Valerie / Halpern, Allan C / Hodi, F Stephen / Joseph, Richard W / Lange, Julie R / Martini, Mary C / Materin, Miguel A / Olszanski, Anthony J / Ross, Merrick I / Salama, April K / Skitzki, Joseph / Sosman, Jeff / Swetter, Susan M / Tanabe, Kenneth K / Torres-Roca, Javier F / Trisal, Vijay / Urist, Marshall M / McMillian, Nicole / Engh, Anita. · ·J Natl Compr Canc Netw · Pubmed #27059193.

ABSTRACT: This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Melanoma focuses on adjuvant therapy and treatment of in-transit disease, because substantial changes were made to the recommendations for the 2016 update. Depending on the stage of the disease, options for adjuvant therapy now include biochemotherapy and high-dose ipilimumab. Treatment options for in-transit disease now include intralesional injection with talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC), a new immunotherapy. These additions prompted re-assessment of the data supporting older recommended treatment options for adjuvant therapy and in-transit disease, resulting in extensive revisions to the supporting discussion sections.

3 Guideline Melanoma, version 4.2014. 2014

Coit, Daniel G / Thompson, John A / Andtbacka, Robert / Anker, Christopher J / Bichakjian, Christopher K / Carson, William E / Daniels, Gregory A / Daud, Adil / Dimaio, Dominick / Fleming, Martin D / Gonzalez, Rene / Guild, Valerie / Halpern, Allan C / Hodi, F Stephen / Kelley, Mark C / Khushalani, Nikhil I / Kudchadkar, Ragini R / Lange, Julie R / Martini, Mary C / Olszanski, Anthony J / Ross, Merrick I / Salama, April / Swetter, Susan M / Tanabe, Kenneth K / Trisal, Vijay / Urist, Marshall M / McMillian, Nicole R / Ho, Maria / Anonymous5190793. ·From 1Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; 2Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; 3Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah; 4University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center; 5The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute; 6UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center; 7UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center; 8Fred & Pamela Buffett Cancer Center at The Nebraska Medical Center; 9St. Jude Children's Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center; 10University of Colorado Cancer Center; 11Aim at Melanoma; 12Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center; 13Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center; 14Roswell Park Cancer Institute; 15Moffitt Cancer Center; 16The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; 17Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University; 18Fox Chase Cancer Center; 19The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; 20Duke Cancer Institute; 21Stanford Cancer Institute; 22Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; 23City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; 24University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center; and 25National Comprehensive Cancer Network. ·J Natl Compr Canc Netw · Pubmed #24812131.

ABSTRACT: The NCCN Guidelines for Melanoma provide multidisciplinary recommendations for the management of patients with melanoma. These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight notable recent updates. Dabrafenib and trametinib, either as monotherapy (category 1) or combination therapy, have been added as systemic options for patients with unresectable metastatic melanoma harboring BRAF V600 mutations. Controversy continues regarding the value of adjuvant radiation for patients at high risk of nodal relapse. This is reflected in the category 2B designation to consider adjuvant radiation following lymphadenectomy for stage III melanoma with clinically positive nodes or recurrent disease.

4 Guideline The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer consensus statement on tumour immunotherapy for the treatment of cutaneous melanoma. 2013

Kaufman, Howard L / Kirkwood, John M / Hodi, F Stephen / Agarwala, Sanjiv / Amatruda, Thomas / Bines, Steven D / Clark, Joseph I / Curti, Brendan / Ernstoff, Marc S / Gajewski, Thomas / Gonzalez, Rene / Hyde, Laura Jane / Lawson, David / Lotze, Michael / Lutzky, Jose / Margolin, Kim / McDermott, David F / Morton, Donald / Pavlick, Anna / Richards, Jon M / Sharfman, William / Sondak, Vernon K / Sosman, Jeffrey / Steel, Susan / Tarhini, Ahmad / Thompson, John A / Titze, Jill / Urba, Walter / White, Richard / Atkins, Michael B. ·Rush University Cancer Center, 1725 West Harrison Street, Chicago, IL 60612, USA. ·Nat Rev Clin Oncol · Pubmed #23982524.

ABSTRACT: Immunotherapy is associated with durable clinical benefit in patients with melanoma. The goal of this article is to provide evidence-based consensus recommendations for the use of immunotherapy in the clinical management of patients with high-risk and advanced-stage melanoma in the USA. To achieve this goal, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer sponsored a panel of melanoma experts--including physicians, nurses, and patient advocates--to develop a consensus for the clinical application of tumour immunotherapy for patients with melanoma. The Institute of Medicine clinical practice guidelines were used as a basis for this consensus development. A systematic literature search was performed for high-impact studies in English between 1992 and 2012 and was supplemented as appropriate by the panel. This consensus report focuses on issues related to patient selection, toxicity management, clinical end points and sequencing or combination of therapy. The literature review and consensus panel voting and discussion were used to generate recommendations for the use of immunotherapy in patients with melanoma, and to assess and rate the strength of the supporting evidence. From the peer-reviewed literature the consensus panel identified a role for interferon-α2b, pegylated-interferon-α2b, interleukin-2 (IL-2) and ipilimumab in the clinical management of melanoma. Expert recommendations for how to incorporate these agents into the therapeutic approach to melanoma are provided in this consensus statement. Tumour immunotherapy is a useful therapeutic strategy in the management of patients with melanoma and evidence-based consensus recommendations for clinical integration are provided and will be updated as warranted.

