Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Melanoma: HELP
Articles by Michele Maio
Based on 95 articles published since 2008
||||

Between 2008 and 2019, M. Maio wrote the following 95 articles about Melanoma.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
Pages: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4
1 Editorial The role of BRAF V600 mutation in melanoma. 2012

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

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

2 Review Immunotherapy targeting immune check-point(s) in brain metastases. 2017

Di Giacomo, Anna Maria / Valente, Monica / Covre, Alessia / Danielli, Riccardo / Maio, Michele. ·Medical Oncology and Immunotherapy, Center for Immuno-Oncology, University Hospital of Siena, Istituto Toscano Tumori, Siena, Italy. Electronic address: a.m.digiacomo@ao-siena.toscana.it. · Medical Oncology and Immunotherapy, Center for Immuno-Oncology, University Hospital of Siena, Istituto Toscano Tumori, Siena, Italy. ·Cytokine Growth Factor Rev · Pubmed #28736183.

ABSTRACT: Immunotherapy with monoclonal antibodies (mAb) directed to different immune check-point(s) is showing a significant clinical impact in a growing number of human tumors of different histotype, both in terms of disease response and long-term survival patients. In this rapidly changing scenario, treatment of brain metastases remains an high unmeet medical need, and the efficacy of immunotherapy in these highly dismal clinical setting remains to be largely demonstrated. Nevertheless, up-coming observations are beginning to suggest a clinical potential of cancer immunotherapy also in brain metastases, regardless the underlying tumor histotype. These observations remain to be validated in larger clinical trials eventually designed also to address the efficacy of therapeutic mAb to immune check-point(s) within multimodality therapies for brain metastases. Noteworthy, the initial proofs of efficacy on immunotherapy in central nervous system metastases are already fostering clinical trials investigating its therapeutic potential also in primary brain tumors. We here review ongoing immunotherapeutic approaches to brain metastases and primary brain tumors, and the foreseeable strategies to overcome their main biologic hurdles and clinical challenges.

3 Review Immune checkpoint inhibitors in melanoma provide the cornerstones for curative therapies. 2015

Eggermont, Alexander M M / Maio, Michele / Robert, Caroline. ·Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus Grand Paris and University Paris-Sud, Paris, France. Electronic address: alexander.eggermont@gustaveroussy.fr. · Medical Oncology and Immunotherapy, University Hospital Siena, Italy. · Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus Grand Paris and University Paris-Sud, Paris, France. ·Semin Oncol · Pubmed #25965361.

ABSTRACT: Immunotherapy has been revolutionalized by the concept of breaking tolerance. It represents a major paradigm shift that marks the beginning of a new era. The impact of the first checkpoint inhibitors, ie, anti-CTLA-4 (cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4) and anti-PD-1/ anti-PD-L1 (programmed death-1 receptor and its ligand, PD-L1) is unprecedented. In only 5 years advanced melanoma has been transformed from an incurable disease into a curable disease, and we are only at the beginning of discovering its transversal impact throughout solid tumor oncology. In advanced melanoma response rates are about 12% for anti-CTLA-4 and about 40% for anti-PD-1, and are remarkably durable, hence their impact on survival. In melanoma anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab) was approved in 2011 and anti-PD-1 (pembrolimumab) in 2014. Another anti-PD-1 antibody (nivolumab) has been recently approved based on phase III trial results in metastatic melanoma without BRAF mutation. Ipilimumab already has been evaluated in the adjuvant setting (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] 18071) and shown to significantly improve recurrence-free survival in stage III patients at high risk of relapse. An adjuvant trial to evaluate pembrolizumab in this population (EORTC 1325) was started in early 2015.

4 Review The ipilimumab lesson in melanoma: achieving long-term survival. 2015

Delyon, Julie / Maio, Michele / Lebbé, Celeste. ·AP-HP, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Département de Dermatologie, Paris, France; INSERM U976, Paris 7 University, Paris, France. · Medical Oncology and Immunotherapy, University Hospital of Siena, Istituto Toscano Tumori, Siena, Italy. · AP-HP, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Département de Dermatologie, Paris, France; INSERM U976, Paris 7 University, Paris, France; Université Paris-Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France. Electronic address: celeste.lebbe@sls.aphp.fr. ·Semin Oncol · Pubmed #25965357.

