Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Melanoma: HELP
Articles by Wilson H. Miller
Based on 15 articles published since 2008

Between 2008 and 2019, W. H. Miller wrote the following 15 articles about Melanoma.
+ Citations + Abstracts
1 Clinical Trial Peripheral and local predictive immune signatures identified in a phase II trial of ipilimumab with carboplatin/paclitaxel in unresectable stage III or stage IV melanoma. 2017

Jamal, Rahima / Lapointe, Réjean / Cocolakis, Eftihia / Thébault, Paméla / Kazemi, Shirin / Friedmann, Jennifer E / Dionne, Jeanne / Cailhier, Jean-François / Bélanger, Karl / Ayoub, Jean-Pierre / Le, Huy / Lambert, Caroline / El-Hajjar, Jida / van Kempen, Léon C / Spatz, Alan / Miller, Wilson H. ·Hôpital Notre-Dame, Centre de recherche du CHUM, Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada. · Centre de recherche du CHUM, Institut du Cancer de Montréal, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada. · Segal Cancer Center, Jewish General Hospital, Rossy Cancer Network, McGill University, 3755 Côte-St-Catherine, suite E670, Montreal, Québec, Canada. · Department of Pathology, Molecular Pathology Center, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. · Segal Cancer Center, Jewish General Hospital, Rossy Cancer Network, McGill University, 3755 Côte-St-Catherine, suite E670, Montreal, Québec, Canada. wilsonmiller@gmail.com. ·J Immunother Cancer · Pubmed #29157311.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Checkpoint blockade with ipilimumab provides long-term survival to a significant proportion of patients with metastatic melanoma. New approaches to increase survival and to predict which patients will benefit from treatment are needed. This phase II trial combined ipilimumab with carboplatin/paclitaxel (CP) to assess its safety, efficacy, and to search for peripheral and tumor-based predictive biomarkers. METHODS: Thirty patients with untreated unresectable/metastatic melanoma were treated with ipilimumab and CP. Adverse events (AEs) were monitored and response to treatment was evaluated. Tumor tissue and peripheral blood were collected at specified time points to characterize tumor immune markers by immunohistochemistry and systemic immune activity by multiplex assays and flow cytometry. RESULTS: Eighty three percent of patients received all 5 cycles of CP and 93% completed ipilimumab induction. Serious AEs occurred in 13% of patients, and no treatment-related deaths were observed. Best Overall Response Rate (BORR) and Disease Control Rate (DCR) were 27 and 57%, respectively. Median overall survival was 16.2 months. Response to treatment was positively correlated with a higher tumor CD3 CONCLUSIONS: The combination of ipilimumab and CP was well tolerated and revealed novel characteristics associated with patients likely to benefit from treatment. A pre-existing systemic inflammatory state characterized by elevation of selected chemokines and advanced B cell differentiation, was strongly associated with poor patient outcomes, revealing potential predictive circulating biomarkers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov , NCT01676649 , registered on August 29, 2012.

2 Clinical Trial Patient-reported outcomes in KEYNOTE-006, a randomised study of pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma. 2017

Petrella, Teresa M / Robert, Caroline / Richtig, Erika / Miller, Wilson H / Masucci, Giuseppe V / Walpole, Euan / Lebbe, Celeste / Steven, Neil / Middleton, Mark R / Hille, Darcy / Zhou, Wei / Ibrahim, Nageatte / Cebon, Jonathan. ·Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, 2075 Bayview Ave, T2-041, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada. Electronic address: teresa.petrella@sunnybrook.ca. · Gustave Roussy and Université Paris-Sud, 114 Rue Edouard Vaillant, 94800 Villejuif, France. Electronic address: caroline.robert@gustaveroussy.fr. · Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerpl. 2, 8036 Graz, Graz, Austria. Electronic address: erika.richtig@medunigraz.at. · Segal Cancer Centre, Jewish General Hospital, Rossy Cancer Network, and McGill University, 3755 Ch de la Côte-Sainte-Catherine, Montreal, QC, H3T 1E2, Canada. Electronic address: wilsonmiller@gmail.com. · Karolinska Institute, Solnavägen 1, 171 77 Solna, Stockholm, Sweden. Electronic address: giuseppe.masucci@ki.se. · Princess Alexandra Hospital and The University of Queensland, 199 Ipswich Rd, Woolloongabba, Brisbane, QLD 4102, Australia. Electronic address: euan.walpole@health.qld.gov.au. · APHP, Dermatology and CIC, Université Paris Diderot, Hôpital Saint-Louis, 1 Avenue Claude Vellefaux, 75010 Paris, France. Electronic address: celeste.lebbe@aphp.fr. · Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Mindelsohn Way, Birmingham B15 2TH, UK. Electronic address: N.M.Steven@bham.ac.uk. · The Churchill Hospital and The University of Oxford, Old Rd, Headington, Oxford OX3 7LE, UK. Electronic address: mark.middleton@oncology.ox.ac.uk. · Merck & Co., Inc., 2000 Galloping Hill Road, Kenilworth, NJ 07033, USA. Electronic address: darcy_hille@merck.com. · Merck & Co., Inc., 2000 Galloping Hill Road, Kenilworth, NJ 07033, USA. Electronic address: wei.zhou2@merck.com. · Merck & Co., Inc., 2000 Galloping Hill Road, Kenilworth, NJ 07033, USA. Electronic address: nageatte.ibrahim@merck.com. · Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute, Austin Health, School of Cancer Medicine, La Trobe University, 145 Studley Road, Heidelberg VIC 3084, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: jonathan.cebon@onjcri.org.au. ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #28987768.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: Report results of patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptoms from phase III KEYNOTE-006 study of pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in patients with ipilimumab-naive advanced melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 (Q2W) or every 3 weeks (Q3W) for up to 2 years, or four cycles of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg Q3W. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) was administered at baseline and throughout the study. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) analyses were pre-specified exploratory endpoints; the primary PRO assessment was the score change from baseline to week 12 in EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS)/HRQoL score between the arms using constrained longitudinal data analysis. RESULTS: The PRO analysis population included 776 patients: pembrolizumab Q2W (n = 270); pembrolizumab Q3W (n = 266); ipilimumab (n = 240). Baseline GHS was similar across arms. QLQ-C30 compliance rates at week 12 were 87% (n = 214), 97% (n = 226), and 96% (n = 178), for the pembrolizumab Q2W, pembrolizumab Q3W, and ipilimumab arms, respectively. From baseline to week 12, GHS/HRQoL scores were better maintained with pembrolizumab than with ipilimumab (decrease of -1.9 and -2.5 for pembrolizumab versus -10.0 for ipilimumab; p < 0.001 for each pembrolizumab arm versus ipilimumab). Fewer patients treated with pembrolizumab experienced deterioration in GHS at week 12 (31% for pembrolizumab Q2W; 29% for Q3W and 44% for ipilimumab), with similar trends observed for individual functioning and symptoms scales. CONCLUSIONS: HRQoL was better maintained with pembrolizumab than with ipilimumab in patients with ipilimumab-naive advanced melanoma. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01866319.