5 Guideline Melanoma, version 2.2013: featured updates to the NCCN guidelines. 2013

Coit, Daniel G / Andtbacka, Robert / Anker, Christopher J / Bichakjian, Christopher K / Carson, William E / Daud, Adil / Dimaio, Dominick / Fleming, Martin D / Guild, Valerie / Halpern, Allan C / Hodi, F Stephen / Kelley, Mark C / Khushalani, Nikhil I / Kudchadkar, Ragini R / Lange, Julie R / Lind, Anne / Martini, Mary C / Olszanski, Anthony J / Pruitt, Scott K / Ross, Merrick I / Swetter, Susan M / Tanabe, Kenneth K / Thompson, John A / Trisal, Vijay / Urist, Marshall M / McMillian, Nicole / Ho, Maria / Anonymous4400755. ·Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. ·J Natl Compr Canc Netw · Pubmed #23584343.

ABSTRACT: The NCCN Guidelines for Melanoma provide multidisciplinary recommendations on the clinical management of patients with melanoma. This NCCN Guidelines Insights report highlights notable recent updates. Foremost of these is the exciting addition of the novel agents ipilimumab and vemurafenib for treatment of advanced melanoma. The NCCN panel also included imatinib as a treatment for KIT-mutated tumors and pegylated interferon alfa-2b as an option for adjuvant therapy. Also important are revisions to the initial stratification of early-stage lesions based on the risk of sentinel lymph node metastases, and revised recommendations on the use of sentinel lymph node biopsy for low-risk groups. Finally, the NCCN panel reached clinical consensus on clarifying the role of imaging in the workup of patients with melanoma.

6 Guideline Melanoma. 2012

Coit, Daniel G / Andtbacka, Robert / Anker, Christopher J / Bichakjian, Christopher K / Carson, William E / Daud, Adil / Dilawari, Raza A / Dimaio, Dominick / Guild, Valerie / Halpern, Allan C / Hodi, F Stephen / Kelley, Mark C / Khushalani, Nikhil I / Kudchadkar, Ragini R / Lange, Julie R / Lind, Anne / Martini, Mary C / Olszanski, Anthony J / Pruitt, Scott K / Ross, Merrick I / Swetter, Susan M / Tanabe, Kenneth K / Thompson, John A / Trisal, Vijay / Urist, Marshall M / Anonymous590720. · ·J Natl Compr Canc Netw · Pubmed #22393197.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

7 Review Incidence of Programmed Cell Death 1 Inhibitor-Related Pneumonitis in Patients With Advanced Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. 2016

Nishino, Mizuki / Giobbie-Hurder, Anita / Hatabu, Hiroto / Ramaiya, Nikhil H / Hodi, F Stephen. ·Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. · Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. · Department of Medical Oncology and Department of Medicine, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. ·JAMA Oncol · Pubmed #27540850.

ABSTRACT: Importance: Programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor-related pneumonitis is a rare but clinically serious and potentially life-threatening adverse event. Little is known about its incidence across different tumor types and treatment regimens. Objective: To compare the incidence of PD-1 inhibitor-related pneumonitis among different tumor types and therapeutic regimens. Data Sources: A PubMed search through November 10, 2015, and a review of references from relevant articles. For the PubMed search, the following keywords or corresponding Medical Subject Heading terms were used: nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and PD-1 inhibitor. Study Selection: Twenty-six original articles of PD-1 inhibitor trial results were identified. Among them, 20 studies of melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), or renal cell carcinoma (RCC) were eligible for a meta-analysis. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The data were extracted by 1 primary reviewer and then independently reviewed by 2 secondary reviewers following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Comparisons of the incidence were based on marginal, exact generalized linear models with generalized estimating equations. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incidence of all-grade and grade 3 or higher pneumonitis and pneumonitis-related deaths. Results: Twenty studies of single-tumor-type trials of PD-1 inhibitor (12 melanoma studies, 5 NSCLC studies, and 3 RCC studies) (a total of 4496 unique patients) were included in the meta-analysis. The overall incidence of pneumonitis during PD-1 inhibitor monotherapy was 2.7% (95% CI, 1.9%-3.6%) for all-grade and 0.8% (95% CI, 0.4%-1.2%) for grade 3 or higher pneumonitis. The incidence was higher in NSCLC for all-grade (4.1% vs 1.6%; P = .002) and grade 3 or higher pneumonitis (1.8% vs 0.2%; P < .001) compared with melanoma. The incidence in RCC was higher than in melanoma for all-grade pneumonitis (4.1% vs 1.6%; P < .001) but not for grade 3 or higher pneumonitis. Four pneumonitis-related deaths were observed in patients with NSCLC in the monotherapy group. Pneumonitis was more frequent during combination therapy than monotherapy for all-grade (6.6% vs 1.6%; P < .001) and grade 3 or higher pneumonitis (1.5% vs 0.2%; P = .001) in melanoma, with 1 pneumonitis-related death during combination therapy. Multivariable analyses demonstrated higher odds of pneumonitis in NSCLC for all-grade (odds ratio [OR], 1.43; 95% CI, 1.08-1.89; P = .005) and grade 3 or higher pneumonitis (OR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.60-5.08; P < .001) and in RCC for all-grade pneumonitis (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.32-1.92; P < .001) compared with melanoma. The combination therapy had significantly higher odds than monotherapy for all-grade (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.69-2.50; P < .001) and grade 3 or higher pneumonitis (OR, 2.86; 95% CI, 1.79- 4.35; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: The incidence of PD-1 inhibitor-related pneumonitis was higher in NSCLC and RCC and during combination therapy. These findings contribute to enhance awareness among clinicians and support further investigations to meet the clinical needs.