ABSTRACT: The anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (anti-CTLA-4) antibody ipilimumab is the first treatment that significantly improved the survival rates of metastatic melanoma patients, marking a new era in the treatment of melanoma. During its development, a hallmark of ipilimumab therapy was the extended duration of response, achieved in 20% of patients. The follow-up of patients included in phase II and phase III trials and in expanded access programs revealed that the survival rates remained stable after 3 years. These results demonstrated that ipilimumab induces an effective anti-tumor immune response persisting after the completion of treatment, and suggested a potential remission in a subset of patients. In this article we review the development of ipilimumab and highlight the long-term results. This approach emphasizes the need to optimize the use of ipilimumab in the future, by identifying the patients most likely to achieve long term survival after ipilimumab therapy, and by developing combined therapeutic approaches involving cytotoxic agents, targeted therapies or other immunotherapies to achieve durable control in a larger proportion of patients.

5 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.

6 Review Epigenetics of melanoma: implications for immune-based therapies. 2013

Fratta, Elisabetta / Sigalotti, Luca / Covre, Alessia / Parisi, Giulia / Coral, Sandra / Maio, Michele. ·Cancer Bioimmunotherapy Unit, Department of Medical Oncology, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Aviano, Italy. ·Immunotherapy · Pubmed #24088079.

ABSTRACT: Malignant melanoma is a complex disease that arises and evolves due to a myriad of genetic and epigenetic events. Among these, the interaction between epigenetic alterations (i.e., histone modifications, DNA methylation, mRNA silencing by miRNAs and nucleosome repositioning) has been recently identified as playing an important role in melanoma development and progression by affecting key cellular pathways such as cell cycle regulation, DNA repair, apoptosis, invasion and immune recognition. Differently to genetic lesions, epigenetic changes are potentially pharmacologically reversible by using epigenetic drugs. Along this line, preclinical and clinical findings indicate that these drugs, given alone or in combination therapies, can efficiently modulate the immunophenotype of melanoma cells. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive summary of melanoma epigenetics and the current use of epigenetic drugs in the clinical setting.

7 Review Update on the role of ipilimumab in melanoma and first data on new combination therapies. 2013

Maio, Michele / Di Giacomo, Anna M / Robert, Caroline / Eggermont, Alexander M M. ·Medical Oncology and Immunotherapy, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Senese, Istituto Toscano Tumori, Siena, Italy. mmaio@cro.it ·Curr Opin Oncol · Pubmed #23299197.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article provides an update on the therapeutic role of the monoclonal antibody ipilimumab in melanoma. Recent therapeutic combinations, as well as directions for further investigations, will also be discussed. RECENT FINDINGS: By blocking the interaction between CTLA-4 and B7 expressed on activated T lymphocytes and antigen-presenting cells, respectively, ipilimumab inhibits negative signals that physiologically downregulate T-cell activation and exerts its therapeutic activity by upregulating the antitumor activity of T lymphocytes. Ipilimumab has been the first agent to significantly improve the survival of metastatic melanoma patients and to provide long-term benefit to a sizeable proportion of patients treated within phase II/III studies and expanded access programs. On these premises, a number of studies combining ipilimumab with cytotoxic, antiangiogenic, and targeted agents have been most recently conducted. SUMMARY: Ipilimumab is the prototype of a growing family of 'immunomodulating antibodies' and it has demonstrated that immunotherapy will play an increasingly important role in the new treatment approaches for cancer. Combinations of chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and targeted drugs with ipilimumab indicate that additive and synergistic antitumor activity can be achieved. Most importantly, they indicate that involving the immune system is a key strategy to improve the outcome in cancer patients.

8 Review Thymosin α1 in melanoma: from the clinical trial setting to the daily practice and beyond. 2012

Danielli, Riccardo / Fonsatti, Ester / Calabrò, Luana / Di Giacomo, Anna Maria / Maio, Michele. ·Department of Oncology, Division of Medical Oncology and Immunotherapy, University Hospital of Siena, Istituto Toscano Tumori, Siena, Italy. ·Ann N Y Acad Sci · Pubmed #23050811.