3 Clinical Trial Open-label, multicentre safety study of vemurafenib in 3219 patients with BRAF 2017

Blank, Christian U / Larkin, James / Arance, Ana M / Hauschild, Axel / Queirolo, Paola / Del Vecchio, Michele / Ascierto, Paolo A / Krajsova, Ivana / Schachter, Jacob / Neyns, Bart / Garbe, Claus / Chiarion Sileni, Vanna / Mandalà, Mario / Gogas, Helen / Espinosa, Enrique / Hospers, Geke A P / Miller, Wilson H / Robson, Susan / Makrutzki, Martina / Antic, Vladan / Brown, Michael P. ·The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, Amsterdam 1066CX, The Netherlands. Electronic address: c.blank@nki.nl. · The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. Electronic address: James.Larkin@rmh.nhs.uk. · Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Clínic Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. Electronic address: AMARANCE@clinic.ub.es. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH), Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany. Electronic address: ahauschild@dermatology.uni-kiel.de. · IRCCS San Martino-IST, Genova, Italy. Electronic address: paola.queirolo@hsanmartino.it. · Department of Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy. Electronic address: Michele.delvecchio@istitutotumori.mi.it. · Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione Pascale, Naples, Italy. Electronic address: paolo.ascierto@gmail.com. · General University Hospital, Dermatooncology U, Prague, Czech Republic. Electronic address: Ivana.Krajsova@vfn.cz. · Chaim Sheba Medical Centre, Oncology Institute, Ramat-Gan, Israel. Electronic address: Jacob.schachter@sheba.health.gov.il. · Afdelingshoofd, Medische Oncologie, Brussels, Belgium. Electronic address: bart.neyns@uzbrussel.be. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany. Electronic address: claus.garbe@med.uni-tuebingen.de. · Oncology Institute of Veneto-IRCCS, Padova, Italy. Electronic address: vanna.chiarion@ioveneto.it. · Papa Giovanni XIII Hospital, Bergamo, Italy. Electronic address: mariomandala@tin.it. · University of Athens, Athens, Greece. Electronic address: hgogas@hol.gr. · Hospital La Paz, Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: eespinosa00@hotmail.com. · University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: g.a.p.hospers@umcg.nl. · McGill University, Segal Cancer Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Electronic address: wilsonmiller@gmail.com. · F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland. Electronic address: susan.robson@roche.com. · F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland. Electronic address: martina.makrutzki@roche.com. · F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland. Electronic address: vladan.antic@roche.com. · Cancer Clinical Trials Unit, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia; Centre for Cancer Biology, SA Pathology and University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia; Discipline of Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia. Electronic address: MichaelP.brown@sa.gov.au. ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #28501764.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The orally available BRAF kinase inhibitor vemurafenib is an effective and tolerable treatment option for patients with metastatic melanoma harbouring BRAF METHODS: This was an open-label, multicentre study of vemurafenib (960 mg bid) in patients with previously treated or untreated BRAF mutation-positive metastatic melanoma (cobas RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 32.2 months (95% CI, 31.1-33.2 months), 3079/3219 patients (96%) had discontinued treatment. Adverse events (AEs) were largely consistent with previous reports; the most common all-grade treatment-related AEs were arthralgia (37%), alopecia (25%) and hyperkeratosis (23%); the most common grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs were squamous cell carcinoma of the skin (8%) and keratoacanthoma (8%). In the exploratory analysis, patients with DOR ≥12 months (n = 287) or ≥24 months (n = 133) were more likely to experience grade 3/4 AEs than the overall population. No new specific safety signals were observed with longer vemurafenib exposure. CONCLUSIONS: After 2 years' follow-up, safety was maintained in this large group of patients with BRAF