8 Review Clinical development of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC): a modified herpes simplex virus type-1-derived oncolytic immunotherapy. 2015

Harrington, Kevin J / Puzanov, Igor / Hecht, J Randolph / Hodi, F Stephen / Szabo, Zsolt / Murugappan, Swami / Kaufman, Howard L. ·a Division of Hematology-Oncology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center , Nashville , TN , USA. · b David Geffen School of Medicine , UCLA , Los Angeles , CA , USA. · c Melanoma Center and the Center for Immuno-Oncology , Dana-Farber Cancer Institute , Boston , MA , USA. · d Department of Oncology , Amgen (Europe) GmbH , Zug , Switzerland. · e Department of Oncology , Amgen Inc ., Thousand Oaks , CA , USA. · f Division of Surgical Oncology , Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey , New Brunswick , NJ , USA. ·Expert Rev Anticancer Ther · Pubmed #26558498.

ABSTRACT: Tumor immunotherapy is emerging as a promising new treatment option for patients with cancer. T-VEC is an intralesional oncolytic virus therapy based on a modified herpes simplex virus type-1. T-VEC selectively targets tumor cells, causing regression in injected lesions and inducing immunologic responses that mediate regression at uninjected/distant sites. In a randomized phase III trial, T-VEC met its primary endpoint of improving the durable response rate vs granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor in patients with unresectable melanoma. Responses were observed in injected and uninjected regional and visceral lesions. Exploratory analyses suggested survival differences in favor of T-VEC in patients with untreated or stage IIIB/IIIC/IVM1a disease. T-VEC was generally well tolerated, the most common adverse events being flu-like symptoms. Here, we overview recent advances in cancer immunotherapy, focusing on the clinical development of T-VEC, from first-in-human studies and studies in other cancer types, to ongoing combination trials with checkpoint inhibitors.

9 Review Inhibition of Immune Checkpoints and Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor as Combination Therapy for Metastatic Melanoma: An Overview of Rationale, Preclinical Evidence, and Initial Clinical Data. 2015

Ott, Patrick A / Hodi, F Stephen / Buchbinder, Elizabeth I. ·Department of Medical Oncology, Melanoma Disease Center, Center for Immuno-Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School , Boston, MA , USA ; Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School , Boston, MA , USA. ·Front Oncol · Pubmed #26442214.

ABSTRACT: The role of angiogenesis as a mediator of immune regulation in the tumor microenvironment has recently come into focus. Furthermore, emerging evidence indicates that immunotherapy can lead to immune-mediated vasculopathy in the tumor, suggesting that the tumor vasculature may be an important interface between the tumor-directed immune response and the cancer itself. The advent of immune checkpoint inhibition as an effective immunotherapeutic strategy for many cancers has led to a better understanding of this interface. While the inhibition of angiogenesis through targeting of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) has been used successfully for the treatment of cancer for many years, the mechanisms of its anti-tumor activity remain poorly understood. Initial studies of the complex relationship between angiogenesis, VEGF signaling and the immune system suggest that the combination of immune checkpoint blockade with angiogenesis inhibition has potential. While the majority of this work has been performed in metastatic melanoma, immunotherapy is rapidly showing promise in a broad range of malignancies and efforts to enhance immunotherapy will broadly impact the future of oncology. Here, we review the preclinical rationale and clinical investigations of combined angiogenesis inhibition and immunotherapy/immune checkpoint inhibition as a potentially promising combinatorial approach for cancer treatment.

10 Review Cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 and immune checkpoint blockade. 2015

Buchbinder, Elizabeth / Hodi, F Stephen. · ·J Clin Invest · Pubmed #26325034.

