Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Melanoma: HELP
Articles by Ragini Reiney Kudchadkar
Based on 55 articles published since 2010
(Why 55 articles?)

Between 2010 and 2020, Ragini Kudchadkar wrote the following 55 articles about Melanoma.
+ Citations + Abstracts
Pages: 1 · 2 · 3
1 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.

2 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.

3 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 --

4 Editorial Recent advances in the treatment of melanoma. 2013

Zager, Jonathan S / Sarnaik, Amod A / Gibney, Geoffrey T / Kudchadkar, Ragini R. ·Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL 33612, USA. Jonathan.Zager@Moffitt.org. ·Cancer Control · Pubmed #24077400.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

5 Review Predictive and on-treatment monitoring biomarkers in advanced melanoma: Moving toward personalized medicine. 2018

Tarhini, Ahmad / Kudchadkar, Ragini R. ·Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland, OH, United States. Electronic address: tarhina1@ccf.org. · Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, 1365 Clifton Rd NE, Bldg C, Atlanta, GA 30322, United States. ·Cancer Treat Rev · Pubmed #30273812.

ABSTRACT: The treatment armamentarium for patients with metastatic melanoma has increased substantially over the past decade with the regulatory approval of targeted BRAF + MEK inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, which have vastly improved long-term outcomes. Recently, these advances have been rapidly translated to the high-risk adjuvant setting. Primary and acquired resistance to both immune and molecularly targeted agents, however, remains a challenge. Therefore, biomarkers predictive of response to therapy that can be assessed prior to initiation of treatment and early during the course of therapy are critical. Equally important is on-treatment biomarker monitoring that may predict the likelihood of treatment failure and disease relapse. This review will summarize recent advances in the understanding of biomarkers for patients with advanced melanoma, emphasizing emerging baseline predictive factors and on-treatment monitoring of biomarkers that aim to establish truly personalized treatment.

6 Review Practice-Changing Developments in Stage III Melanoma: Surgery, Adjuvant Targeted Therapy, and Immunotherapy. 2018

Kudchadkar, Ragini R / Michielin, Olivier / van Akkooi, Alexander C J. ·From the Department of Hematology/Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Department of Oncology, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland; Department of Surgical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, Netherlands. ·Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book · Pubmed #30231370.

ABSTRACT: In this article, we will focus on the practice-changing developments for stage III melanoma, from the use of the sentinel node (SN) biopsy to complete lymph node dissection (CLND) and upcoming adjuvant therapies. MSLT-1 (Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial-1) was the first and only prospective randomized controlled trial to examine whether the SN biopsy has any notable melanoma-specific survival benefit (primary endpoint). MSLT-1 randomly assigned 2,001 patients to undergo either wide local excision (WLE) and an SN biopsy or WLE and nodal observation. Two prospective randomized controlled trials have examined the potential benefit for immediate CLND versus delayed CLND after sequential observation. Both the DECOG-SLT and MSLT-2 trials failed to demonstrate a notable benefit for immediate CLND; therefore, sequential follow-up with ultrasonography and a delayed CLND in the case of relapse should be considered the new standard of care. The CheckMate 238 study demonstrated a notable benefit for adjuvant nivolumab in terms of 18-month relapse-free survival (RFS) rates compared with high-dose adjuvant ipilimumab. Single-agent adjuvant BRAF inhibition has been examined and failed to improve RFS. However, the COMBI-AD study did demonstrate a substantial benefit for combination BRAF and MEK inhibition for patients with BRAF-mutated resected stage IIIA to IIIC melanoma.

7 Review Systemic Therapy Options for Patients With Unresectable Melanoma. 2017

Yushak, Melinda / Chapman, Paul / Robert, Caroline / Kudchadkar, Ragini. ·From the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Institute Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France. ·Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book · Pubmed #28561662.

ABSTRACT: There has been a therapeutic revolution in the treatment of metastatic melanoma over the past decade. Patients presenting with inoperable disease have several therapeutic options, which can include both targeted and immune therapy. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have demonstrated an improvement in overall survival and led to some durable responses. However, toxicity, especially in combination regimens, can be severe. Adverse events should be anticipated, diagnosed as early as possible, monitored, and managed. Combination BRAF and MEK inhibition has also been shown to improve overall survival in patients with V600E-mutated melanoma. Responses to therapy are often rapid, and treatment is not associated with immune-related adverse events. Current trials are under way to determine which option is optimal as frontline therapy for patients with V600E melanoma. In patients with progressive disease despite standard therapies, clinical trials are recommended. There are several promising agents in development.