4 Clinical Trial Talimogene Laherparepvec Improves Durable Response Rate in Patients With Advanced Melanoma. 2015

Andtbacka, Robert H I / Kaufman, Howard L / Collichio, Frances / Amatruda, Thomas / Senzer, Neil / Chesney, Jason / Delman, Keith A / Spitler, Lynn E / Puzanov, Igor / Agarwala, Sanjiv S / Milhem, Mohammed / Cranmer, Lee / Curti, Brendan / Lewis, Karl / Ross, Merrick / Guthrie, Troy / Linette, Gerald P / Daniels, Gregory A / Harrington, Kevin / Middleton, Mark R / Miller, Wilson H / Zager, Jonathan S / Ye, Yining / Yao, Bin / Li, Ai / Doleman, Susan / VanderWalde, Ari / Gansert, Jennifer / Coffin, Robert S. ·Robert H.I. Andtbacka, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT · Howard L. Kaufman, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ · Frances Collichio, University of North Carolina Medical Center, Chapel Hill, NC · Thomas Amatruda, Minnesota Oncology, Fridley, MN · Neil Senzer, Mary Crowley Cancer Research Center, Dallas · Merrick Ross, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX · Jason Chesney, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY · Keith A. Delman, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA · Lynn E. Spitler, Northern California Melanoma Center, San Francisco · Gregory A. Daniels, University of California San Diego Medical Center, Moores Cancer Center, La Jolla · Yining Ye, Bin Yao, Ai Li, Ari Vander Walde, and Jennifer Gansert, Amgen, Thousand Oaks, CA · Igor Puzanov, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN · Sanjiv S. Agarwala, St Luke's University Hospital and Health Network, Bethlehem, and Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA · Mohammed Milhem, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA · Lee Cranmer, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ · Brendan Curti, Earle A. Chiles Research Institute, Portland, OR · Karl Lewis, University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, CO · Troy Guthrie, Baptist Cancer Institute, Jacksonville · Jonathan S. Zager, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL · Gerald P. Linette, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO · Kevin Harrington, Institute of Cancer Research, Royal Marsden Hospital, London · Mark R. Middleton, National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom · Wilson H. Miller Jr, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada · and Susan Doleman and Robert S. Coffin, Amgen, Woburn, MA. ·J Clin Oncol · Pubmed #26014293.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) is a herpes simplex virus type 1-derived oncolytic immunotherapy designed to selectively replicate within tumors and produce granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) to enhance systemic antitumor immune responses. T-VEC was compared with GM-CSF in patients with unresected stage IIIB to IV melanoma in a randomized open-label phase III trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with injectable melanoma that was not surgically resectable were randomly assigned at a two-to-one ratio to intralesional T-VEC or subcutaneous GM-CSF. The primary end point was durable response rate (DRR; objective response lasting continuously ≥ 6 months) per independent assessment. Key secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and overall response rate. RESULTS: Among 436 patients randomly assigned, DRR was significantly higher with T-VEC (16.3%; 95% CI, 12.1% to 20.5%) than GM-CSF (2.1%; 95% CI, 0% to 4.5%]; odds ratio, 8.9; P < .001). Overall response rate was also higher in the T-VEC arm (26.4%; 95% CI, 21.4% to 31.5% v 5.7%; 95% CI, 1.9% to 9.5%). Median OS was 23.3 months (95% CI, 19.5 to 29.6 months) with T-VEC and 18.9 months (95% CI, 16.0 to 23.7 months) with GM-CSF (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.00; P = .051). T-VEC efficacy was most pronounced in patients with stage IIIB, IIIC, or IVM1a disease and in patients with treatment-naive disease. The most common adverse events (AEs) with T-VEC were fatigue, chills, and pyrexia. The only grade 3 or 4 AE occurring in ≥ 2% of T-VEC-treated patients was cellulitis (2.1%). No fatal treatment-related AEs occurred. CONCLUSION: T-VEC is the first oncolytic immunotherapy to demonstrate therapeutic benefit against melanoma in a phase III clinical trial. T-VEC was well tolerated and resulted in a higher DRR (P < .001) and longer median OS (P = .051), particularly in untreated patients or those with stage IIIB, IIIC, or IVM1a disease. T-VEC represents a novel potential therapy for patients with metastatic melanoma.