ABSTRACT: The relationship between cancer and the immune system is complex and provides unique therapeutic opportunities. Cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) is a regulatory molecule that suppresses T cell effector function following initial activation by costimulatory signals. Fully human monoclonal antibodies targeting CTLA-4 have been shown to increase T cell function and antitumor responses in patients with advanced metastatic melanoma. Responses observed with such immune checkpoint therapy can follow a different pattern from that seen with cytotoxic chemotherapy or targeted therapy and may continue after therapy is discontinued. In addition, the toxicities that are associated with anti-CTLA-4 therapy may differ from those of conventional therapies and consist of inflammatory events in parts of the body that do not contain cancerous cells. Early recognition of these inflammatory events and intervention is important, and the identification of predictive biomarkers continues to be an unfulfilled need in the field of immunotherapy. Combinatorial approaches with targeted therapies, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, or other immune checkpoint agonists/antagonists have the potential to increase the efficacy of CTLA-4 blockade.

11 Review Durable benefit and the potential for long-term survival with immunotherapy in advanced melanoma. 2014

McDermott, David / Lebbé, Celeste / Hodi, F Stephen / Maio, Michele / Weber, Jeffrey S / Wolchok, Jedd D / Thompson, John A / Balch, Charles M. ·Department of Hematology/Oncology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 375 Longwood Ave, Mailstop: MASCO 428, Boston, MA 02215, USA. Electronic address: dmcdermo@bidmc.harvard.edu. · APHP Department of Dermatology, CIC, U976 Hôpital Saint-Louis University Paris Diderot, 1 Avenue Claude Vellefaux, Paris 75010, France. Electronic address: celeste.lebbe@sls.aphp.fr. · Center for Immuno-Oncology, Melanoma Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA 02215, USA. Electronic address: Stephen_Hodi@dfci.harvard.edu. · Medical Oncology and Immunotherapy, Department of Oncology, University Hospital of Siena, Siena 53100, Italy. Electronic address: mmaiocro@gmail.com. · Department of Cutaneous Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, 12902 Magnolia Drive, Tampa, FL 33612, USA. Electronic address: jeffrey.weber@moffitt.org. · Ludwig Center for Cancer Immunotherapy, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065, USA. Electronic address: wolchokj@mskcc.org. · Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, 825 Eastlake Ave E, G4-830, Seattle, WA 98109, USA. Electronic address: jat@uw.edu. · Department of Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, TX 75390, USA. Electronic address: charles.balch@utsouthwestern.edu. ·Cancer Treat Rev · Pubmed #25060490.

ABSTRACT: Historically, the median overall survival for patients with stage IV melanoma was less than 1 year and the 5-year survival rate was ∼10%. Recent advances in therapy have raised 5-year survival expectations to ∼20%. Notably, a subset of melanoma patients who receive immunotherapy with high-dose interleukin-2, and now ipilimumab, can achieve long-term survival of at least 5 years. A major goal in melanoma research is to increase the number of patients who experience this overall survival benefit. In this review, we discuss the attributes of immunotherapy and newer targeted agents, and consider how combination strategies might improve the chances of achieving durable benefit and long-term survival. We also discuss three areas that we believe will be critical to making further advances in melanoma treatment. To better understand the clinical profile of patients who achieve long-term survival with immunotherapy, we first present data from ipilimumab clinical trials in which a subset of patients experienced durable responses. Second, we discuss the limitations of traditional metrics used to evaluate the benefits of immunotherapies. Third, we consider emerging issues that clinicians are currently facing when making treatment decisions regarding immunotherapy. A better understanding of these novel treatments may improve survival outcomes in melanoma, increase the number of patients who experience this overall survival benefit, and inform the future use of these agents in the treatment of other cancer types.

12 Review CTLA-4 and PD-1/PD-L1 blockade: new immunotherapeutic modalities with durable clinical benefit in melanoma patients. 2013

Ott, Patrick A / Hodi, F Stephen / Robert, Caroline. ·Authors' Affiliations: Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; and Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif-Paris Sud, Paris, France. ·Clin Cancer Res · Pubmed #24089443.

ABSTRACT: Immune checkpoint blockade with monoclonal antibodies directed at the inhibitory immune receptors CTLA-4, PD-1, and PD-L1 has emerged as a successful treatment approach for patients with advanced melanoma. Ipilimumab is the first agent associated with a documented improved overall survival benefit in this patient population. A striking attribute of CTLA-4 blockade is the durability of objective responses, leading to speculation of a possible cure for some patients. Many tumor responses achieved with PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibition were durable in the phase I trials and were seen in a higher proportion of patients with melanoma than typically observed with ipilimumab. Biomarker development to identify the subset of patients with melanoma who will achieve durable clinical benefit with checkpoint blockade is critical; tumor PD-L1 expression has been promising in early studies. The contrast between unprecedented response rates but limited durability of responses achieved with BRAF and MEK inhibition in BRAF(V600)-mutated melanoma and the impressive durability but relatively low rate of response achieved with immune checkpoint blockade is striking. Preclinical data on potential synergies between CTLA-4/PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition and MAPK-targeted therapy is emerging, and combined immune checkpoint blockade and MAPK inhibition are being explored in clinical trials. Other promising approaches to increase the number of patients with melanoma who benefit from durable responses with immune checkpoint blockade include concurrent or sequenced CTLA-4 and PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition and combination with other immunotherapeutic strategies. Clin Cancer Res; 19(19); 5300-9. ©2013 AACR.