8 Review Two heads better than one? Ipilimumab immunotherapy and radiation therapy for melanoma brain metastases. 2015

Patel, Kirtesh R / Lawson, David H / Kudchadkar, Ragini R / Carthon, Bradley C / Oliver, Daniel E / Okwan-Duodu, Derick / Ahmed, Rafi / Khan, Mohammad K. ·Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia (K.R.P., D.O.-D., M.K.K.) · Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia (D.H.L., R.R.K., B.C.C.) · School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia (D.E.O.) · Emory Vaccine Center and Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia (R.A.). ·Neuro Oncol · Pubmed #26014049.

ABSTRACT: Melanoma is an aggressive malignancy with a deplorable penchant for spreading to the brain. While focal therapies such as surgery and stereotactic radiosurgery can help provide local control, the majority of patients still develop intracranial progression. Novel therapeutic combinations to improve outcomes for melanoma brain metastases (MBM) are clearly needed. Ipilimumab, the anticytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 monoclonal antibody, has been shown to improve survival in patients with metastatic melanoma, but many of these trials either excluded or had very few patients with MBM. This article will review the efficacy and limitations of ipilimumab therapy for MBM, describe the current evidence for combining ipilimumab with radiation therapy, illustrate potential mechanisms for synergy, and discuss emerging clinical trials specifically investigating this combination in MBM.

9 Review BRAF and MEK inhibition in melanoma. 2015

Dossett, Lesly A / Kudchadkar, Ragini R / Zager, Jonathan S. ·Moffitt Cancer Center, Complex General Surgical Oncology , 12902 Magnolia Drive, Tampa, FL 33612 , USA. ·Expert Opin Drug Saf · Pubmed #25648338.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Selective inhibition of the MAPK pathway with either BRAF or MEK inhibition has emerged as a key component for the treatment of BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma. New evidence suggests that the combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors improves tumor response rate and progression-free survival, while potentially attenuating some of the serious adverse events observed with monotherapy. AREAS COVERED: This review covers the current data on the efficacy and safety of the selective BRAF (vemurafenib and dabrafenib) and MEK (trametinib) inhibitors as well as the available data on BRAF inhibitor + MEK inhibitor combination therapy (dabrafenib + trametinib and vemurafenib + cobimetinib). The efficacy, safety and toxicity data are discussed from Phase I, Phase II and Phase III trials of these drugs. EXPERT OPINION: Combination therapy with the BRAF and MEK inhibitors improves response rates and progression-free survival in patients with BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma. Some of the serious adverse events, in particular, the incidence of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, are attenuated with combination therapy, whereas milder side effects such as pyrexia can be more common with combination therapy. Although dose reductions and dose interruptions are slightly more common with combination therapy, overall data supports the notion that combination therapy is safe and improves the outcomes for patients compared to single agent BRAF inhibitors.

10 Review The emerging role of radiotherapy for desmoplastic melanoma and implications for future research. 2015

Oliver, Daniel E / Patel, Kirtesh R / Parker, Douglas / Delman, Keith A / Lawson, David H / Kudchadkar, Ragini R / Khan, Mohammad K. ·aSchool of Medicine bDepartment of Pathology cDepartment of Dermatology, Emory University dDepartment of Radiation Oncology eDepartment of Surgical Oncology fDepartment of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. ·Melanoma Res · Pubmed #25588202.

ABSTRACT: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) 2014 guidelines are unclear about the role of radiotherapy in the management of desmoplastic melanoma. The guidelines specify that radiotherapy can be 'considered' for select patients with desmoplastic melanoma with narrow surgical margins. Patient selection criteria, including margins, are not well defined, causing considerable differences in practice patterns across the country. There are also several conflicting reports about the role of radiotherapy in improving postsurgical outcomes when other adverse pathological risks factors, such as increased Clark level, head and neck involvement, perineural invasion, positive margins, or recurrent disease, are also present. Recent data provide further clarification and insights into the role of radiotherapy. Thus, in light of the NCCN guidelines and the recently published series, we critically review the role of radiotherapy for desmoplastic melanoma. In our review, we highlight the published risk factors that predict for increased risk of recurrence after surgery. We also provide a comparison of surgical and radiation outcomes data, and then address areas for further research.