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

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

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

6 Clinical Trial Patient perception of the benefit of a BRAF inhibitor in metastatic melanoma: quality-of-life analyses of the BREAK-3 study comparing dabrafenib with dacarbazine. 2014

Grob, J-J / Amonkar, M M / Martin-Algarra, S / Demidov, L V / Goodman, V / Grotzinger, K / Haney, P / Kämpgen, E / Karaszewska, B / Mauch, C / Miller, W H / Millward, M / Mirakhur, B / Rutkowski, P / Chiarion-Sileni, V / Swann, S / Hauschild, A. ·Aix-Marseille University, APHM, Hôpital Timone, Marseille, France jean-jacques.grob@ap-hm.fr. · GlaxoSmithKline, Collegeville, USA. · Department of Medical Oncology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain. · Department of Tumor Biotherapy, N.N. Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center, Moscow, Russian Federation. · Department of Dermatology, Skin Cancer Center, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany. · Przychodnia Lekarska KOMED, Konin, Poland. · Department for Dermatology and Venereology and CIO KölnBonn, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany. · Departments of Oncology and Medicine, Lady Davis Institute and Segal Cancer Centre, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. · Department of Medical Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital and School of Medicine and Physiology, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia. · Department of Soft Tissue/Bone Sarcoma and Melanoma, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland. · Melanoma Cancer Unit, Veneto Oncology Institute-IRCCS, Padova, Italy. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany. ·Ann Oncol · Pubmed #24769640.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: In a randomized phase III study (BREAK-3), dabrafenib showed prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) (median 5.1 versus 2.7 months; hazard ratio = 0.30; 95% confidence interval 0.18-0.53; P < 0.0001) compared with dacarbazine (DTIC) in patients with BRAF V600E metastatic melanoma. Assessing how these results are transformed into a real health benefit for patients is crucial. METHODS: The EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire assessed quality of life (QoL) at baseline and follow-up visits. RESULTS: For DTIC, all functional dimensions except role dimension worsened from baseline at follow-up. For dabrafenib, all functionality dimensions remained stable relative to baseline or improved at week 6; mean change in seven symptom dimensions improved from baseline, with appetite loss, insomnia, nausea and vomiting, and pain showing the greatest improvement. In the DTIC arm, symptom dimensions were unchanged or worsened from baseline for all symptoms except pain (week 6), with the greatest exacerbations observed for fatigue and nausea and vomiting. Mixed-model-repeated measures analyses showed significant (P < 0.05) and/or clinically meaningful improvements from baseline in favor of dabrafenib for emotional and social functioning, nausea and vomiting, appetite loss, diarrhea, fatigue, dyspnea, and insomnia at weeks 6 and/or 12. After crossing over to dabrafenib upon progression (n = 35), improvements in all QoL dimensions were evident after receiving dabrafenib for 6 (n = 31) to 12 (n = 25) weeks. CONCLUSIONS: This first reported QoL analysis for a BRAF inhibitor in metastatic melanoma demonstrates that the high tumor response rates and PFS superiority of dabrafenib over DTIC is not only a theoretical advantage, but also transforms in a rapid functional and symptomatic benefit for the patient. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01227889.

7 Clinical Trial Vemurafenib in patients with BRAF(V600) mutated metastatic melanoma: an open-label, multicentre, safety study. 2014

Larkin, James / Del Vecchio, Michele / Ascierto, Paolo A / Krajsova, Ivana / Schachter, Jacob / Neyns, Bart / Espinosa, Enrique / Garbe, Claus / Sileni, Vanna Chiarion / Gogas, Helen / Miller, Wilson H / Mandalà, Mario / Hospers, Geke A P / Arance, Ana / Queirolo, Paola / Hauschild, Axel / Brown, Michael P / Mitchell, Lada / Veronese, Luisa / Blank, Christian U. ·Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. Electronic address: james.larkin@rmh.nhs.uk. · Department of Medical Oncology, Fondazione Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy. · Melanoma, Cancer Immunotherapy and Innovative Therapy Unit, Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione Pascale, Naples, Italy. · Dermatooncology Department, General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic. · Ella Institute for Melanoma, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel. · Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Brussels, Belgium. · Service of Oncology-Hospital La Paz, Madrid, Spain. · Universität Tübingen-Hautklinik, Tübingen, Germany. · Melanoma Oncology Unit, Veneto Oncology Institute, Gattamelata, Padova, Italy. · Medical Oncology, University of Athens, Greece. · Lady Davis Institute and Segal Cancer Centre, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. · Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Bergamo, Italy. · Department of Medical Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands. · Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain. · IRCCS San Martino Hospital-IST, Genoa, Italy. · University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Department of Dermatology, Kiel, Germany. · Cancer Clinical Trials Unit, Royal Adelaide Hospital, and Centre for Cancer Biology, SA Pathology, Adelaide, SA, Australia. · F Hoffmann-La Roche, Basel, Switzerland. · Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Electronic address: c.blank@nki.nl. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #24582505.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The orally available BRAF kinase inhibitor vemurafenib, compared with dacarbazine, shows improved response rates, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival in patients with metastatic melanoma that has a BRAF(V600) mutation. We assessed vemurafenib in patients with advanced metastatic melanoma with BRAF(V600) mutations who had few treatment options. METHODS: In an open-label, multicentre study, patients with untreated or previously treated melanoma and a BRAF(V600) mutation received oral vemurafenib 960 mg twice a day. The primary endpoint was safety. All analyses were done on the safety population, which included all patients who received at least one dose of vemurafenib. This report is the third interim analysis of this study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01307397. FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2011, and Jan 31, 2013, 3226 patients were enrolled in 44 countries. 3222 patients received at least one dose of vemurafenib (safety population). At data cutoff, 868 (27%) patients were on study treatment and 2354 (73%) had withdrawn, mainly because of disease progression. Common adverse events of all grades included rash (1592 [49%]), arthralgia (1259 [39%]), fatigue (1093 [34%]), photosensitivity reaction (994 [31%]), alopecia (826 [26%]), and nausea (628 [19%]). 1480 (46%) patients reported grade 3 or 4 adverse events, including cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (389 [12%]), rash (155 [5%]), liver function abnormalities (165 [5%]), arthralgia (106 [3%]), and fatigue (93 [3%]). Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were reported more frequently in patients aged 75 years and older (n=257; 152 [59%, 95% CI 53-65] and ten [4%, 2-7], respectively) than in those younger than 75 years (n=2965; 1286 [43%, 42-45] and 82 [3%, 2-3], respectively). INTERPRETATION: Vemurafenib safety in this diverse population of patients with BRAF(V600) mutated metastatic melanoma, who are more representative of routine clinical practice, was consistent with the safety profile shown in the pivotal trials of this drug. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