13 Review Ipilimumab and its toxicities: a multidisciplinary approach. 2013

Fecher, Leslie A / Agarwala, Sanjiv S / Hodi, F Stephen / Weber, Jeffrey S. ·University of Pennsylvania Abramson Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. lafecher@iu.edu ·Oncologist · Pubmed #23774827.

ABSTRACT: The treatment for metastatic melanoma has evolved significantly in the past few years. Ipilimumab, an immunotherapy, is now in mainstream oncology practice given that it has shown improved overall survival in randomized clinical trials. Other immune modulating agents, such as programmed death receptor-1 and programmed death receptor ligand-1 antibodies, are showing promise in early clinical trials. This manuscript will review ipilimumab and its most common side effects. Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are important to recognize early, and their presentation, timing of onset, and general recommendations for workup and management will be reviewed. Assembling a multidisciplinary team, as well as thorough education of the patient, is recommended to optimize patient care.

14 Review Development of ipilimumab: a novel immunotherapeutic approach for the treatment of advanced melanoma. 2013

Wolchok, Jedd D / Hodi, F Stephen / Weber, Jeffrey S / Allison, James P / Urba, Walter J / Robert, Caroline / O'Day, Steven J / Hoos, Axel / Humphrey, Rachel / Berman, David M / Lonberg, Nils / Korman, Alan J. ·Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York 10021, USA. wolchokj@mskcc.org ·Ann N Y Acad Sci · Pubmed #23772560.

ABSTRACT: The immunotherapeutic agent ipilimumab has helped address a significant unmet need in the treatment of advanced melanoma. Ipilimumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that targets cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4), thereby augmenting antitumor immune responses. After decades in which a number of clinical trials were conducted, ipilimumab was the first therapy to improve overall survival in a randomized, controlled phase III trial of patients with advanced melanoma. These results led to the regulatory approval of ipilimumab at 3 mg/kg for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma. More than 17,000 patients worldwide have received ipilimumab, either as a commercial drug at 3 mg/kg or in clinical trials and expanded access programs at different doses. Consistent with its proposed mechanism of action, the most common toxicities associated with ipilimumab therapy are inflammatory in nature. These immune-related adverse events were mostly reversible when effective treatment guidelines were followed. Importantly, long-term follow-up of patients who received ipilimumab in a phase III trial showed that 24% survived at least two years, and in phase II studies, a proportion of patients survived at least five years. Evaluation of ipilimumab is ongoing in the adjuvant setting for melanoma, and for advanced disease in nonsmall cell lung, small cell lung, prostate, ovarian, and gastric cancers.

15 Review Ipilimumab, vemurafenib, dabrafenib, and trametinib: synergistic competitors in the clinical management of BRAF mutant malignant melanoma. 2013

Luke, Jason J / Hodi, F Stephen. ·Melanoma Disease Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA. Jason_Luke@dfci.harvard.edu ·Oncologist · Pubmed #23709751.

ABSTRACT: There have been significant advances in the treatment of malignant melanoma with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of two drugs in 2011, the first drugs approved in 13 years. The developments of immune checkpoint modulation via cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 blockade, with ipilimumab, and targeting of BRAF(V600), with vemurafenib or dabrafenib, as well as MEK, with trametinib, have been paradigm changing both for melanoma clinical practice and for oncology therapeutic development. These advancements, however, reveal new clinical questions regarding combinations and optimal sequencing of these agents in patients with BRAF mutant disease. We review the development of these agents, putative biomarkers, and resistance mechanisms relevant to their use, and possibilities for sequencing and combining these agents.

16 Review From genes to drugs: targeted strategies for melanoma. 2012

Flaherty, Keith T / Hodi, F Stephen / Fisher, David E. ·Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02114, USA. ·Nat Rev Cancer · Pubmed #22475929.

ABSTRACT: The past decade has revealed that melanoma is comprised of multiple subclasses that can be categorized on the basis of key features, including the clinical stage of disease, the oncogenic molecular 'drivers', the anatomical location or the behaviour of the primary lesion and the expression of specific biomarkers. Although exercises in subclassification are not new in oncology, progress in this area has produced both conceptual and clinical breakthroughs, which, for melanoma, are unprecedented in the modern history of the disease. This Review focuses on these recent striking advances in the strategy of molecularly targeted approaches to the therapy of melanoma in humans.

17 Review Radiologic aspects of immune-related tumor response criteria and patterns of immune-related adverse events in patients undergoing ipilimumab therapy. 2011

O'Regan, Kevin N / Jagannathan, Jyothipriya P / Ramaiya, Nikhil / Hodi, F Stephen. ·Department of Radiology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Melanoma Disease Center, Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center, 44 Binney St, Boston, MA 02115, USA. ·AJR Am J Roentgenol · Pubmed #21785048.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to illustrate examples of radiologic immune-related response criteria and toxicity in patients with advanced melanoma treated with the immunotherapeutic agent ipilimumab. CONCLUSION: Novel immune-related tumor response criteria should be applied to patients undergoing therapy with ipilimumab for advanced melanoma. Ipilimumab also produces a spectrum of immune-related adverse effects that can be recognized radiologically.