ABSTRACT: Thymosin α1 (Tα1) is an immunomodulatory peptide released by the thymus gland in mammals. It was first described in 1977 as a potential agent for the treatment of immune deficiencies and cancer. Among solid tumors, a number of clinical trials have investigated the activity of Tα1 in melanoma. In particular, a large randomized phase II trial that evaluated the safety and efficacy of combining Tα1 with dacarbazine and interferon alpha in metastatic melanoma patients provided the rationale for further clinical applications. The main findings emerging from clinical trials and that support the therapeutic use of Tα1 in human melanoma are summarized and discussed.

9 Review Melanoma as a model tumour for immuno-oncology. 2012

Maio, M. ·Medical Oncology and Immunotherapy Unit, University Hospital of Siena, Istituto Toscano Tumori, Siena, Italy. mmaio@cro.it ·Ann Oncol · Pubmed #22918922.

ABSTRACT: Melanoma is one of the most aggressive forms of skin cancer. Furthermore, incidence rates are increasing. Until recently, no agent had been shown to improve survival over supportive care and treatment guidelines recommended that patients with metastatic disease were entered into clinical trials. With so few treatment options available, there was a clear need for new, more effective treatments in this setting. Melanoma serves as a 'model' tumour for understanding immunity to cancer. Melanoma tumour-associated antigens were among the first cancer antigens to be identified and classified, with further studies showing that many of these are also expressed by other tumour types. In addition, melanoma regression has been associated with vitiligo, visibly confirming an active role of the immune system in this type of cancer, and spontaneous regression of primary melanomas has also been observed in some cases. These observations, relating to the activity of the immune system in melanoma, provided strong evidence that this tumour would be amenable to immunotherapy, with immunotherapies such as cytokines, adoptive cell transfer and T-cell modulators shown to be an effective therapeutic approach. Against this background, melanoma has long been at the cutting edge of immuno-oncology research and will likely continue to be used as a model tumour to increase our understanding of immuno-oncology and to inform development in other types of cancer.

10 Review Biology and clinical applications of CD40 in cancer treatment. 2010

Fonsatti, Ester / Maio, Michele / Altomonte, Maresa / Hersey, Peter. ·Division of Medical Oncology and Immunotherapy, Department of Oncology, University Hospital of Siena, Istituto Toscano Tumori, Siena, Italy. ·Semin Oncol · Pubmed #21074067.

ABSTRACT: CD40 is a costimulatory molecule widely expressed by immune cells and by neoplastic cells of different histotypes. Engagement of surface CD40 mediates different effects depending on cell type and microenvironment. In particular, CD40 expression on immune cells regulates humoral and cellular immunity, while it has apoptotic and antiproliferative activity on selected neoplastic cells. Thus, CD40 targeting may indirectly affect tumor growth through the activation of immune cells and/or directly by mediating cytotoxic effects on neoplastic cells. Preliminary findings emerging from clinical trials indicate that antibodies to CD40 can induce immune modulation and clinical responses in cancer patients.

11 Review The emerging toxicity profiles of anti-CTLA-4 antibodies across clinical indications. 2010

Di Giacomo, Anna Maria / Biagioli, Maurizio / Maio, Michele. ·Department of Medical Oncology and Immunotherapy, University Hospital of Siena, Istituto Toscano Tumori, Siena, Italy. a.m.digiacomo@ao-siena.toscana.it ·Semin Oncol · Pubmed #21074065.

ABSTRACT: The promising new class of immunomodulating antibodies directed against cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) has been extensively tested in clinical trials and found to be active against cutaneous melanoma and other tumor histotypes. Inhibition of CTLA-4 characteristically induces well-identified side effects for which the definition "immune-related adverse events" (irAEs) has been proposed. IrAEs mainly include colitis/diarrhea, dermatitis, hepatitis, and endocrinopathies; uveitis, nephritis, and inflammatory myopathy also have been reported occasionally. These unique side effects are likely a direct result of breaking immune tolerance upon CTLA-4 blockade and are generally mild, reversible, and manageable, following specific treatment guidelines that include symptomatic therapies or systemic corticosteroids. However, patient-physician communication and early treatment are also emerging as critical issues to successfully manage irAEs, thus avoiding major complications. The major experience in identifying and managing CTLA-4 treatment-related side effects has derived from studies in melanoma patients; nevertheless, accumulating clinical experiences are clearly demonstrating that irAEs are class-specific events, and that they are fully overlapping in patients with tumors of different histotypes. This review provides an overview of current safety data on CTLA-4 antagonists and of available strategies to optimize their clinical use in cancer patients.

12 Review Brain metastasis in melanoma: clinical activity of CTLA-4 antibody therapy. 2010

Margolin, Kim A / Di Giacomo, Anna Maria / Maio, Michele. ·Medical Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA 98109-1023, USA. kmargoli@seattlecca.org ·Semin Oncol · Pubmed #21074062.

ABSTRACT: Melanoma metastasizes frequently to the brain, and brain metastases generally drive the prognosis of melanoma patients. Surgical and radiation therapy improve the outcome of selected melanoma patients with brain metastasis, while systemic treatment using cytotoxic agents still plays a limited role. Temozolomide and fotemustine are preferentially used in melanoma patients with brain metastases in the United States and in Europe, respectively, with modest clinical activity. However, the results obtained with either agent are still limited, and efforts are needed to improve the outcome of these patients who are generally excluded from clinical trials. Among therapeutic agents in development, antibodies that block the interaction of cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen (CTLA-4) with its ligands B7.1 and B7.2 and thus enhance antitumor immune responses have shown clinical benefit in patients with metastatic melanoma, including durable control of brain metastases. This chapter reviews the current data and the rationale for ongoing and future trials of combination cytotoxic plus immunomodulatory therapy by US and Italian multicenter trial groups.

13 Review Clinical studies with anti-CTLA-4 antibodies in non-melanoma indications. 2010

Calabrò, Luana / Danielli, Riccardo / Sigalotti, Luca / Maio, Michele. ·Division of Medical Oncology and Immunotherapy, Department of Oncology, University Hospital of Siena, Istituto Toscano Tumori, Siena, Italy. l.calabro@ao-siena.toscana.it ·Semin Oncol · Pubmed #21074061.

ABSTRACT: Available medical treatments have limited impact on the survival of patients with advanced cancer; therefore, new therapeutic strategies able to generate more effective host's immune responses against neoplastic cells are being actively pursued. Among these, a recent approach involves targeting of cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4), a key immune checkpoint molecule, by monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Ipilimumab and tremelimumab represent the prototypes of this new class of immunomodulating mAb and have been extensively tested in metastatic melanoma with highly promising results. The clinical activity observed in melanoma has served as a model to exploit the therapeutic potential of CTLA-4 blockade in a variety of human malignancies. Along this line, early-phase trials with anti-CTLA-4 mAbs have been completed or are ongoing in tumors of different histotype. Results are demonstrating the feasibility, safety, and activity of these agents, thus suggesting a promising therapeutic role to be further investigated in phase II/III trials in a wide range of tumors. This review summarizes the main trials with ipilimumab and tremelimumab in tumors of different histotypes, excluding cutaneous melanoma, which is extensively described in other chapters of this issue of Seminars in Oncology.

14 Review Anti-CTLA-4 antibody adjuvant therapy in melanoma. 2010

Eggermont, Alexander M M / Testori, Alessandro / Maio, Michele / Robert, Caroline. ·Institut d'Oncologie Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France. alexander.eggermont@igr.fr ·Semin Oncol · Pubmed #21074060.

ABSTRACT: Thus far the development of adjuvant therapies in melanoma has suffered greatly from the lack of effective drugs in stage IV melanoma. Chemotherapy, cytokines, vaccines, and combinations of drugs have been used with minimal success. This has led to adjuvant therapies that are not used uniformly or widely because of the rather marginal benefits, as no consistent and clinically significant impact on survival has been demonstrated. A new development for interferon-based adjuvant therapy seems to be the observation that better effects are observed in patients with lower tumor load and in patients with an ulcerated primary melanoma. A benefit for patients with more advanced lymphnodal involvement is quite unsure, clearly requiring new drugs to be explored. A new era in the treatment of melanoma treatment has arrived with the anti-cytoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (anti-CTLA-4) monoclonal antibodies. The randomized trial in advanced metastatic melanoma demonstrated a clear benefit with prolongation of survival. The anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibody ipilimumab has finally changed the landscape. It is therefore only logical that a worldwide adjuvant trial with ipilimumab versus placebo, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 18071, is ongoing in patients with lymph node metastases, and that another adjuvant trial with ipilimumab compared to high-dose interferon (HDI) is planned in the United States. The EORTC 18071 trial will reach full accrual in 2011 and thus results are expected in 2013 or 2014.

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

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

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

16 Clinical Trial Adjuvant vemurafenib in resected, BRAF 2018

Maio, Michele / Lewis, Karl / Demidov, Lev / Mandalà, Mario / Bondarenko, Igor / Ascierto, Paolo A / Herbert, Christopher / Mackiewicz, Andrzej / Rutkowski, Piotr / Guminski, Alexander / Goodman, Grant R / Simmons, Brian / Ye, Chenglin / Yan, Yibing / Schadendorf, Dirk / Anonymous33031188. ·Division of Medical Oncology and Immunotherapy, Center for Immuno-Oncology, University Hospital of Siena, Siena, Italy. Electronic address: mmaiocro@gmail.com. · University of Colorado Comprehensive Cancer Center, Aurora, CO, USA. · N N Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center, Ministry of Health, Moscow, Russia. · Department of Oncology and Haematology, Papa Giovanni XXIII Cancer Center Hospital, Bergamo, Italy. · Dnipropetrovsk State Medical Academy, Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine. · Melanoma Unit, Cancer Immunotherapy and Innovative Therapies, Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione Pascale, Naples, Italy. · Bristol Haematology and Oncology Centre, Bristol, UK. · Department of Cancer Immunology, Poznan University for Medical Sciences, Med-POLONIA, Poznan, Poland. · Department of Soft Tissue/Bone Sarcoma and Melanoma, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Institute-Oncology Center, Warsaw, Poland. · Melanoma Translational Research Group, Melanoma Institute Australia, Wollstonecraft, NSW, Australia. · Genentech, Inc, South San Francisco, CA, USA. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany; German Cancer Consortium, Heidelberg, Germany. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #29477665.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Systemic adjuvant treatment might mitigate the high risk of disease recurrence in patients with resected stage IIC-III melanoma. The BRIM8 study evaluated adjuvant vemurafenib monotherapy in patients with resected, BRAF METHODS: BRIM8 was a phase 3, international, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study that enrolled 498 adults (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed stage IIC-IIIA-IIIB (cohort 1) or stage IIIC (cohort 2) BRAF FINDINGS: The study enrolled 184 patients in cohort 2 (93 were assigned to vemurafenib and 91 to placebo) and 314 patients in cohort 1 (157 were assigned to vemurafenib and 157 to placebo). At the time of data cutoff (April 17, 2017), median study follow-up was 33·5 months (IQR 25·9-41·6) in cohort 2 and 30·8 months (25·5-40·7) in cohort 1. In cohort 2 (patients with stage IIIC disease), median disease-free survival was 23·1 months (95% CI 18·6-26·5) in the vemurafenib group versus 15·4 months (11·1-35·9) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·80, 95% CI 0·54-1·18; log-rank p=0·26). In cohort 1 (patients with stage IIC-IIIA-IIIB disease) median disease-free survival was not reached (95% CI not estimable) in the vemurafenib group versus 36·9 months (21·4-not estimable) in the placebo group (HR 0·54 [95% CI 0·37-0·78]; log-rank p=0·0010); however, the result was not significant because of the prespecified hierarchical prerequisite for the primary disease-free survival analysis of cohort 2 to show a significant disease-free survival benefit. Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 141 (57%) of 247 patients in the vemurafenib group and 37 (15%) of 247 patients in the placebo group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in the vemurafenib group were keratoacanthoma (24 [10%] of 247 patients), arthralgia (17 [7%]), squamous cell carcinoma (17 [7%]), rash (14 [6%]), and elevated alanine aminotransferase (14 [6%]), although all keratoacanthoma events and most squamous cell carcinoma events were by default graded as grade 3. In the placebo group, grade 3-4 adverse events did not exceed 2% for any of the reported terms. Serious adverse events were reported in 40 (16%) of 247 patients in the vemurafenib group and 25 (10%) of 247 patients in the placebo group. The most common serious adverse event was basal cell carcinoma, which was reported in eight (3%) patients in each group. One patient in the vemurafenib group of cohort 2 died 2 months after admission to hospital for grade 3 hypertension; however, this death was not considered to be related to the study drug. INTERPRETATION: The primary endpoint of disease-free survival was not met in cohort 2, and therefore the analysis of cohort 1 showing a numerical benefit in disease-free survival with vemurafenib versus placebo in patients with resected stage IIC-IIIA-IIIB BRAF FUNDING: F Hoffman-La Roche Ltd.

17 Clinical Trial Health-related quality of life impact of cobimetinib in combination with vemurafenib in patients with advanced or metastatic BRAF 2018

Dréno, Brigitte / Ascierto, Paolo A / Atkinson, Victoria / Liszkay, Gabriella / Maio, Michele / Mandalà, Mario / Demidov, Lev / Stroyakovskiy, Daniil / Thomas, Luc / de la Cruz-Merino, Luis / Dutriaux, Caroline / Garbe, Claus / Bartley, Karen / Karagiannis, Thomas / Chang, Ilsung / Rooney, Isabelle / Koralek, Daniel O / Larkin, James / McArthur, Grant A / Ribas, Antoni. ·Department of Dermato Cancerology, Nantes University, Nantes 44093, France. · Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione G. Pascale, Naples 80131, Italy. · Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, QLD 4102, Australia. · National Institute of Oncology, Budapest 1122, Hungary. · Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Senese, Siena 53100, Italy. · Department of Oncology and Haematology, Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Bergamo 24127, Italy. · N. N. Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center, Moscow 115478, Russia. · Moscow City Oncology Hospital 62, Krasnogorsk 14301, Russia. · Service de Dermatologie, Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Pierre-Bénite 69495, France. · Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, Seville 41009, Spain. · Hôpital Saint André, Bordeaux 33075, France. · Department of Dermatology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen 72074, Germany. · Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, CA 94080, USA. · The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London SW3 6JJ, UK. · Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, VIC 3002, Australia. · University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia. · Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA. ·Br J Cancer · Pubmed #29438370.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: In the coBRIM study, cobimetinib plus vemurafenib (C+V) significantly improved survival outcomes vs placebo and vemurafenib (P+V) in patients with advanced/metastatic BRAF METHODS: Patients completing the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) at baseline and ⩾1 time point thereafter constituted the analysis population. Change from baseline ⩾10 points was considered clinically meaningful. RESULTS: Mean baseline scores for all QLQ-C30 domains were similar between arms. Most on-treatment scores for QLQ-C30 domains were also comparable between arms. A transient deterioration in role function in cycle 1 day 15 (C1D15; -14.7 points) in the P+V arm and improvement in insomnia in the C+V arm at C2D15 (-12.4 points) was observed. Among patients who experienced a ⩾10-point change from baseline (responders), between-group differences were greatest for insomnia (16%), social functioning (10%), fatigue (9%) and pain (7%), all favouring C+V. Diarrhoea, photosensitivity reaction, pyrexia, and rash did not meaningfully affect global health status (GHS). Serous retinopathy was associated with a transient decrease in GHS at C1D15 assessment. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced/metastatic BRAF

18 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 / Anonymous7111184. ·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 .).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

22 Clinical Trial Vemurafenib in metastatic melanoma patients with brain metastases: an open-label, single-arm, phase 2, multicentre study. 2017

McArthur, G A / Maio, M / Arance, A / Nathan, P / Blank, C / Avril, M-F / Garbe, C / Hauschild, A / Schadendorf, D / Hamid, O / Fluck, M / Thebeau, M / Schachter, J / Kefford, R / Chamberlain, M / Makrutzki, M / Robson, S / Gonzalez, R / Margolin, K. ·Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne and University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia. · AOU Senese Policlinico Santa Maria Alle Scotte, Siena, Italy. · Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Clínic Barcelona, Spain. · Mount Vernon Hospital, Centre for Cancer Treatment, Northwood, UK. · The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · University Paris Descartes, Hospital Cochin, APHP, Paris, France. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH), Campus Kiel, Kiel. · Department of Dermatology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. · Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles, USA. · Fachklinik Hornheide, Munster, Germany. · Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, USA. · Chaim Sheba Medical Centre, Oncology Institute, Ramat-Gan, Israel. · Crown Princess Cancer Centre Westmead Hospital and Department of Clinical Medicine, Macquarie University, Sydney NSW, Australia. · Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, USA. · F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland. · University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora. · City of Hope, Duarte, USA. ·Ann Oncol · Pubmed #27993793.

ABSTRACT: Background: Vemurafenib has shown activity in patients with BRAFV600 mutated melanoma with brain metastases (BM). This phase 2 study evaluated vemurafenib in patients with/without prior treatment for BM. Methods: Patients with BRAFV600 mutated melanoma with BM were enrolled into cohort 1 (previously untreated BM) and cohort 2 (previously treated BM) and received vemurafenib (960 mg BID) until disease progression (PD) or intolerance. Primary endpoint was best overall response rate (BORR) in the brain in cohort 1 that was evaluated using modified RECIST 1.1 criteria using lesions ≥0.5 cm to assess response. Results: 146 patients were treated (cohort 1 n = 90; cohort 2 n = 56), 62% of whom were male. Median (range) time since diagnosis of BM: 1.0 (0-9) month in cohort 1 and 4.2 (1-68) months in cohort 2. Median duration of treatment was 4.1 months (range 0.3-34.5) in cohort 1 and 4.1 months (range 0.2-27.6) in cohort 2. Intracranial BORR in cohort 1 by an independent review committee (IRC) was 18% (2 CRs, 14 PRs). Extracranial BORR by IRC was 33% in cohort 1 and 23% in cohort 2. Median PFS (brain only, investigator-assessed) was 3.7 months (range 0.03-33.4; IQR 1.9-5.6) in cohort 1 and 4.0 months (range 0.3-27.4; IQR 2.2-7.4) in cohort 2. Median OS was 8.9 months (range 0.6-34.5; IQR 4.9-17.0) in cohort 1 and 9.6 months (range 0.7-34.3; IQR 4.5-18.4) in cohort 2. Adverse events (AEs) were similar in type, grade and frequency to other studies of single-agent vemurafenib. Grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 59 (66%) patients in cohort 1 and 36 (64%) in cohort 2. Overall, 84% of patients died during the study (86% in cohort 1 and 80% in cohort 2), mainly due to disease progression. Conclusions: The study demonstrates clinically meaningful response rates of melanoma BM to vemurafenib, which was well tolerated and without significant CNS toxicity.

23 Clinical Trial Results from an Integrated Safety Analysis of Urelumab, an Agonist Anti-CD137 Monoclonal Antibody. 2017

Segal, Neil H / Logan, Theodore F / Hodi, F Stephen / McDermott, David / Melero, Ignacio / Hamid, Omid / Schmidt, Henrik / Robert, Caroline / Chiarion-Sileni, Vanna / Ascierto, Paolo A / Maio, Michele / Urba, Walter J / Gangadhar, Tara C / Suryawanshi, Satyendra / Neely, Jaclyn / Jure-Kunkel, Maria / Krishnan, Suba / Kohrt, Holbrook / Sznol, Mario / Levy, Ronald. ·Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. · Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, Indiana. · Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. · Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. · Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain. · The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles, California. · Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. · Gustave Roussy and Paris-Sud University Villejuif, Villejuif, France. · Istituto Oncologico Veneto, Padua, Italy. · Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione "G. Pascale," Naples, Italy. · University Hospital of Siena, Siena, Italy. · Earle A. Chiles Research Institute, Providence Portland Medical Center, Portland, Oregon. · Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. · Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, New Jersey. · Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. · Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center, New Haven, Connecticut. · Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. levy@stanford.edu. ·Clin Cancer Res · Pubmed #27756788.

ABSTRACT:

24 Clinical Trial Prolonged Survival in Stage III Melanoma with Ipilimumab Adjuvant Therapy. 2016

Eggermont, Alexander M M / Chiarion-Sileni, Vanna / Grob, Jean-Jacques / Dummer, Reinhard / Wolchok, Jedd D / Schmidt, Henrik / Hamid, Omid / Robert, Caroline / Ascierto, Paolo A / Richards, Jon M / Lebbé, Céleste / Ferraresi, Virginia / Smylie, Michael / Weber, Jeffrey S / Maio, Michele / Bastholt, Lars / Mortier, Laurent / Thomas, Luc / Tahir, Saad / Hauschild, Axel / Hassel, Jessica C / Hodi, F Stephen / Taitt, Corina / de Pril, Veerle / de Schaetzen, Gaetan / Suciu, Stefan / Testori, Alessandro. ·From Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus Grand Paris, Villejuif (A.M.M.E., C.R.), Aix-Marseille University, Hôpital de La Timone, Marseille (J.-J.G.), Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris (C.L.), University Lille, INSERM Unité-1189, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) Lille, Service de Dermatologie, Lille (L.M.), and CHU Lyon, Lyon (L.T.) - all in France · the Oncology Institute of Veneto-Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Padua (V.C.-S.), Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione G. Pascale, Naples (P.A.A.), Istituti Fisioterapici Ospitalieri, Rome (V.F.), University Hospital of Siena, Istituto Toscano Tumori, Siena (M.M.), and the European Institute of Oncology, Milan (A.T.) - all in Italy · University of Zurich Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland (R.D.) · Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York (J.D.W.) · Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus (H.S.), and Odense University Hospital, Odense (L.B.) - both in Denmark · the Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles (O.H.) · Oncology Specialists, Park Ridge, IL (J.M.R.) · Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, AB, Canada (M.S.) · H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL (J.S.W.) · Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford, United Kingdom (S.T.) · Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel (A.H.), and University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg (J.C.H.) - both in Germany · Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston (F.S.H.) · Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ (C.T., V.P.) · and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Brussels (G.S., S.S.). ·N Engl J Med · Pubmed #27717298.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: On the basis of data from a phase 2 trial that compared the checkpoint inhibitor ipilimumab at doses of 0.3 mg, 3 mg, and 10 mg per kilogram of body weight in patients with advanced melanoma, this phase 3 trial evaluated ipilimumab at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram in patients who had undergone complete resection of stage III melanoma. METHODS: After patients had undergone complete resection of stage III cutaneous melanoma, we randomly assigned them to receive ipilimumab at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram (475 patients) or placebo (476) every 3 weeks for four doses, then every 3 months for up to 3 years or until disease recurrence or an unacceptable level of toxic effects occurred. Recurrence-free survival was the primary end point. Secondary end points included overall survival, distant metastasis-free survival, and safety. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 5.3 years, the 5-year rate of recurrence-free survival was 40.8% in the ipilimumab group, as compared with 30.3% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for recurrence or death, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 0.89; P<0.001). The rate of overall survival at 5 years was 65.4% in the ipilimumab group, as compared with 54.4% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.72; 95.1% CI, 0.58 to 0.88; P=0.001). The rate of distant metastasis-free survival at 5 years was 48.3% in the ipilimumab group, as compared with 38.9% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death or distant metastasis, 0.76; 95.8% CI, 0.64 to 0.92; P=0.002). Adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 54.1% of the patients in the ipilimumab group and in 26.2% of those in the placebo group. Immune-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 41.6% of the patients in the ipilimumab group and in 2.7% of those in the placebo group. In the ipilimumab group, 5 patients (1.1%) died owing to immune-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: As adjuvant therapy for high-risk stage III melanoma, ipilimumab at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram resulted in significantly higher rates of recurrence-free survival, overall survival, and distant metastasis-free survival than placebo. There were more immune-related adverse events with ipilimumab than with placebo. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00636168 , and EudraCT number, 2007-001974-10 .).

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

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

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

Next