8 Clinical Trial Dabrafenib in BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma: a multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. 2012

Hauschild, Axel / Grob, Jean-Jacques / Demidov, Lev V / Jouary, Thomas / Gutzmer, Ralf / Millward, Michael / Rutkowski, Piotr / Blank, Christian U / Miller, Wilson H / Kaempgen, Eckhart / Martín-Algarra, Salvador / Karaszewska, Boguslawa / Mauch, Cornelia / Chiarion-Sileni, Vanna / Martin, Anne-Marie / Swann, Suzanne / Haney, Patricia / Mirakhur, Beloo / Guckert, Mary E / Goodman, Vicki / Chapman, Paul B. ·University Hospital, Schleswig-Holstein, Department of Dermatology, Kiel, Germany. ahauschild@dermatology.unikiel.de ·Lancet · Pubmed #22735384.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Dabrafenib, an inhibitor of mutated BRAF, has clinical activity with a manageable safety profile in studies of phase 1 and 2 in patients with BRAF(V600)-mutated metastatic melanoma. We studied the efficacy of dabrafenib in patients with BRAF(V600E)-mutated metastatic melanoma. METHODS: We enrolled patients in this open-label phase 3 trial between Dec 23, 2010, and Sept 1, 2011. This report is based on a data cutoff date of Dec 19, 2011. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated, stage IV or unresectable stage III BRAF(V600E) mutation-positive melanoma were randomly assigned (3:1) to receive dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily, orally) or dacarbazine (1000 mg/m(2) intravenously every 3 weeks). Patients were stratified according to American Joint Committee on Cancer stage (unresectable III+IVM1a+IVM1b vs IVM1c). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival and was analysed by intention to treat; safety was assessed per protocol. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01227889. FINDINGS: Of the 733 patients screened, 250 were randomly assigned to receive either dabrafenib (187 patients) or dacarbazine (63 patients). Median progression-free survival was 5·1 months for dabrafenib and 2·7 months for dacarbazine, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·30 (95% CI 0·18-0·51; p<0·0001). At data cutoff, 107 (57%) patients in the dabrafenib group and 14 (22%) in the dacarbazine group remained on randomised treatment. Treatment-related adverse events (grade 2 or higher) occurred in 100 (53%) of the 187 patients who received dabrafenib and in 26 (44%) of the 59 patients who received dacarbazine. The most common adverse events with dabrafenib were skin-related toxic effects, fever, fatigue, arthralgia, and headache. The most common adverse events with dacarbazine were nausea, vomiting, neutropenia, fatigue, and asthenia. Grade 3-4 adverse events were uncommon in both groups. INTERPRETATION: Dabrafenib significantly improved progression-free survival compared with dacarbazine. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