18 Review Advances in targeted therapy for melanoma. 2010

Friedlander, Philip / Hodi, F Stephen. ·Instructor of Medicine, Department of Medical Oncology at Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA. pfriedlander@partners.org ·Clin Adv Hematol Oncol · Pubmed #21157411.

ABSTRACT: Metastatic melanoma remains an aggressive malignancy conferring a very poor prognosis, and standard chemotherapeutic and immunologic treatments have not demonstrated an overall survival benefit. No molecularly targeted therapy is approved for the treatment of advanced melanoma. Melanoma is a molecularly heterogeneous malignancy, and optimal treatment in a given patient is likely to depend on the presence of specific molecular abnormalities. Aberrations in components of signal transduction pathways have been identified that modulate melanoma proliferation and survival. Mutations that activate the mitogen activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway via BRAF or NRAS are present in the majority of melanomas arising on skin intermittently exposed to the sun. Mutations that activate the KIT oncogene are more commonly present in melanomas arising from mucosal, acral, or chronic sun-damaged sites. Inhibitors of the MAPK pathway and of KIT are currently undergoing clinical investigation. In this article, we review advances in targeted strategies to treat different subgroups of patients with melanoma.

19 Review Overcoming immunological tolerance to melanoma: Targeting CTLA-4. 2010

Hodi, F Stephen. ·Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. stephen_hodi@dfci.harvard.edu ·Asia Pac J Clin Oncol · Pubmed #20482528.

ABSTRACT: Abstract The use of immunotherapeutics in melanoma has received much attention, and recent advances to further characterize the regulatory components of the immune system and the importance of co-stimulatory molecules have opened a new area for clinical investigation. Cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) serves as a negative regulator of immunity. Recent trials administering fully human anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies to melanoma patients have demonstrated clinically meaningful responses. Treatment with CTLA-4 blocking antibodies, however, is not without potential toxicities. Autoimmune side-effects, the most common being colitis-associated diarrhea, are frequently associated with clinical responses. In efforts to build upon prior vaccination efforts as well as attempt to offer patients clinically meaningful immune responses with a CTLA-4 blockade but without significant toxicities, we conducted a clinical trial in patients who previously received autologous tumor cells engineered to secrete granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor (GVAX; Cell Genesys, South San Francisco, CA, USA) with periodic infusions of CTLA-4 blocking antibodies. This sequential treatment resulted in clinically significant anti-tumor immunity without grade 3 or 4 toxicity in most patients. Pathological analyses following treatment of pre-existing tumors revealed a linear correlation between tumor necrosis and the ratio of intra-tumoral CD8+ effector cells to FoxP3+ regulatory cells (T(regs)). Effective anti-tumor immunity and serious autoimmunity can be disassociated. Further targeting of anti-tumor T(regs)in combinatorial therapy approaches may be a rich avenue of future investigation.

20 Review Mutation-driven drug development in melanoma. 2010

Flaherty, Keith T / Hodi, F Stephen / Bastian, Boris C. ·Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA 02114, USA. ktflaherty@partners.org ·Curr Opin Oncol · Pubmed #20401974.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The identification of mutations in signal transduction pathways that are central in melanoma pathophysiology has provided new therapeutic targets for drug development. The purpose of this review is to define those oncogenes for which there are preclinical data supporting clinical trials and to summarize results from clinical investigations. RECENT FINDINGS: CKIT mutations were first reported in 2005 but are present in only a small subpopulation of melanoma patients. The validation of inhibitors developed in gastrointestinal stromal tumors has taken several years, but recent evidence suggests that responses can be seen in CKIT mutant melanoma. First reported in 2002, BRAF is mutated in 50% of all melanomas and subsets of other cancers. The melanoma field is leading the clinical trials evaluating the value of targeting BRAF and MEK in BRAF mutant tumors. Results from the first clinical trial with a potent and selective BRAF inhibitor clearly show the therapeutic promise of this approach. SUMMARY: Larger clinical trials are needed to fully define the efficacy of BRAF and CKIT-directed therapy in melanoma, but early results suggest that this strategy will transform treatment options. Additional potential targets have been identified, and clinical trials evaluating novel drugs against them are underway.

21 Clinical Trial Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition with PD-1 blockade immunotherapy in BRAF-mutant melanoma. 2019

Ribas, Antoni / Lawrence, Donald / Atkinson, Victoria / Agarwal, Sachin / Miller, Wilson H / Carlino, Matteo S / Fisher, Rosalie / Long, Georgina V / Hodi, F Stephen / Tsoi, Jennifer / Grasso, Catherine S / Mookerjee, Bijoyesh / Zhao, Qing / Ghori, Razi / Moreno, Blanca Homet / Ibrahim, Nageatte / Hamid, Omid. ·University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. aribas@mednet.ucla.edu. · Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. · Gallipoli Medical Research Foundation, Greenslopes Private Hospital, Greenslopes, Queensland, Australia. · Indiana University Health Goshen Center for Cancer Care, Goshen, IN, USA. · Segal Cancer Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. · Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. · McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. · Westmead Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. · Blacktown Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. · The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. · Melanoma Institute Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. · Auckland District Health Board, Auckland, New Zealand. · Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. · Mater Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. · Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. · University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. · Novartis, East Hanover, NJ, USA. · Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. · The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA, USA. ·Nat Med · Pubmed #31171879.