11 Review Section IV: non-small cell lung cancer and malignant melanoma. 2014

Fisher, Kevin E / Pillai, Rathi N / Kudchadkar, Ragini R / Rossi, Michael R. · ·Curr Probl Cancer · Pubmed #25281457.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

12 Review Recent developments in the medical and surgical treatment of melanoma. 2014

Saranga-Perry, Vita / Ambe, Chenwi / Zager, Jonathan S / Kudchadkar, Ragini R. ·Fellow in Hematology/Oncology, Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL. ·CA Cancer J Clin · Pubmed #24676837.

ABSTRACT: Increasing knowledge of the biology of melanoma has led to significant advances in drug development to fight this disease. Surgery is the primary treatment for localized disease and is an integral part of management in patients with more advanced disease. The last decade has become the era of targeted therapy in melanoma and has revolutionized the treatment of this disease. Since 2011, 4 new agents have been approved for the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma: ipilimumab, vemurafenib, dabrafenib, and trametinib. Several new agents are currently in phase 3 trials with hopes of even more agents being approved for this once "untreatable" disease. How to integrate surgical options with more effective systemic therapies has become a new challenge for physicians. This review will provide an update on current surgical options, highlight the pathway to the development of the newly approved agents, and further discuss new treatments that are on the horizon.

13 Review Integrating molecular biomarkers into current clinical management in melanoma. 2014

Kudchadkar, Ragini / Gibney, Geoffrey / Sondak, Vernon K. ·Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. ·Methods Mol Biol · Pubmed #24258972.

ABSTRACT: Personalized melanoma medicine has progressed from histopathologic features to serum markers to molecular profiles. Since the identification of activating BRAF mutations and subsequent development of drugs targeting the mutant BRAF protein, oncologists now need to incorporate prognostic and predictive biomarkers into treatment decisions for their melanoma patients. Examples include subgrouping patients by genotype profiles for targeted therapy and the development of serologic, immunohistochemical, and genotype profiles for the selection of patients for immunotherapies. In this chapter, we provide an overview of the current status of BRAF mutation testing, as well as promising serologic and molecular profiles that will impact patient care. As further research helps clarify the roles of these factors, the clinical outcomes of melanoma patients promise to be greatly improved.

14 Review New targeted therapies in melanoma. 2013

Kudchadkar, Ragini R / Gonzalez, Rene / Lewis, Karl. ·Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL 33612, USA. Ragini.Kudchadkar@Moffitt.org. ·Cancer Control · Pubmed #24077404.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The previous 2 years have been an exciting time in melanoma research, due in part to the approval of vemurafenib and ipilimumab for advanced melanoma. Increased knowledge of the molecular biology leading to melanoma has led to the development of several new agents that target specific oncogenes. METHODS: The authors review the latest developments in signal transduction inhibitors and in immune modulators for the treatment of melanoma. Investigational agents currently in development are also discussed. RESULTS: Vemurafenib and ipilimumab have improved overall survival in patients with metastatic melanoma. Many new agents are in development, including programmed death-1 antibodies and combination signal transduction inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: A recognition of the genetic diversity of melanoma and a better understanding of the immune system have resulted in improvements in overall survival in patients with metastatic melanoma. Refractory cases remain challenging, and combination therapies are being explored in an effort to overcome resistance mechanisms. New molecular targets need to be identified to help the subset of patients who do not harbor BRAF mutations.

15 Review Targeted therapy in melanoma. 2013

Kudchadkar, Ragini R / Smalley, Keiran S M / Glass, L Frank / Trimble, James S / Sondak, Vernon K. ·Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, 12902 Magnolia Drive, Tampa, FL 33612, USA. ·Clin Dermatol · Pubmed #23438383.

ABSTRACT: Since the discovery of activating mutations in the BRAF oncogene in melanoma, there has been remarkable progress in the development of targeted therapies for unresectable and metastatic melanoma. We review the latest developments in our understanding of the role of BRAF/MEK/ERK pathway signaling in melanoma, and the development of inhibitors of this pathway. We also explore alternative mutations seen in melanoma, such as NRAS, KIT, GNAQ, and GNA11, and the drug development that is ongoing based on this biology. Strategies for the management of the vexing clinical problem of BRAF inhibitor resistance, primarily via combination therapy, are outlined. With the recent approval of the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib for stage IV metastatic melanoma, use of this agent is expanding in the United States. Thus, management of the skin toxicities of this agent, such as squamous cell carcinomas, "acneiform" eruptions, hand-foot syndrome, and panniculitis, will be a growing problem facing dermatologists today. We discuss the toxicities of targeted agents in use for melanoma, in particular the dermatologic effects and the management of these skin toxicities.

16 Review Targeting mutant BRAF in melanoma: current status and future development of combination therapy strategies. 2012

Kudchadkar, Ragini / Paraiso, Kim H T / Smalley, Keiran S M. ·Department of Cutaneous Oncology, The Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL 33612, USA. ·Cancer J · Pubmed #22453012.

ABSTRACT: The discovery of activating BRAF mutations in ∼50% of all melanomas has proved to be a turning point in the therapeutic management of the disseminated disease. In this commentary, we review the latest research delineating the role of mutant BRAF in melanoma initiation and progression and discuss the remarkable 10-year journey leading up to the recent U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of the small-molecule BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib. We further outline the most recent findings on the mechanisms that underlie intrinsic and acquired BRAF inhibitor resistance and describe ongoing preclinical and clinical studies designed to delay or abrogate the onset of therapeutic escape. It is hoped that our evolving understanding of melanoma genetics and intracellular signaling coupled with a growing armamentarium of signal transduction inhibitors will lead to significant improvements in the level and durability of therapeutic response in metastatic melanoma.

17 Review Current and planned multicenter trials for patients with primary or metastatic melanoma. 2011

Sondak, Vernon K / Han, Dale / Deneve, Jeremiah / Kudchadkar, Ragini. ·The Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, USA. vernon.sondak@moffitt.org ·J Surg Oncol · Pubmed #21858839.

ABSTRACT: Multicenter clinical trials have established new standards of care in the surgical and medical management of malignant melanoma. They have led to the testing of new therapies and improved outcomes for patients with loco-regional and distant disease. Many pressing questions remain, however, and additional multicenter trials are currently underway to address them. The purpose of this review is to summarize relevant ongoing and planned multicenter trials that have and continue to define current melanoma management.

18 Review Adjuvant therapy for melanoma: a surgical perspective. 2011

Sondak, Vernon K / Gonzalez, Ricardo J / Kudchadkar, Ragini. ·Department of Cutaneous Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, 12902 Magnolia Drive, Tampa, FL 33612, USA. vernon.sondak@moffitt.org ·Surg Oncol Clin N Am · Pubmed #21111961.

ABSTRACT: Adjuvant therapy is commonly used in melanoma because recurrence after surgery usually results in the patient's eventual death. Surgeons have a profound influence on patients' decisions regarding adjuvant therapy, beginning with providing a clear understanding of the risk of specific types of recurrence. This review summarizes the potential oncologic benefits and relevant toxicities of adjuvant systemic therapies for melanoma that are currently available and under investigation.

19 Clinical Trial Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Melanoma Metastatic to the Brain. 2018

Tawbi, Hussein A / Forsyth, Peter A / Algazi, Alain / Hamid, Omid / Hodi, F Stephen / Moschos, Stergios J / Khushalani, Nikhil I / Lewis, Karl / Lao, Christopher D / Postow, Michael A / Atkins, Michael B / Ernstoff, Marc S / Reardon, David A / Puzanov, Igor / Kudchadkar, Ragini R / Thomas, Reena P / Tarhini, Ahmad / Pavlick, Anna C / Jiang, Joel / Avila, Alexandre / Demelo, Sheena / Margolin, Kim. ·From the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston (H.A.T.) · Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL (P.A.F., N.I.K.) · University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco (A. Algazi), the Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles (O.H.), Stanford University Hospital, Palo Alto (R.P.T.), and the Department of Medical Oncology, City of Hope, Duarte (K.M.) - all in California · Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston (F.S.H., D.A.R.) · University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill (S.J.M.) · University of Colorado Comprehensive Cancer Center, Aurora (K.L.) · University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (C.D.L.) · Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York (M.A.P.), Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo (M.S.E., I.P.), and New York University, Lake Success (A.C.P.) - all in New York · Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington DC (M.B.A.) · Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta (R.R.K.) · University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh (A.T.) · Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ (J.J., A. Avila, S.D.) · and Cleveland Clinic-Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland (A.T.). ·N Engl J Med · Pubmed #30134131.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Brain metastases are a common cause of disabling neurologic complications and death in patients with metastatic melanoma. Previous studies of nivolumab combined with ipilimumab in metastatic melanoma have excluded patients with untreated brain metastases. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with melanoma who had untreated brain metastases. METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter, phase 2 study, patients with metastatic melanoma and at least one measurable, nonirradiated brain metastasis (tumor diameter, 0.5 to 3 cm) and no neurologic symptoms received nivolumab (1 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 3 weeks for up to four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The primary end point was the rate of intracranial clinical benefit, defined as the percentage of patients who had stable disease for at least 6 months, complete response, or partial response. RESULTS: Among 94 patients with a median follow-up of 14.0 months, the rate of intracranial clinical benefit was 57% (95% confidence interval [CI], 47 to 68); the rate of complete response was 26%, the rate of partial response was 30%, and the rate of stable disease for at least 6 months was 2%. The rate of extracranial clinical benefit was 56% (95% CI, 46 to 67). Treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported in 55% of patients, including events involving the central nervous system in 7%. One patient died from immune-related myocarditis. The safety profile of the regimen was similar to that reported in patients with melanoma who do not have brain metastases. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab combined with ipilimumab had clinically meaningful intracranial efficacy, concordant with extracranial activity, in patients with melanoma who had untreated brain metastases. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and the National Cancer Institute; CheckMate 204 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02320058 .).

20 Clinical Trial Combined BRAF and HSP90 Inhibition in Patients with Unresectable 2018

Eroglu, Zeynep / Chen, Y Ann / Gibney, Geoffrey T / Weber, Jeffrey S / Kudchadkar, Ragini R / Khushalani, Nikhil I / Markowitz, Joseph / Brohl, Andrew S / Tetteh, Leticia F / Ramadan, Howida / Arnone, Gina / Li, Jiannong / Zhao, Xiuhua / Sharma, Ritin / Darville, Lancia N F / Fang, Bin / Smalley, Inna / Messina, Jane L / Koomen, John M / Sondak, Vernon K / Smalley, Keiran S M. ·Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida. · Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida. · Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, District of Columbia. · NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, New York. · Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. · Department of Tumor Biology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida. · Department of Proteomics, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida. · Molecular Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida. · Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida. keiran.smalley@moffitt.org. ·Clin Cancer Res · Pubmed #29674508.


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

Weber, Jeffrey / Mandala, Mario / Del Vecchio, Michele / Gogas, Helen J / Arance, Ana M / Cowey, C Lance / Dalle, Stéphane / Schenker, Michael / Chiarion-Sileni, Vanna / Marquez-Rodas, Ivan / Grob, Jean-Jacques / Butler, Marcus O / Middleton, Mark R / Maio, Michele / Atkinson, Victoria / Queirolo, Paola / Gonzalez, Rene / Kudchadkar, Ragini R / Smylie, Michael / Meyer, Nicolas / Mortier, Laurent / Atkins, Michael B / Long, Georgina V / Bhatia, Shailender / Lebbé, Celeste / Rutkowski, Piotr / Yokota, Kenji / Yamazaki, Naoya / Kim, Tae M / de Pril, Veerle / Sabater, Javier / Qureshi, Anila / Larkin, James / Ascierto, Paolo A / Anonymous5750918. ·From New York University Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York (J.W.) · Papa Giovanni XXIII Cancer Center Hospital, Bergamo (M. Mandala), Medical Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Milan (M.D.V.), Oncology Institute of Veneto Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Padua (V.C.-S.), Center for Immuno-Oncology, University Hospital of Siena, Istituto Toscano Tumori, Siena (M. Maio), Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa (P.Q.), and Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione Pascale, Naples (P.A.A.) - all in Italy · National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens (H.J.G.) · Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Barcelona (A.M.A.), and General University Hospital Gregorio Marañón, Madrid (I.M.-R.) - both in Spain · Texas Oncology-Baylor Cancer Center, Dallas (C.L.C.) · Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pierre Bénite (S.D.), Aix-Marseille University, Hospital de la Timone, Marseille (J.-J.G.), Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse and Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU), Toulouse (N.M.), Université Lille, INSERM Unité 1189, CHU Lille, Lille (L.M.), and Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Dermatology and Centres d'Investigation Clinique, INSERM Unité 976, Hôpital Saint Louis, Université Paris Diderot, Paris (C.L.) - all in France · Oncology Center Sf. Nectarie, Craiova, Romania (M. Schenker) · Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto (M.O.B.), and Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, AB (M. Smylie) - both in Canada · the Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford (M.R.M.), and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London (J.L.) - both in the United Kingdom · Gallipoli Medical Research Foundation and University of Queensland, Queensland, VIC (V.A.), and Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, and Royal North Shore and Mater Hospitals, Sydney (G.V.L.) - all in Australia · University of Colorado, Denver (R.G.) · Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta (R.R.K.) · Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington DC (M.B.A.) · University of Washington, Seattle (S.B.) · Maria Sklodowska-Curie Institute-Oncology Center, Warsaw, Poland (P.R.) · Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya (K.Y.), and the National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo (N.Y.) - both in Japan · Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea (T.M.K.) · and Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ (V.P, J.S., A.Q.). ·N Engl J Med · Pubmed #28891423.

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

22 Clinical Trial Relationship between physician-adjudicated adverse events and patient-reported health-related quality of life in a phase II clinical trial (NCT01143402) of patients with metastatic uveal melanoma. 2017

Atkinson, Thomas M / Hay, Jennifer L / Shoushtari, Alexander / Li, Yuelin / Paucar, Daniel J / Smith, Sloane C / Kudchadkar, Ragini R / Doyle, Austin / Sosman, Jeffrey A / Quevedo, Jorge Fernando / Milhem, Mohammed M / Joshua, Anthony M / Linette, Gerald P / Gajewski, Thomas F / Lutzky, Jose / Lawson, David H / Lao, Christopher D / Flynn, Patrick J / Albertini, Mark R / Sato, Takami / Lewis, Karl / Marr, Brian / Abramson, David H / Dickson, Mark Andrew / Schwartz, Gary K / Carvajal, Richard D. ·Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 641 Lexington Ave., 7th Floor, New York, NY, 10022, USA. atkinsot@mskcc.org. · Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 641 Lexington Ave., 7th Floor, New York, NY, 10022, USA. · Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein Cancer Center, Bronx, NY, USA. · Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. · Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA. · Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. · Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. · University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, USA. · Princess Margaret Hospital University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada. · Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA. · University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. · Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami Beach, FL, USA. · University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. · Minnesota Oncology, Woodbury, MN, USA. · Univeristy of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. · Jefferson Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. · University of Colorado - Denver, Denver, CO, USA. · Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. ·J Cancer Res Clin Oncol · Pubmed #27921276.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: Clinical trials commonly use physician-adjudicated adverse event (AE) assessment via the common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) for decision-making. Patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data are becoming more frequent in oncology; however, the relationship between physician-adjudicated AE assessment and HRQoL is understudied. METHODS: Data from a phase II trial (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01143402) where patients with metastatic uveal melanoma were randomized to receive selumetinib, an oral MEK inhibitor, or chemotherapy were analyzed. Patients reported HRQoL at baseline, after 1 month, and end of treatment (n = 118), whereas physicians adjudicated AEs via CTCAE. Mean HRQoL scores were compared between patient randomization arms, as well as between those patients who did/did not receive dose modifications. RESULTS: Ninety-four percent had a CTCAE grade ≥1 for at least one treatment-associated AE, with 18% undergoing dose modification due to toxicity. Mean HRQoL scores did not significantly differ at each of the three time points. Patient and physician-adjudicated reports of nausea were significantly correlated at the start (r = 0.31, p < 0.01) and end of treatment (r = 0.42, p < 0.05). There were no significant correlations between need for dose modification and HRQoL scores. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high rate of physician-adjudicated AEs and need for dose modifications with selumetinib, patient-reported HRQoL was not impacted by treatment. Since HRQoL did not differ in the subgroup of patients who received dosage reductions due to AEs, patients may be willing to tolerate select AEs without dose modification (if medically appropriate). More research is needed to determine how to best integrate HRQoL data into clinical trial conduct.

23 Clinical Trial Phase I/II Study of Metastatic Melanoma Patients Treated with Nivolumab Who Had Progressed after Ipilimumab. 2016

Weber, Jeffrey / Gibney, Geoffrey / Kudchadkar, Ragini / Yu, Bin / Cheng, Pingyan / Martinez, Alberto J / Kroeger, Jodie / Richards, Allison / McCormick, Lori / Moberg, Valerie / Cronin, Heather / Zhao, Xiuhua / Schell, Michael / Chen, Yian Ann. ·Comprehensive Melanoma Research Center and Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida. Jeffrey.weber2@nyumc.org. · Comprehensive Melanoma Research Center and Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida. · Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida. ·Cancer Immunol Res · Pubmed #26873574.

ABSTRACT: The checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab is active in patients with metastatic melanoma who have failed ipilimumab. In this phase I/II study, we assessed nivolumab's safety in 92 ipilimumab-refractory patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma, including those who experienced grade 3-4 drug-related toxicity to ipilimumab. We report long-term survival, response duration, and biomarkers in these patients after nivolumab treatment (3 mg/kg) every 2 weeks for 24 weeks, then every 12 weeks for up to 2 years, with or without a multipeptide vaccine. The response rate for ipilimumab-refractory patients was 30% (95% CI, 21%-41%). The median duration of response was 14.6 months, median progression-free survival was 5.3 months, and median overall survival was 20.6 months, when patients were followed up for a median of 16 months. One- and 2-year survival rates were 68.4% and 31.2%, respectively. Ipilimumab-naïve and ipilimumab-refractory patients showed no significant difference in survival. The 21 patients with prior grade 3-4 toxicity to ipilimumab that was managed with steroids tolerated nivolumab well, with 62% (95% CI, 38%-82%) having complete or partial responses or stabilized disease at 24 weeks. High numbers of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSC) were associated with poor survival. Thus, survival and long-term safety were excellent in ipilimumab-refractory patients treated with nivolumab. Prior grade 3-4 immune-related adverse effects from ipilimumab were not indicative of nivolumab toxicities, and patients had a high overall rate of remission or stability at 24 weeks. Prospectively evaluating MDSC numbers before treatment could help assess the expected benefit of nivolumab.

24 Clinical Trial Overall Survival and Durable Responses in Patients With BRAF V600-Mutant Metastatic Melanoma Receiving Dabrafenib Combined With Trametinib. 2016

Long, Georgina V / Weber, Jeffrey S / Infante, Jeffrey R / Kim, Kevin B / Daud, Adil / Gonzalez, Rene / Sosman, Jeffrey A / Hamid, Omid / Schuchter, Lynn / Cebon, Jonathan / Kefford, Richard F / Lawrence, Donald / Kudchadkar, Ragini / Burris, Howard A / Falchook, Gerald S / Algazi, Alain / Lewis, Karl / Puzanov, Igor / Ibrahim, Nageatte / Sun, Peng / Cunningham, Elizabeth / Kline, Amy S / Del Buono, Heather / McDowell, Diane Opatt / Patel, Kiran / Flaherty, Keith T. ·Georgina V. Long, Melanoma Institute Australia · The University of Sydney · Richard F. Kefford, Melanoma Institute Australia · The University of Sydney · Macquarie University, Sydney · Westmead Hospital, Westmead · Jonathan Cebon, Austin Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia · Jeffrey S. Weber and Ragini Kudchadkar, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL · Jeffrey R. Infante and Howard A. Burris III, Sarah Cannon Research Institute/Tennessee Oncology · Kevin B. Kim, California Pacific Medical Center · Adil Daud, Alain Algazi, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco · Omid Hamid, The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA · Rene Gonzalez, Karl Lewis, University of Colorado · Gerald S. Falchook, Sarah Cannon Research Institute at HealthONE, Denver, CO · Jeffrey A. Sosman, Igor Puzanov, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN · Lynn Schuchter, University of Pennsylvania Abramson Cancer Center · Nageatte Ibrahim, Elizabeth Cunningham, Merck · Peng Sun, Amy S. Kline, Heather Del Buono, Diane Opatt McDowell, GlaxoSmithKline, Philadelphia, PA · Donald Lawrence and Kiran Patel, Incyte Corporation, Wilmington, DE · and Keith T. Flaherty, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA. ·J Clin Oncol · Pubmed #26811525.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: To report the overall survival (OS) and clinical characteristics of BRAF inhibitor-naive long-term responders and survivors treated with dabrafenib plus trametinib in a phase I and II study of patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive metastatic melanoma. METHODS: BRAF inhibitor-naive patients treated with dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily plus trametinib 2 mg daily (the 150/2 group) from the non-randomly assigned (part B) and randomly assigned (part C) cohorts of the study were analyzed for progression-free and OS separately. Baseline characteristics and factors on treatment were analyzed for associations with durable responses and OS. RESULTS: For BRAF inhibitor-naive patients in the 150/2 groups (n = 78), the progression-free survival at 1, 2, and 3 years was 44%, 22%, and 18%, respectively, for part B (n = 24) and 41%, 25%, and 21%, respectively, for part C (n = 54). Median OS was 27.4 months in part B and 25 months in part C. OS at 1, 2, and 3 years was 72%, 60%, and 47%, respectively, for part B and 80%, 51%, and 38%, respectively, for part C. Prolonged survival was associated with metastases in fewer than three organ sites and lower baseline lactate dehydrogenase. OS at 3 years was 62% in patients with normal baseline lactate dehydrogenase and 63% in patients with a complete response. CONCLUSION: Dabrafenib plus trametinib results in a median OS of more than 2 years in BRAF inhibitor-naive patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive metastatic melanoma, and approximately 20% were progression free at 3 years. Durable responses occurred in patients with good prognostic features at baseline, which may be predictive.

25 Clinical Trial A phase 2, multicenter, open-label study of sepantronium bromide (YM155) plus docetaxel in patients with stage III (unresectable) or stage IV melanoma. 2015

Kudchadkar, Ragini / Ernst, Scott / Chmielowski, Bartosz / Redman, Bruce G / Steinberg, Joyce / Keating, Anne / Jie, Fei / Chen, Caroline / Gonzalez, Rene / Weber, Jeffrey. ·Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. · London Regional Cancer Centre, London, Ontario, Canada. · University of California-Los Angeles, Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. · University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan. · Astellas Pharmaceuticals Global Development, Northbrook, Illinois. · University of Colorado Denver, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Denver, Colorado. · H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida. ·Cancer Med · Pubmed #25533314.

ABSTRACT: Survivin is a microtubule-associated protein believed to be involved in preserving cell viability and regulating tumor cell mitosis, and it is overexpressed in many primary tumor types, including melanoma. YM155 is a first-in-class survivin suppressant. The purpose of this Phase 2 study was to evaluate the 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate in patients with unresectable Stage III or IV melanoma receiving a combination of YM155 plus docetaxel. The study had two parts: Part 1 established the dose of docetaxel that was tolerable in combination with YM155, and Part 2 evaluated the tolerable docetaxel dose (75 mg/m(2) ) in combination with YM155 (5 mg/m(2) per day continuous infusion over 168 h every 3 weeks). The primary endpoint was 6-month PFS rate. Secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), 1-year overall survival (OS) rate, time from first response to progression, clinical benefit rate (CBR), and safety. Sixty-four patients with metastatic melanoma were treated with docetaxel and YM155. Eight patients received an initial docetaxel dose of 100 mg/m(2) and 56 patients received 75 mg/m(2) of docetaxel. Six-month PFS rate per Independent Review Committee (IRC) was 34.8% (n = 64; 95% CI, 21.3-48.6%), and per Investigator was 31.3% (n = 64; 95% CI, 19.5-43.9%). The best ORR (complete response [CR] + partial response [PR]) per IRC was 12.5% (8/64). The stable disease (SD) rate was 51.6% (33/64), leading to a CBR (CR + PR + SD) of 64.1% (41/64). Estimated probability of 1-year survival was 56.3%. YM155 is a novel agent showing modest activity when combined with docetaxel for treating patients with melanoma. YM155 was generally well tolerated, but the predetermined primary efficacy endpoint (i.e., 6-month PFS rate ≥20%) was not achieved.