9 Clinical Trial Ipilimumab plus dacarbazine for previously untreated metastatic melanoma. 2011

Robert, Caroline / Thomas, Luc / Bondarenko, Igor / O'Day, Steven / Weber, Jeffrey / Garbe, Claus / Lebbe, Celeste / Baurain, Jean-François / Testori, Alessandro / Grob, Jean-Jacques / Davidson, Neville / Richards, Jon / Maio, Michele / Hauschild, Axel / Miller, Wilson H / Gascon, Pere / Lotem, Michal / Harmankaya, Kaan / Ibrahim, Ramy / Francis, Stephen / Chen, Tai-Tsang / Humphrey, Rachel / Hoos, Axel / Wolchok, Jedd D. ·Institute Gustave, Roussy, Villejuif, France. ·N Engl J Med · Pubmed #21639810.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Ipilimumab monotherapy (at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight), as compared with glycoprotein 100, improved overall survival in a phase 3 study involving patients with previously treated metastatic melanoma. We conducted a phase 3 study of ipilimumab (10 mg per kilogram) plus dacarbazine in patients with previously untreated metastatic melanoma. METHODS: We randomly assigned 502 patients with previously untreated metastatic melanoma, in a 1:1 ratio, to ipilimumab (10 mg per kilogram) plus dacarbazine (850 mg per square meter of body-surface area) or dacarbazine (850 mg per square meter) plus placebo, given at weeks 1, 4, 7, and 10, followed by dacarbazine alone every 3 weeks through week 22. Patients with stable disease or an objective response and no dose-limiting toxic effects received ipilimumab or placebo every 12 weeks thereafter as maintenance therapy. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: Overall survival was significantly longer in the group receiving ipilimumab plus dacarbazine than in the group receiving dacarbazine plus placebo (11.2 months vs. 9.1 months, with higher survival rates in the ipilimumab-dacarbazine group at 1 year (47.3% vs. 36.3%), 2 years (28.5% vs. 17.9%), and 3 years (20.8% vs. 12.2%) (hazard ratio for death, 0.72; P<0.001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 56.3% of patients treated with ipilimumab plus dacarbazine, as compared with 27.5% treated with dacarbazine and placebo (P<0.001). No drug-related deaths or gastrointestinal perforations occurred in the ipilimumab-dacarbazine group. CONCLUSIONS: Ipilimumab (at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram) in combination with dacarbazine, as compared with dacarbazine plus placebo, improved overall survival in patients with previously untreated metastatic melanoma. The types of adverse events were consistent with those seen in prior studies of ipilimumab; however, the rates of elevated liver-function values were higher and the rates of gastrointestinal events were lower than expected on the basis of prior studies. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00324155.).

10 Clinical Trial Phase II study of biweekly plitidepsin as second-line therapy in patients with advanced malignant melanoma. 2009

Eisen, Tim / Thomas, José / Miller, Wilson H / Gore, Martin / Wolter, Pascal / Kavan, Petr / Martín, José A López / Lardelli, Pilar. ·Department of Oncology R4, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK. tim.eisen@medschl.cam.ac.uk ·Melanoma Res · Pubmed #19436178.

ABSTRACT: The objective of this study was to evaluate the antitumor activity and safety profile of 5 mg/m2 plitidepsin administered as a 3-h continuous intravenous infusion every 2 weeks to patients with advanced malignant melanoma who relapsed or progressed after one line of systemic therapy. Objective response rate (primary efficacy endpoint) was evaluated according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors and toxicity was assessed using National Cancer Institute -Common Toxicity Criteria Version 2.0. Of 39 enrolled patients (median age: 53 years), 37 patients were treated who received a total of 167 treatment cycles (median: 3 cycles per patient; range: 1-32). All patients had received prior systemic therapy with a median of one line per patient (range: 1-6 lines). Of the 35 evaluable patients, two dacarbazine-resistant patients (5.7%) with metastatic cutaneous melanoma achieved partial responses. Five other patients (14.3%) reported stable disease (median stable disease duration: 3.5 months; range: 2.2-15.8 months). Therefore, the rate of tumor growth control was 20.0%. With a median follow-up of 11.0 months, the median progression-free survival was 1.3 months and the median overall survival was 3.5 months. Six patients (16.2%) had the following treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events: myalgia (n = 3), injection-site reaction (n = 2), hypersensitivity, hypotension, and fatigue (n = 1 each). One patient was withdrawn from the trial because of grade 4 hypersensitivity reaction and hypotension. No severe neutropenia was reported. Plitidepsin showed a minor degree of antitumor activity in patients with refractory advanced malignant melanoma. Further evaluation of plitidepsin in combination schedules may be warranted.

11 Article MNK1/2 inhibition limits oncogenicity and metastasis of KIT-mutant melanoma. 2017

Zhan, Yao / Guo, Jun / Yang, William / Goncalves, Christophe / Rzymski, Tomasz / Dreas, Agnieszka / Żyłkiewicz, Eliza / Mikulski, Maciej / Brzózka, Krzysztof / Golas, Aniela / Kong, Yan / Ma, Meng / Huang, Fan / Huor, Bonnie / Guo, Qianyu / da Silva, Sabrina Daniela / Torres, Jose / Cai, Yutian / Topisirovic, Ivan / Su, Jie / Bijian, Krikor / Alaoui-Jamali, Moulay A / Huang, Sidong / Journe, Fabrice / Ghanem, Ghanem E / Miller, Wilson H / Del Rincón, Sonia V. ·Experimental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada. · Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Department of Renal Cancer and Melanoma, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, China. · Segal Cancer Centre, Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada. · Selvita S.A. Kraków, Kraków, Poland. · Biochemistry, Goodman Cancer Center, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada. · Laboratory of Oncology and Experimental Surgery, Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. · Rossy Cancer Network, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada. ·J Clin Invest · Pubmed #29035277.