ABSTRACT: Oncogene-targeted therapy with B-Raf proto-oncogene (BRAF) and mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEK) inhibitors induces a high initial response rate in patients with BRAF

22 Clinical Trial Atezolizumab plus cobimetinib and vemurafenib in BRAF-mutated melanoma patients. 2019

Sullivan, Ryan J / Hamid, Omid / Gonzalez, Rene / Infante, Jeffrey R / Patel, Manish R / Hodi, F Stephen / Lewis, Karl D / Tawbi, Hussein A / Hernandez, Genevive / Wongchenko, Matthew J / Chang, YiMeng / Roberts, Louise / Ballinger, Marcus / Yan, Yibing / Cha, Edward / Hwu, Patrick. ·Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA. rsullivan7@mgh.harvard.edu. · The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA, USA. · University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, CO, USA. · Sarah Cannon Research Institute/Tennessee Oncology, Nashville, TN, USA. · Sarah Cannon Research Institute/Florida Cancer Specialists & Research Institute, Sarasota, FL, USA. · Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. · MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. · Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, CA, USA. ·Nat Med · Pubmed #31171876.

ABSTRACT: Melanoma treatment has progressed in the past decade with the development and approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting programmed death 1 (PD-1) or its ligand (PD-L1) and cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4, as well as small molecule inhibitors of BRAF and/or MEK for the subgroup of patients with BRAF

23 Clinical Trial Nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab alone in advanced melanoma (CheckMate 067): 4-year outcomes of a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial. 2018

Hodi, Frank Stephen / Chiarion-Sileni, Vanna / Gonzalez, Rene / Grob, Jean-Jacques / Rutkowski, Piotr / Cowey, Charles Lance / Lao, Christopher D / Schadendorf, Dirk / Wagstaff, John / Dummer, Reinhard / Ferrucci, Pier Francesco / Smylie, Michael / Hill, Andrew / Hogg, David / Marquez-Rodas, Ivan / Jiang, Joel / Rizzo, Jasmine / Larkin, James / Wolchok, Jedd D. ·Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: stephen_hodi@dfci.harvard.edu. · Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV-IRCCS, Padua, Italy. · University of Colorado Cancer Center, Denver, CO, USA. · Aix-Marseille University and APHM Hospital CHU Timone, Marseille, France. · Maria Skłodowska-Curie Institute - Oncology Centre, Warsaw, Poland. · Texas Oncology-Baylor Charles A Sammons Cancer Center, Dallas, TX, USA. · Department of Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. · Department of Dermatology, University of Essen, Essen, Germany; German Cancer Consortium, Heidelberg, Germany. · The College of Medicine, Swansea University, Swansea, UK. · Department of Dermatology, Universitäts Spital, Zürich, Switzerland. · European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy. · Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, AB, Canada. · Tasman Oncology Research, Southport, QLD, Australia. · Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada. · General University Hospital Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain. · Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA. · The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. · Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #30361170.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Previously reported results from the phase 3 CheckMate 067 trial showed a significant improvement in objective responses, progression-free survival, and overall survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone compared with ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma. The aim of this report is to provide 4-year updated efficacy and safety data from this study. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with previously untreated, unresectable, stage III or stage IV melanoma, known BRAF FINDINGS: Between July 3, 2013, and March 31, 2014, 945 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n=314), nivolumab (n=316), or ipilimumab (n=315). Median follow-up was 46·9 months (IQR 10·9-51·8) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, 36·0 months (10·5-51·4) in the nivolumab group, and 18·6 months (7·6-49·5) in the ipilimumab group. At a minimum follow-up of 48 months from the date that the final patient was enrolled and randomised, median overall survival was not reached (95% CI 38·2-not reached) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, 36·9 months (28·3-not reached) in the nivolumab group, and 19·9 months (16·9-24·6) in the ipilimumab group. The hazard ratio for death for the combination versus ipilimumab was 0·54 (95% CI 0·44-0·67; p<0·0001) and for nivolumab versus ipilimumab was 0·65 (0·53-0·79; p<0·0001). Median progression-free survival was 11·5 months (95% CI 8·7-19·3) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, 6·9 months (5·1-10·2) in the nivolumab group, and 2·9 months (2·8-3·2) in the ipilimumab group. The hazard ratio for progression-free survival for the combination versus ipilimumab was 0·42 (95% CI 0·35-0·51; p<0·0001) and for nivolumab versus ipilimumab was 0·53 (0·44-0·64; p<0·0001). Treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were reported in 185 (59%) of 313 patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab, 70 (22%) of 313 who received nivolumab, and 86 (28%) of 311 who received ipilimumab. The most common treatment-related grade 3 adverse events were diarrhoea in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group (29 [9%] of 313) and in the nivolumab group (nine [3%] of 313) and colitis in the ipilimumab group (23 [7%] of 311); the most common grade 4 adverse event in all three groups was increased lipase (15 [5%] of 313 in the combination group, ten [3%] of 313 in the nivolumab group, and four [1%] of 311 in the ipilimumab group). Serious adverse events were not analysed for the 4-year follow-up. In total for the study, there were four treatment-related deaths: two in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group (one cardiomyopathy and one liver necrosis), one in the nivolumab group (neutropenia), and one in the ipilimumab group (colon perforation). No additional treatment-related deaths have occurred since the previous (3-year) analysis. INTERPRETATION: The results of this analysis at 4 years of follow-up show that a durable, sustained survival benefit can be achieved with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

24 Clinical Trial Results from phase II trial of HSP90 inhibitor, STA-9090 (ganetespib), in metastatic uveal melanoma. 2018

Shah, Shalin / Luke, Jason J / Jacene, Heather A / Chen, Tianqi / Giobbie-Hurder, Anita / Ibrahim, Nageatte / Buchbinder, Elizabeth L / McDermott, David F / Flaherty, Keith T / Sullivan, Ryan J / Lawrence, Donald P / Ott, Patrick A / Hodi, F Stephen. ·Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina. · Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. · Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital. · Department of Biostatics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. · Department of Medicine, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. · Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. · Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center. ·Melanoma Res · Pubmed #30211813.

ABSTRACT: Uveal melanoma (UM) is a rare form of melanoma without effective therapy. The biology of UM relies on several heat-shock protein 90 (Hsp90)-dependent molecules such as MET, MEK and AKT, making Hsp90 inhibition a rational approach. Patients with stage IV UM, measurable disease, and no previous chemotherapy were eligible. Patients received either ganetespib 200 mg weekly (cohort A) or 150 mg twice a week (cohort B). Primary endpoint response rate (RR) was assessed by RECIST. A total of 17 patients were accrued for this study, with seven in cohort A and 10 in cohort B. Liver metastases were present in 59%. Response outcomes included one partial response, four stable disease, 11 progressive disease, and one withdrawal for ORR: 5.9% and disease control rate of 29.4%. Progression-free survival was 1.6 months (cohort A) and 1.8 months (cohort B). Overall survival was 8.5 months (cohort A) and 4.9 months (cohort B). An overall 31% of adverse events were grade 3-4 and were mostly related to gastrointestinal toxicities. Early on-treatment (1 months) positron emission tomography showed reduction in metabolic activity in 24% of patients, suggesting a pharmacodynamic effect of Hsp90 inhibition. These early metabolic changes did not seem to be durable and/or clinically significant in relation to the 2-month response assessment. Hsp90 inhibition with ganetespib resulted in modest clinical benefit on two dosing schedules and was associated with significant, although manageable, gastrointestinal toxicity. Evidence of pharmacodynamic activity for Hsp90 inhibition was observed via positron emission tomography, which did not translate into clinical benefit, suggesting rapid development of resistance.

25 Clinical Trial Antitumour activity of pembrolizumab in advanced mucosal melanoma: a post-hoc analysis of KEYNOTE-001, 002, 006. 2018

Hamid, Omid / Robert, Caroline / Ribas, Antoni / Hodi, F Stephen / Walpole, Euan / Daud, Adil / Arance, Ana S / Brown, Ewan / Hoeller, Christoph / Mortier, Laurent / Schachter, Jacob / Long, Jianmin / Ebbinghaus, Scot / Ibrahim, Nageatte / Butler, Marcus. ·The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA, USA. ohamid@theangelesclinic.org. · Gustave Roussy and Paris-Sud University, Villejuif, France. · University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. · Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. · Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. · University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. · Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. · Edinburgh Cancer Research Centre and Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. · Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. · Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Lille, Université Lille, Lille, France. · Ella Lemelbaum Institute for Melanoma, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel. · Merck & Co., Inc, Kenilworth, NJ, USA. · Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada. ·Br J Cancer · Pubmed #30202085.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Mucosal melanoma is an aggressive melanoma with poor prognosis. We assessed efficacy of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced mucosal melanoma in KEYNOTE-001 (NCT01295827), -002 (NCT01704287), and -006 (NCT01866319). METHODS: Patients received pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks (Q3W) or 10 mg/kg Q2W or Q3W. Response was assessed by independent central review per RECIST v1.1. RESULTS: 1567 patients were treated and 84 (5%) had mucosal melanoma. Fifty-one of 84 were ipilimumab-naive. In patients with mucosal melanoma, the objective response rate (ORR) was 19% (95% CI 11-29%), with median duration of response (DOR) of 27.6 months (range 1.1 + to 27.6). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.8 months (95% CI 2.7-2.8), with median overall survival (OS) of 11.3 months (7.7-16.6). ORR was 22% (95% CI 11-35%) and 15% (95% CI 5-32%) in ipilimumab-naive and ipilimumab-treated patients. CONCLUSION: Pembrolizumab provides durable antitumour activity in patients with advanced mucosal melanoma regardless of prior ipilimumab.