ABSTRACT: Melanoma can be stratified into unique subtypes based on distinct pathologies. The acral/mucosal melanoma subtype is characterized by aberrant and constitutive activation of the proto-oncogene receptor tyrosine kinase C-KIT, which drives tumorigenesis. Treatment of these melanoma patients with C-KIT inhibitors has proven challenging, prompting us to investigate the downstream effectors of the C-KIT receptor. We determined that C-KIT stimulates MAP kinase-interacting serine/threonine kinases 1 and 2 (MNK1/2), which phosphorylate eukaryotic translation initiation factor 4E (eIF4E) and render it oncogenic. Depletion of MNK1/2 in melanoma cells with oncogenic C-KIT inhibited cell migration and mRNA translation of the transcriptional repressor SNAI1 and the cell cycle gene CCNE1. This suggested that blocking MNK1/2 activity may inhibit tumor progression, at least in part, by blocking translation initiation of mRNAs encoding cell migration proteins. Moreover, we developed an MNK1/2 inhibitor (SEL201), and found that SEL201-treated KIT-mutant melanoma cells had lower oncogenicity and reduced metastatic ability. Clinically, tumors from melanoma patients harboring KIT mutations displayed a marked increase in MNK1 and phospho-eIF4E. Thus, our studies indicate that blocking MNK1/2 exerts potent antimelanoma effects and support blocking MNK1/2 as a potential strategy to treat patients positive for KIT mutations.

12 Article Efficacy and Safety of Nivolumab Alone or in Combination With Ipilimumab in Patients With Mucosal Melanoma: A Pooled Analysis. 2017

D'Angelo, Sandra P / Larkin, James / Sosman, Jeffrey A / Lebbé, Celeste / Brady, Benjamin / Neyns, Bart / Schmidt, Henrik / Hassel, Jessica C / Hodi, F Stephen / Lorigan, Paul / Savage, Kerry J / Miller, Wilson H / Mohr, Peter / Marquez-Rodas, Ivan / Charles, Julie / Kaatz, Martin / Sznol, Mario / Weber, Jeffrey S / Shoushtari, Alexander N / Ruisi, Mary / Jiang, Joel / Wolchok, Jedd D. ·Sandra P. D'Angelo, Alexander N. Shoushtari, and Jedd D. Wolchok, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY · James Larkin, Royal Marsden Hospital, London · Paul Lorigan, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom · Jeffrey A. Sosman, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN · Celeste Lebbé, Saint-Louis Hospital, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale U976, Université Paris Diderot, Paris · Julie Charles, Grenoble University Hospital, Grenoble Alps University, Grenoble, France · Benjamin Brady, Cabrini Health, Melbourne, Australia · Bart Neyns, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Brussels, Belgium · Henrik Schmidt, Århus University, Åarhus, Denmark · Jessica C. Hassel, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg · Peter Mohr, Elbe Kliniken Buxtehude, Buxtehude · Martin Kaatz, SRH Waldklinikum Gera, University Hospital Jena, Jena, Germany · F. Stephen Hodi, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA · Kerry J. Savage, BC Cancer Agency, University of British Columbia, Vancouver · Wilson H. Miller Jr, Lady Davis Institute and Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Canada · Ivan Marquez-Rodas, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain · Mario Sznol, Yale University School of Medicine and Smilow Cancer Center, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, CT · Jeffrey S. Weber, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL · and Mary Ruisi and Joel Jiang, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ. ·J Clin Oncol · Pubmed #28056206.

ABSTRACT: Purpose Mucosal melanoma is an aggressive malignancy with a poor response to conventional therapies. The efficacy and safety of nivolumab (a programmed death-1 checkpoint inhibitor), alone or combined with ipilimumab (a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 checkpoint inhibitor), have not been reported in this rare melanoma subtype. Patients and Methods Data were pooled from 889 patients who received nivolumab monotherapy in clinical studies, including phase III trials; 86 (10%) had mucosal melanoma and 665 (75%) had cutaneous melanoma. Data were also pooled for patients who received nivolumab combined with ipilimumab (n = 35, mucosal melanoma; n = 326, cutaneous melanoma). Results Among patients who received nivolumab monotherapy, median progression-free survival was 3.0 months (95% CI, 2.2 to 5.4 months) and 6.2 months (95% CI, 5.1 to 7.5 months) for mucosal and cutaneous melanoma, with objective response rates of 23.3% (95% CI, 14.8% to 33.6%) and 40.9% (95% CI, 37.1% to 44.7%), respectively. Median progression-free survival in patients treated with nivolumab combined with ipilimumab was 5.9 months (95% CI, 2.8 months to not reached) and 11.7 months (95% CI, 8.9 to 16.7 months) for mucosal and cutaneous melanoma, with objective response rates of 37.1% (95% CI, 21.5% to 55.1%) and 60.4% (95% CI, 54.9% to 65.8%), respectively. For mucosal and cutaneous melanoma, respectively, the incidence of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events was 8.1% and 12.5% for nivolumab monotherapy and 40.0% and 54.9% for combination therapy. Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the largest analysis of data for anti-programmed death-1 therapy in mucosal melanoma to date. Nivolumab combined with ipilimumab seemed to have greater efficacy than either agent alone, and although the activity was lower in mucosal melanoma, the safety profile was similar between subtypes.

13 Article The role of eIF4E in response and acquired resistance to vemurafenib in melanoma. 2015

Zhan, Yao / Dahabieh, Michael S / Rajakumar, Arjuna / Dobocan, Monica C / M'Boutchou, Marie-Noël / Goncalves, Christophe / Lucy, Shiru L / Pettersson, Filippa / Topisirovic, Ivan / van Kempen, Léon / Del Rincón, Sonia V / Miller, Wilson H. ·Experimental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada. · Segal Cancer Centre, Lady Davis Institute, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada. · Experimental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada; Segal Cancer Centre, Lady Davis Institute, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada. · Experimental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada; Segal Cancer Centre, Lady Davis Institute, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada. Electronic address: wmiller@ldi.jgh.mcgill.ca. ·J Invest Dermatol · Pubmed #25615552.

ABSTRACT: In eukaryotic cells, the rate-limiting component for cap-dependent mRNA translation is the translation initiation factor eIF4E. eIF4E is overexpressed in a variety of human malignancies, but whether it has a role in melanoma remains obscure. We hypothesized that eIF4E promotes melanoma cell proliferation and facilitates the development of acquired resistance to the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib. We show that eIF4E is overexpressed in a panel of melanoma cell lines, compared with immortalized melanocytes. Knockdown of eIF4E significantly repressed the proliferation of a subset of melanoma cell lines. Moreover, in BRAF(V600E) melanoma cell lines, vemurafenib inhibits 4E-BP1 phosphorylation, thus promoting its binding to eIF4E. Cap-binding and polysome profiling analysis confirmed that vemurafenib stabilizes the eIF4E-4E-BP1 association and blocks mRNA translation, respectively. Conversely, in cells with acquired resistance to vemurafenib, there is an increased dependence on eIF4E for survival; 4E-BP1 is highly phosphorylated and thus eIF4E-4E-BP1 associations are impeded. Moreover, increasing eIF4E activity by silencing 4E-BP1/2 renders vemurafenib-responsive cells more resistant to BRAF inhibition. In conclusion, these data suggest that therapeutically targeting eIF4E may be a viable means of inhibiting melanoma cell proliferation and overcoming vemurafenib resistance.

14 Article 166Ho and 90Y labeled 6D2 monoclonal antibody for targeted radiotherapy of melanoma: comparison with 188Re radiolabel. 2014

Thompson, S / Ballard, B / Jiang, Z / Revskaya, E / Sisay, N / Miller, W H / Cutler, C S / Dadachova, E / Francesconi, L C. ·Department of Chemistry, Hunter College of the City University of New York, 695 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10065, USA. Electronic address: Sebastian.thompson@northwestern.edu. · Department of Chemistry, Hunter College of the City University of New York, 695 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10065, USA. · Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA. · Missouri University Research Reactor, Columbia, MO, 65211 USA. ·Nucl Med Biol · Pubmed #24533987.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: An approach to radioimmunotherapy (RIT) of metastatic melanoma is the targeting of melanin pigment with monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to melanin radiolabeled with therapeutic radionuclides. The proof of principle experiments were performed using a melanin-binding antibody 6D2 of IgM isotype radiolabeled with a β emitter (188)Re and demonstrated the inhibition of tumor growth. In this study we investigated the efficacy of 6D2 antibody radiolabeled with two other longer lived β emitters (90)Y and (166)Ho in treatment of experimental melanoma, with the objective to find a possible correlation between the efficacy and half-life of the radioisotopes which possess high energy β (E(max)>1.5 MeV) emission properties. METHODS: 6D2 was radiolabeled with longer lived β emitters (90)Y and (166)Ho in treatment of experimental melanoma in A2058 melanoma tumor-bearing nude mice. The immunoreactivity of the radiolabeled 6D2 mAb, its in vitro binding to the MNT1 human melanoma cells, the biodistribution and therapy in A2058 human melanoma bearing nude mice as well as dosimetry calculations were performed. RESULTS: When labeled with the longer lived (90)Y radionuclide, the 6D2 mAb did not produce any therapeutic effect in tumor bearing mice while the reduction of the tumor growth by (166)Ho-6D2 was very similar to the previously reported therapy results for (188)Re-6D2. In addition, (166)Ho-labeled mAb produced the therapeutic effect on the tumor without any toxic effects while the administration of the (90)Y-labeled radioconjugate was toxic to mice with no appreciable anti-tumor effect. CONCLUSIONS: (166)Ho-labeled mAb to melanin produced some therapeutic effect on the tumor without any toxic effects while the administration of the (90)Y-labeled radioconjugate was toxic to mice with no appreciable anti-tumor effect. We concluded that the serum half-life of the 6D2 carrier antibody matched well the physical half-life of (166)Ho to deliver the tumoricidal absorbed dose to the tumor. Further investigation of this radionuclide for RIT of melanoma is warranted.

15 Minor Alemtuzumab for Immune-Related Myocarditis Due to PD-1 Therapy. 2019

Esfahani, Khashayar / Buhlaiga, Najwa / Thébault, Paméla / Lapointe, Réjean / Johnson, Nathalie A / Miller, Wilson H. ·McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada khashayar.esfahani@mail.mcgill.ca. · Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada. · McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. ·N Engl J Med · Pubmed #31189042.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --