Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Melanoma: HELP
Articles by April K. S. Salama
Based on 28 articles published since 2008
||||

Between 2008 and 2019, April Salama wrote the following 28 articles about Melanoma.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
Pages: 1 · 2
1 Guideline NCCN Guidelines Insights: Melanoma, Version 3.2016. 2016

Coit, Daniel G / Thompson, John A / Algazi, Alain / Andtbacka, Robert / Bichakjian, Christopher K / Carson, William E / Daniels, Gregory A / DiMaio, Dominick / Fields, Ryan C / Fleming, Martin D / Gastman, Brian / Gonzalez, Rene / Guild, Valerie / Johnson, Douglas / Joseph, Richard W / Lange, Julie R / Martini, Mary C / Materin, Miguel A / Olszanski, Anthony J / Ott, Patrick / Gupta, Aparna Priyanath / Ross, Merrick I / Salama, April K / Skitzki, Joseph / Swetter, Susan M / Tanabe, Kenneth K / Torres-Roca, Javier F / Trisal, Vijay / Urist, Marshall M / McMillian, Nicole / Engh, Anita. ·From Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah; University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center; The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute; UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center; Fred & Pamela Buffett Cancer Center; Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine; The University of Tennessee Health Science Center; Case Comprehensive Cancer Center/University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute; University of Colorado Cancer Center; Aim at Melanoma; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center; Mayo Clinic Cancer Center; The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University; Yale Cancer Center/Smilow Cancer Hospital; Fox Chase Cancer Center; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; Duke Cancer Institute; Roswell Park Cancer Institute; Stanford Cancer Institute; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Moffitt Cancer Center; City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center; and National Comprehensive Cancer Network. ·J Natl Compr Canc Netw · Pubmed #27496110.

ABSTRACT: The NCCN Guidelines for Melanoma have been significantly revised over the past few years in response to emerging data on a number of novel agents and treatment regimens. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the data and rationale supporting extensive changes to the recommendations for systemic therapy in patients with metastatic or unresectable melanoma.

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

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

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

3 Guideline Melanoma, version 4.2014. 2014

Coit, Daniel G / Thompson, John A / Andtbacka, Robert / Anker, Christopher J / Bichakjian, Christopher K / Carson, William E / Daniels, Gregory A / Daud, Adil / Dimaio, Dominick / Fleming, Martin D / Gonzalez, Rene / Guild, Valerie / Halpern, Allan C / Hodi, F Stephen / Kelley, Mark C / Khushalani, Nikhil I / Kudchadkar, Ragini R / Lange, Julie R / Martini, Mary C / Olszanski, Anthony J / Ross, Merrick I / Salama, April / Swetter, Susan M / Tanabe, Kenneth K / Trisal, Vijay / Urist, Marshall M / McMillian, Nicole R / Ho, Maria / Anonymous5170793. ·From 1Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; 2Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; 3Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah; 4University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center; 5The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute; 6UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center; 7UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center; 8Fred & Pamela Buffett Cancer Center at The Nebraska Medical Center; 9St. Jude Children's Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center; 10University of Colorado Cancer Center; 11Aim at Melanoma; 12Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center; 13Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center; 14Roswell Park Cancer Institute; 15Moffitt Cancer Center; 16The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; 17Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University; 18Fox Chase Cancer Center; 19The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; 20Duke Cancer Institute; 21Stanford Cancer Institute; 22Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; 23City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; 24University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center; and 25National Comprehensive Cancer Network. ·J Natl Compr Canc Netw · Pubmed #24812131.

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

4 Review Updates in adjuvant systemic therapy for melanoma. 2019

Kwak, Minyoung / Farrow, Norma E / Salama, April K S / Mosca, Paul J / Hanks, Brent A / Slingluff, Craig L / Beasley, Georgia M. ·Department of Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. · Department of Surgery, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. · Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. · Department of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology. ·J Surg Oncol · Pubmed #30481375.

ABSTRACT: There has been a rapid increase in adjuvant therapies approved for treatment following surgical resection of stages III/IV melanoma. We review current indications for adjuvant therapy, which currently includes a heterogenous group of stages III and IV patients with melanoma. We describe several pivotal clinical trials of systemic immune therapies, targeted immune therapies, and adjuvant vaccine strategies. Finally, we discuss the evidence for selecting the most appropriate treatment regimen(s) for the individual patient.

5 Review Can binimetinib, encorafenib and masitinib be more efficacious than currently available mutation-based targeted therapies for melanoma treatment? 2017

Turner, Megan C / Rossfeld, Kara / Salama, April K S / Tyler, Douglas / Beasley, Georgia. ·a Department of Surgery , Duke University , Durham , NC , USA. · b Department of Surgery , Ohio State University , Columbus , OH , USA. · c Department of Medicine , Duke University , Durham , NC , USA. · d Department of Surgery , University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston , Galveston , TX , USA. ·Expert Opin Pharmacother · Pubmed #28277830.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Historically, there were few effective and durable treatments for metastatic melanoma. Recently, mutation based targeted therapies have revolutionized treatment and outcomes for patients with metastatic melanoma. Specifically, inhibitors aimed at BRAF, NRAS, and C-KIT mutations are now commonly used in treatment for patients harboring the specific mutations. Areas covered: A brief review of current BRAF, NRAS, and C-KIT inhibitors provides background for a thorough review of newly developed agents namely binimetinib, a MEK inhibitor, encorafenib a BRAF inhibitor, and masitinib which inhibits C-KIT. Expert opinion: While the 3 novel agents reviewed here have potential for use in melanoma, optimal utilization will occur once a more personalized approach incorporating genomic, proteomic, and immunologic data guides therapeutic decisions.

6 Review MEK inhibition in the treatment of advanced melanoma. 2013

Salama, April K S / Kim, Kevin B. ·Division of Medical Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, DUMC 3476, Durham, NC, 27710, USA, april.salama@duke.edu. ·Curr Oncol Rep · Pubmed #23975010.

ABSTRACT: The RAS-RAF-MEK-ERK pathway is considered to be the most important signal transduction pathway in melanoma, and alterations in this pathway via various genetic mutations, such as BRAF and NRAS mutations, are known to be important drivers of melanomagenesis. As MEK is an essential intermediary kinase protein within this pathway, inhibition of MEK has been of a great interest as a molecular target therapy in melanoma. In fact, trametinib, a selective MEK inhibitor, has been shown to have a survival benefit over cytotoxic chemotherapy in patients with V600 BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma, leading to the FDA approval for this patient population. MEK inhibitors may also be useful in treatment of advanced melanoma harboring other genetic mutations, such as NRAS and GNAQ/GNA11 mutations. Here, we review and discuss the preclinical and clinical data regarding MEK inhibitors and their role in the treatment of advanced melanoma.

7 Review BRAF in melanoma: current strategies and future directions. 2013

Salama, April K S / Flaherty, Keith T. ·Division of Medical Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham North Carolina, USA. ·Clin Cancer Res · Pubmed #23770823.

ABSTRACT: Selective BRAF inhibitors have now been established as a standard of care option for patients diagnosed with metastatic melanoma whose tumors carry a BRAF mutation. Their successful development represents a milestone in the treatment of this disease, and has the potential to impact therapy for other malignancies as well. The use of these agents, however, has introduced a number of critical questions about the optimal use and selection of patients for BRAF inhibitor therapy. This review discusses the current status of BRAF inhibitor clinical development, the clinicopathologic features of BRAF-mutated melanoma, as well as strategies for overcoming resistance.

8 Review Trametinib (GSK1120212) in the treatment of melanoma. 2013

Salama, April K S / Kim, Kevin B. ·Duke University Medical Center, Division of Medical Oncology, Durham, NC, USA. ·Expert Opin Pharmacother · Pubmed #23432625.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: The discovery of somatic mutations in melanoma has advanced our knowledge of the biology of the disease. The mutations, such as those in NRAS, BRAF, GNAQ and GNA11, promote the growth of melanoma cells in most part through the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway. Understanding the molecular pathways of some of these mutations has resulted in the successful development of selective BRAF inhibitors. Yet, a cure for advanced melanoma is far from reality. Targeting MAPK/ERK kinase (MEK), an essential intermediary kinase protein within the MAPK pathway, may be a promising way to treat patients with BRAF or other genomic mutation. AREAS COVERED: The authors discuss the MAPK pathway in melanoma and review the preclinical and clinical studies of the MEK inhibitor, trametinib , in melanoma. They also discuss the potential of using trametinib in the targeted therapy of advanced melanoma. EXPERT OPINION: Studies have demonstrated the activity of trametinib in BRAF-mutant melanoma, suggesting that it could be a very reasonable alternative to BRAF inhibitors for these patients. Current clinical investigations have shown great promise with the combination of trametinib and dabrafenib in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma; a number of clinical trials of trametinib in combination with other targeted drugs are underway.

9 Clinical Trial Efficacy and Safety of Pembrolizumab in Patients Enrolled in KEYNOTE-030 in the United States: An Expanded Access Program. 2017

Gangadhar, Tara C / Hwu, Wen-Jen / Postow, Michael A / Hamid, Omid / Daud, Adil / Dronca, Roxana / Joseph, Richard / O'Day, Steven J / Hodi, F S / Pavlick, Anna C / Kluger, Harriet / Oxborough, Romina P / Yang, Aiming / Gazdoiu, Mihaela / Kush, Debra A / Ebbinghaus, Scot / Salama, April K S. ·*Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA †The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX ‡Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center §Weill Cornell Medical College §§NYU Clinical Cancer Center, New York, NY ∥The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles ¶Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco ††The John Wayne Cancer Institute, Providence Saint John's Health Center, Santa Monica, CA #Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN **Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL ‡‡Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA ∥∥Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, CT ¶¶Clinigen, Weybridge, UK ##Merck & Co. Inc., Kenilworth, NJ ***Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC. ·J Immunother · Pubmed #29028788.

ABSTRACT: KEYNOTE-030 (ClinicalTrials.gov ID, NCT02083484) was a global expanded access program that allowed access to pembrolizumab, an antiprogrammed death 1 antibody, for patients with advanced melanoma before its regulatory approval. Patients with unresectable stage III/IV melanoma that progressed after standard-of-care therapy, including ipilimumab and, if BRAF mutant, a BRAF inhibitor, were eligible to receive pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Response was assessed by immune-related response criteria by investigator review. Adverse events (AEs) were graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0. In the United States, 979 patients enrolled between April and September 2014. Of the 947 evaluable patients, 621 (65.6%) remained on treatment and transitioned to receive commercial pembrolizumab following approval by the Food and Drug Administration, whereas 326 (34.4%) discontinued, most commonly for disease progression (39.6%) or death (26.4%). Objective response rate was 14.5% (95% confidence interval, 12.2%-16.8%) in the treated population (n=947) and 22.1% (95% confidence interval, 18.8%-25.5%) in patients who had ≥1 response assessment reported (n=619). Twelve patients achieved complete response. One hundred eighty-one (19.1%) patients experienced ≥1 treatment-related AE, most commonly general disorders (8.0%), skin/subcutaneous tissue disorders (7.3%), and gastrointestinal disorders (6.4%); 29 (3.1%) patients experienced ≥1 grade 3/4 treatment-related AE. Immune-mediated AEs were also reported. There were no treatment-related deaths. The safety and efficacy observed in this expanded access program were consistent with those previously reported for similar populations and support the use of pembrolizumab for patients with advanced melanoma.

10 Clinical Trial Final analysis of a randomised trial comparing pembrolizumab versus investigator-choice chemotherapy for ipilimumab-refractory advanced melanoma. 2017

Hamid, Omid / Puzanov, Igor / Dummer, Reinhard / Schachter, Jacob / Daud, Adil / Schadendorf, Dirk / Blank, Christian / Cranmer, Lee D / Robert, Caroline / Pavlick, Anna C / Gonzalez, Rene / Hodi, F Stephen / Ascierto, Paolo A / Salama, April K S / Margolin, Kim A / Gangadhar, Tara C / Wei, Ziwen / Ebbinghaus, Scot / Ibrahim, Nageatte / Ribas, Antoni. ·The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Electronic address: ohamid@theangelesclinic.org. · Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN, USA. · University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. · Ella Lemelbaum Institute of Melanoma, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel. · University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. · University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. · Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ, USA. · Gustave Roussy and Paris-Sud University, Villejuif, France. · New York University Cancer Institute, New York, NY, USA. · University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, CO, USA. · Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. · Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione G. Pascale, Napoli, Italy. · Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC, USA. · City of Hope, Duarte, CA, USA. · Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. · Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. · University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #28961465.

ABSTRACT: AIM: To evaluate the protocol-specified final analysis of overall survival (OS) in the KEYNOTE-002 study (NCT01704287) of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in patients with ipilimumab-refractory, advanced melanoma. METHODS: In this randomised, phase II study, eligible patients had advanced melanoma with documented progression after two or more ipilimumab doses, previous BRAF or MEK inhibitor or both, if BRAF RESULTS: A total of 180 patients were randomised to pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg, 181 to pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg and 179 to chemotherapy. At a median follow-up of 28 months (range 24.1-35.5), 368 patients died and 98 (55%) crossed over to pembrolizumab. Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg (hazard ratio [HR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-1.10, p = 0.117) and 10 mg/kg (0.74, 0.57-0.96, p = 0.011) resulted in a non-statistically significant improvement in OS versus chemotherapy; median OS was 13.4 (95% CI 11.0-16.4) and 14.7 (95% CI 11.3-19.5), respectively, versus 11.0 months (95% CI 8.9-13.8), with limited improvement after censoring for crossover. Two-year survival rates were 36% and 38%, versus 30%. Progression-free survival, objective response rate and duration of response improved with pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy, regardless of dose. Grade III-V treatment-related adverse events occurred in 24 (13.5%), 30 (16.8%) and 45 (26.3%) patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Improvement in OS with pembrolizumab was not statistically significant at either dose versus chemotherapy.

11 Clinical Trial Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma: 2-year overall survival outcomes in a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial. 2016

Hodi, F Stephen / Chesney, Jason / Pavlick, Anna C / Robert, Caroline / Grossmann, Kenneth F / McDermott, David F / Linette, Gerald P / Meyer, Nicolas / Giguere, Jeffrey K / Agarwala, Sanjiv S / Shaheen, Montaser / Ernstoff, Marc S / Minor, David R / Salama, April K / Taylor, Matthew H / Ott, Patrick A / Horak, Christine / Gagnier, Paul / Jiang, Joel / Wolchok, Jedd D / Postow, Michael A. ·Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: stephen_hodi@dfci.harvard.edu. · University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA. · New York University, New York, NY, USA. · Gustave Roussy, INSERM U981, Paris, France. · Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. · Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. · Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA. · Institut Universitaire du Cancer, Toulouse, France. · Greenville Health System Cancer Institute, Greenville, SC, USA. · St Luke's Cancer Center and Temple University, Bethlehem, PA, USA. · University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA. · Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH, USA. · California Pacific Center for Melanoma Research, San Francisco, CA, USA. · Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. · Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA. · Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. · Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA. · Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #27622997.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Results from phase 2 and 3 trials in patients with advanced melanoma have shown significant improvements in the proportion of patients achieving an objective response and prolonged progression-free survival with the combination of nivolumab (an anti-PD-1 antibody) plus ipilimumab (an anti-CTLA-4 antibody) compared with ipilimumab alone. We report 2-year overall survival data from a randomised controlled trial assessing this treatment in previously untreated advanced melanoma. METHODS: In this multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial (CheckMate 069) we recruited patients from 19 specialist cancer centres in two countries (France and the USA). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with previously untreated, unresectable stage III or IV melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive an intravenous infusion of nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg plus placebo, every 3 weeks for four doses. Subsequently, patients assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab received nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, whereas patients allocated to ipilimumab alone received placebo every 2 weeks during this phase. Randomisation was done via an interactive voice response system with a permuted block schedule (block size of six) and stratification by BRAF mutation status. The study funder, patients, investigators, and study site staff were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint, which has been reported previously, was the proportion of patients with BRAF FINDINGS: Between Sept 16, 2013, and Feb 6, 2014, we screened 179 patients and enrolled 142, randomly assigning 95 patients to nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 47 to ipilimumab alone. In each treatment group, one patient no longer met the study criteria following randomisation and thus did not receive study drug. At a median follow-up of 24·5 months (IQR 9·1-25·7), 2-year overall survival was 63·8% (95% CI 53·3-72·6) for those assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 53·6% (95% CI 38·1-66·8) for those assigned to ipilimumab alone; median overall survival had not been reached in either group (hazard ratio 0·74, 95% CI 0·43-1·26; p=0·26). Treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were reported in 51 (54%) of 94 patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab compared with nine (20%) of 46 patients who received ipilimumab alone. The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were colitis (12 [13%] of 94 patients) and increased alanine aminotransferase (ten [11%]) in the combination group and diarrhoea (five [11%] of 46 patients) and hypophysitis (two [4%]) in the ipilimumab alone group. Serious grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 34 (36%) of 94 patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab (including colitis in ten [11%] of 94 patients, and diarrhoea in five [5%]) compared with four (9%) of 46 patients who received ipilimumab alone (including diarrhoea in two [4%] of 46 patients, colitis in one [2%], and hypophysitis in one [2%]). No new types of treatment-related adverse events or treatment-related deaths occurred in this updated analysis. INTERPRETATION: Although follow-up of the patients in this study is ongoing, the results of this analysis suggest that the combination of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab might lead to improved outcomes compared with first-line ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma. The results suggest encouraging survival outcomes with immunotherapy in this population of patients. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

12 Clinical Trial Health-related quality of life in the randomised KEYNOTE-002 study of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in patients with ipilimumab-refractory melanoma. 2016

Schadendorf, Dirk / Dummer, Reinhard / Hauschild, Axel / Robert, Caroline / Hamid, Omid / Daud, Adil / van den Eertwegh, Alfons / Cranmer, Lee / O'Day, Steven / Puzanov, Igor / Schachter, Jacob / Blank, Christian / Salama, April / Loquai, Carmen / Mehnert, Janice M / Hille, Darcy / Ebbinghaus, Scot / Kang, S Peter / Zhou, Wei / Ribas, Antoni. ·University Hospital Essen, Hufelandstrasse 55, D-45147 Essen, Germany. Electronic address: dirk.schadendorf@uk-essen.de. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Zurich, Gloriastrasse 31, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland. Electronic address: Reinhard.Dummer@usz.ch. · Department of Dermatology, Venereology, and Allergology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel Campus, Arnold-Heller Strasse 3, 24105 Kiel, Germany. Electronic address: ahauschild@dermatology.uni-kiel.de. · Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus and Paris-Sud University, 114 Rue Edouard Vaillant, 94800 Villejuif, France. Electronic address: Caroline.Robert@gustaveroussyr.fr. · The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, 2001 Santa Monica Blvd, Ste 560W, Santa Monica, CA 90404, USA. Electronic address: ohamid@theangelesclinic.org. · University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, 1600 Divisadero St, NZ Bldg A, San Francisco, CA 94115, USA. Electronic address: Adil.Daud@ucsf.edu. · Department of Medical Oncology, VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1118, 1081 HZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: vandeneertwegh@VUMC.nl. · Department of Hematology/Oncology, University of Arizona Cancer Center at UMC North, 3838 N. Campbell Ave, Tucson, AZ 85724, USA. Electronic address: lcranmer@uacc.arizona.edu. · The Los Angeles Skin Cancer Institute, The Beverly Hills Cancer Center, 8900 Wilshire Blvd, Beverly Hills, CA 90211, USA. Electronic address: stevenjoday@gmail.com. · Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, 2220 Pierce Ave, 777 Preston Research Building, Nashville, TN 37232, USA. Electronic address: igor.puzanov@vanderbilt.edu. · Department of Oncology, Ella Institute for Melanoma, Sheba Medical Center, Derech Sheba 2, Tel-Hashomer, Ramat-Gan, Israel. Electronic address: Jacob.Schachter@sheba.health.gov.il. · Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: c.blank@nki.nl. · Division of Medical Oncology, Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3198, 20 Duke Medicine Circle, Durham, NC 27710, USA. Electronic address: april.salama@duke.edu. · Skin Clinic, Universitätsmedizin Mainz, Langenbeckstrasse 1, 55131 Mainz, Germany. Electronic address: carmen.loquai@unimedizin-mainz.de. · Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, 195 Little Albany Street, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA. Electronic address: mehnerja@cinj.rutgers.edu. · 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: scot_ebbinghaus@merck.com. · Merck & Co., Inc., 2000 Galloping Hill Road, Kenilworth, NJ 07033, USA. Electronic address: s.peter.kang@merck.com. · Merck & Co., Inc., 2000 Galloping Hill Road, Kenilworth, NJ 07033, USA. Electronic address: wei.zhou2@merck.com. · Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology-Oncology, Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center (JCCC) at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), 10833 Le Conte Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA. Electronic address: aribas@mednet.ucla.edu. ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #27596353.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: In KEYNOTE-002, pembrolizumab significantly prolonged progression-free survival and was associated with a better safety profile compared with chemotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma that progressed after ipilimumab. We present health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes from KEYNOTE-002. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to pembrolizumab 2 or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks (Q3W) or investigator-choice chemotherapy. HRQoL was assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire-Core 30 instrument. A constrained longitudinal data analysis model was implemented to assess between-arm differences in HRQoL scores. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01704287. RESULTS: Of the 540 patients enrolled, 520 were included in the HRQoL analysis. Baseline global health status (GHS) was similar across treatment arms. Compliance rates at week 12 were 76.6% (n = 108), 82.3% (n = 121), and 86.4% (n = 133) for the control, pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Q3W, and pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Q3W arms, respectively. From baseline to week 12, GHS/HRQoL scores were maintained to a higher degree in the pembrolizumab arms compared with the chemotherapy arm (decrease of -2.6 for each pembrolizumab arm versus -9.1 for chemotherapy; P = 0.01 for each pembrolizumab arm versus chemotherapy). Fewer patients treated with pembrolizumab experienced deterioration in GHS at week 12 (31.8% for pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg, 26.6% for 10 mg/kg, and 38.3% for chemotherapy), with similar trends observed for the individual functioning and symptoms scales. CONCLUSIONS: HRQoL was better maintained with pembrolizumab than with chemotherapy in KEYNOTE-002, supporting the use of pembrolizumab in patients with ipilimumab-refractory melanoma.

13 Clinical Trial Pembrolizumab versus investigator-choice chemotherapy for ipilimumab-refractory melanoma (KEYNOTE-002): a randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial. 2015

Ribas, Antoni / Puzanov, Igor / Dummer, Reinhard / Schadendorf, Dirk / Hamid, Omid / Robert, Caroline / Hodi, F Stephen / Schachter, Jacob / Pavlick, Anna C / Lewis, Karl D / Cranmer, Lee D / Blank, Christian U / O'Day, Steven J / Ascierto, Paolo A / Salama, April K S / Margolin, Kim A / Loquai, Carmen / Eigentler, Thomas K / Gangadhar, Tara C / Carlino, Matteo S / Agarwala, Sanjiv S / Moschos, Stergios J / Sosman, Jeffrey A / Goldinger, Simone M / Shapira-Frommer, Ronnie / Gonzalez, Rene / Kirkwood, John M / Wolchok, Jedd D / Eggermont, Alexander / Li, Xiaoyun Nicole / Zhou, Wei / Zernhelt, Adriane M / Lis, Joy / Ebbinghaus, Scot / Kang, S Peter / Daud, Adil. ·University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Electronic address: aribas@mednet.ucla.edu. · Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN, USA. · University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. · University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. · The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA, USA. · Gustave Roussy and Paris-Sud University, Villejuif, France. · Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. · Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel. · New York University Cancer Institute, New York, NY, USA. · University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, CO, USA. · University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ, USA. · Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands. · Beverly Hills Cancer Center, Beverly Hills, CA, USA. · Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione G. Pascale, Napoli, Italy. · Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC, USA. · Seattle Cancer Care Alliance/University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. · University Medical Center, Mainz, Germany. · Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. · Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. · Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Westmead and Blacktown Hospitals, and Melanoma Institute Australia, Westmead, NSW, Australia. · St Luke's Cancer Center, Bethlehem, PA, USA; Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. · University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. · University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. · Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. · Merck & Co, Kenilworth, NJ, USA. · University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #26115796.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Patients with melanoma that progresses on ipilimumab and, if BRAF(V600) mutant-positive, a BRAF or MEK inhibitor or both, have few treatment options. We assessed the efficacy and safety of two pembrolizumab doses versus investigator-choice chemotherapy in patients with ipilimumab-refractory melanoma. METHODS: We carried out a randomised phase 2 trial of patients aged 18 years or older from 73 hospitals, clinics, and academic medical centres in 12 countries who had confirmed progressive disease within 24 weeks after two or more ipilimumab doses and, if BRAF(V600) mutant-positive, previous treatment with a BRAF or MEK inhibitor or both. Patients had to have resolution of all ipilimumab-related adverse events to grade 0-1 and prednisone 10 mg/day or less for at least 2 weeks, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and at least one measurable lesion to be eligible. Using a centralised interactive voice response system, we randomly assigned (1:1:1) patients in a block size of six to receive intravenous pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks or investigator-choice chemotherapy (paclitaxel plus carboplatin, paclitaxel, carboplatin, dacarbazine, or oral temozolomide). Randomisation was stratified by ECOG performance status, lactate dehydrogenase concentration, and BRAF(V600) mutation status. Individual treatment assignment between pembrolizumab and chemotherapy was open label, but investigators and patients were masked to assignment of the dose of pembrolizumab. We present the primary endpoint at the prespecified second interim analysis of progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01704287. The study is closed to enrolment but continues to follow up and treat patients. FINDINGS: Between Nov 30, 2012, and Nov 13, 2013, we enrolled 540 patients: 180 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg, 181 to receive pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg, and 179 to receive chemotherapy. Based on 410 progression-free survival events, progression-free survival was improved in patients assigned to pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg (HR 0·57, 95% CI 0·45-0·73; p<0·0001) and those assigned to pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg (0·50, 0·39-0·64; p<0·0001) compared with those assigned to chemotherapy. 6-month progression-free survival was 34% (95% CI 27-41) in the pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg group, 38% (31-45) in the 10 mg/kg group, and 16% (10-22) in the chemotherapy group. Treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 20 (11%) patients in the pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg group, 25 (14%) in the pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg group, and 45 (26%) in the chemotherapy group. The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse event in the pembrolizumab groups was fatigue (two [1%] of 178 patients in the 2 mg/kg group and one [<1%] of 179 patients in the 10 mg/kg group, compared with eight [5%] of 171 in the chemotherapy group). Other treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events include generalised oedema and myalgia (each in two [1%] patients) in those given pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg; hypopituitarism, colitis, diarrhoea, decreased appetite, hyponatremia, and pneumonitis (each in two [1%]) in those given pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg; and anaemia (nine [5%]), fatigue (eight [5%]), neutropenia (six [4%]), and leucopenia (six [4%]) in those assigned to chemotherapy. INTERPRETATION: These findings establish pembrolizumab as a new standard of care for the treatment of ipilimumab-refractory melanoma. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme.

14 Clinical Trial Immunotherapy following regional chemotherapy treatment of advanced extremity melanoma. 2014

Jiang, Betty S / Beasley, Georgia M / Speicher, Paul J / Mosca, Paul J / Morse, Michael A / Hanks, Brent / Salama, April / Tyler, Douglas S. ·Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. ·Ann Surg Oncol · Pubmed #24700302.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: Following regional chemotherapy (RC) for melanoma, approximately 75 % of patients will progress. The role of immunotherapy after RC has not been well established. METHODS: A prospective, single-institution database of 243 patients with in-transit melanoma (1995-2013) was queried for patients who had progression of disease after RC with melphalan and subsequently received systemic immunotherapy. Fifteen patients received IL-2 only, 12 received ipilimumab only, and 6 received IL-2 followed by ipilimumab. Fisher's exact test was used to determine if there was a difference in number of complete responders after immunotherapy. RESULTS: With IL-2 alone, all patients progressed. After ipilimumab alone, three patients had a complete response and nine had progressive disease. Six additional patients received IL-2 first then ipilimumab. All six progressed on IL-2 but three went on to have a complete response to ipilimumab while three progressed. The use of ipilimumab at any time in patients who progressed after RC was associated with higher rate of complete response compared to use of IL-2 alone (33 vs. 0 %; p = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with progression after regional therapy for melanoma may benefit from immunologic therapy. In this group of patients, immune checkpoint blockade with ipilimumab has a higher complete response rate than T cell stimulation with IL-2, with no complete responders in the IL-2 only group. Furthermore, the complete response rate for ipilimumab in our cohort is higher than reported response rates in the literature for ipilimumab alone, suggesting that the effects of immunotherapy may be bolstered by previous regional treatment.

15 Clinical Trial Phase II study of the farnesyltransferase inhibitor R115777 in advanced melanoma (CALGB 500104). 2012

Gajewski, Thomas F / Salama, April K S / Niedzwiecki, Donna / Johnson, Jeffrey / Linette, Gerald / Bucher, Cynthia / Blaskovich, Michelle A / Sebti, Said M / Haluska, Frank / Anonymous3810744. ·The University of Chicago, Section of Hematology/Oncology, 5841 S, Maryland Ave, MC2115, Chicago, IL 60637, USA. tgajewsk@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu ·J Transl Med · Pubmed #23228035.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Multiple farnesylated proteins are involved in signal transduction in cancer. Farnesyltransferase inhibitors (FTIs) have been developed as a strategy to inhibit the function of these proteins. As FTIs inhibit proliferation of melanoma cell lines, we undertook a study to assess the impact of a FTI in advanced melanoma. As farnesylated proteins are also important for T cell activation, measurement of effects on T cell function was also pursued. METHODS: A 3-stage trial design was developed with a maximum of 40 patients and early stopping if there were no responders in the first 14, or fewer than 2 responders in the first 28 patients. Eligibility included performance status of 0-1, no prior chemotherapy, at most 1 prior immunotherapy, no brain metastases, and presence of at least 2 cutaneous lesions amenable to biopsy. R115777 was administered twice per day for 21 days of a 28-day cycle. Patients were evaluated every 2 cycles by RECIST. Blood and tumor were analyzed pre-treatment and during week 7. RESULTS: Fourteen patients were enrolled. Two patients had grade 3 toxicities, which included myelosuppression, nausea/vomiting, elevated BUN, and anorexia. There were no clinical responses. All patients analyzed showed potent inhibition of FT activity (85-98%) in tumor tissue; inhibition of phosphorylated ERK and Akt was also observed. T cells showed evidence of FT inhibition and diminished IFN-γ production. CONCLUSIONS: Despite potent target inhibition, R115777 showed no evidence of clinical activity in this cohort of melanoma patients. Inhibition of T cell function by FTIs has potential clinical implications. Clinicaltrials.gov number NCT00060125.

16 Article Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Recurrent Melanoma: A Multicenter Study. 2017

Beasley, Georgia M / Hu, Yinin / Youngwirth, Linda / Scheri, Randall P / Salama, April K / Rossfeld, Kara / Gardezi, Syed / Agnese, Doreen M / Howard, J Harrison / Tyler, Douglas S / Slingluff, Craig L / Terando, Alicia M. ·Division of Surgical Oncology, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA. Georgia.beasley@osumc.edu. · Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA. · Department of Surgery, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. · Division of Medical Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. · Division of Surgical Oncology, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA. · Department of Surgery, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA. ·Ann Surg Oncol · Pubmed #28508145.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is routinely performed for primary cutaneous melanomas; however, limited data exist for SLNB after locally recurrent (LR) or in-transit (IT) melanoma. METHODS: Data from three centers performing SLNB for LR/IT melanoma (1997 to the present) were reviewed, with the aim of assessing (1) success rate; (2) SLNB positivity; and (3) prognostic value of SLNB in this population. RESULTS: The study cohort included 107 patients. Management of the primary melanoma included prior SLNB for 56 patients (52%), of whom 10 (18%) were positive and 12 had complete lymph node dissections (CLNDs). In the present study, SLNB was performed for IT disease (48/107, 45%) or LR melanoma (59/107, 55%). A sentinel lymph node (SLN) was removed in 96% (103/107) of cases. Nodes were not removed for four patients due to lymphoscintigraphy failures (2) or nodes not found during surgery (2). SLNB was positive in 41 patients (40%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 31.5-50.5), of whom 35 (88%) had CLND, with 13 (37%) having positive nonsentinel nodes. Median time to disease progression after LR/IT metastasis was 1.4 years (95% CI 0.75-2.0) for patients with a positive SLNB, and 5.9 years (95% CI 1.7-10.2) in SLNB-negative patients (p = 0.18). There was a trend towards improved overall survival for patients with a negative SLNB (p = 0.06). CONCLUSION: SLNB can be successful in patients with LR/IT melanoma, even if prior SLNB was performed. In this population, the rates of SLNB positivity and nonsentinel node metastases were 40% and 37%, respectively. SLNB may guide management and prognosis after LR/IT disease.

17 Article Autoimmune meningoencephalitis in a melanoma patient treated with ipilimumab. 2016

Choe, Jennifer H / Andonian, Brian J / Kim, Grace J / Salama, April Ks. ·Divisions of Hematology & Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. · Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. · Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. ·Immunotherapy · Pubmed #27605066.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

18 Article The efficacy of anti-PD-1 agents in acral and mucosal melanoma. 2016

Shoushtari, Alexander N / Munhoz, Rodrigo R / Kuk, Deborah / Ott, Patrick A / Johnson, Douglas B / Tsai, Katy K / Rapisuwon, Suthee / Eroglu, Zeynep / Sullivan, Ryan J / Luke, Jason J / Gangadhar, Tara C / Salama, April K S / Clark, Varina / Burias, Clare / Puzanov, Igor / Atkins, Michael B / Algazi, Alain P / Ribas, Antoni / Wolchok, Jedd D / Postow, Michael A. ·Melanoma and Immunotherapeutics Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. shoushta@mskcc.org. · Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York. shoushta@mskcc.org. · Melanoma and Immunotherapeutics Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. · Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. · Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. · Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee. · Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California. · Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, District of Columbia. · Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida. · Massachussetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. · University of Chicago Comprehensive Cancer Center Chicago, Illinois. · Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. · Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. · Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. · Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York. ·Cancer · Pubmed #27533633.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Therapeutic antibodies against programmed cell death receptor 1 (PD-1) are considered front-line therapy in metastatic melanoma. The efficacy of PD-1 blockade for patients with biologically distinct melanomas arising from acral and mucosal surfaces has not been well described. METHODS: A multi-institutional, retrospective cohort analysis identified adults with advanced acral and mucosal melanoma who received treatment with nivolumab or pembrolizumab as standard clinical practice through expanded access programs or published prospective trials. Objective responses were determined using investigator-assessed Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1. Progression-free survival and overall survival were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Sixty individuals were identified, including 25 (42%) with acral melanoma and 35 (58%) with mucosal melanoma. Fifty-one patients (85%) had received previous therapy, including 77% who had previously received ipilimumab. Forty patients (67%) received pembrolizumab at a dose of 2 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg, and 20 (33%) received nivolumab at a doses ranging from 0.3 to 10 mg/kg every 2 to 3 weeks. The objective response rate was 32% (95% confidence interval, 15%-54%) in patients with acral melanoma and 23% (95% confidence interval, 10%-40%) in those with mucosal melanoma. After a median follow-up of 20 months in the acral melanoma group and 10.6 months in the mucosal melanoma group, the median progression-free survival was 4.1 months and 3.9 months, respectively. Only 2 patients (3%) discontinued treatment because of toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Response rates to PD-1 blockade in patients with acral and mucosal melanomas were comparable to the published rates in patients with cutaneous melanoma and support the routine use of PD-1 blockade in clinical practice. Further investigation is needed to identify the mechanisms of response and resistance to therapy in these subtypes. Cancer 2016;122:3354-3362. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

19 Article Safety and Efficacy of Radiation Therapy in Advanced Melanoma Patients Treated With Ipilimumab. 2016

Qin, Rosie / Olson, Adam / Singh, Bhavana / Thomas, Samantha / Wolf, Steven / Bhavsar, Nrupen A / Hanks, Brent A / Salama, Joseph K / Salama, April K S. ·School of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. · Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. · Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. · Division of Medical Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. · Division of Medical Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. Electronic address: april.salama@duke.edu. ·Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys · Pubmed #27375168.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: Ipilimumab and radiation therapy (RT) are standard treatments for advanced melanoma; preclinical models suggest the potential for synergy. However, limited clinical information exists regarding safety and optimal timing of the combination. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We reviewed the records of consecutive patients with unresectable stage 3 or 4 melanoma treated with ipilimumab. Patients were categorized as having received RT or not. Differences were estimated between these 2 cohorts. RESULTS: We identified 88 patients treated with ipilimumab. At baseline, the ipilimumab-plus-RT group (n=44) had more unfavorable characteristics. Despite this, overall survival, progression-free survival, and both immune-related and non-immune-related toxicity were not statistically different (P=.67). Patients who received ipilimumab before RT had an increased duration of irradiated tumor response compared with patients receiving ipilimumab after RT (74.7% vs 44.8% at 12 months; P=.01, log-rank test). In addition, patients receiving ablative RT had non-statistically significantly improved median overall survival (19.6 vs 10.2 months), as well as 6-month (95.1% vs 72.7%) and 12-month (79.7% vs 48.5%) survival rates, compared with those treated with conventionally fractionated RT. CONCLUSIONS: We found that both ablative and conventionally fractionated RT can be safely administered with ipilimumab without a clinically apparent increase in toxicity. Patients who received ipilimumab before RT had an increased duration of irradiated tumor response.

20 Article Isolated recto-sigmoid colitis: a new imaging pattern of ipilimumab-associated colitis. 2016

Barina, Andrew R / Bashir, Mustafa R / Howard, Brandon A / Hanks, Brent A / Salama, April K / Jaffe, Tracy A. ·Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3808, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. · Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. · Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3808, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. jaffe002@mc.duke.edu. ·Abdom Radiol (NY) · Pubmed #26867901.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to describe typical CT findings and distinct imaging patterns of ipilimumab-associated colitis in immunotherapeutic treatment of melanoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant retrospective study included 86 patients with melanoma imaged with CT or PET/CT of the abdomen and pelvis during or shortly after administration of ipilimumab. Twelve of 86 patients (14%) developed symptoms of colitis and underwent CT imaging of the abdomen and pelvis while symptomatic. Two radiologists reviewed CT images to evaluate for the presence of CT findings of colitis including mesenteric vessel engorgement, pericolonic inflammatory change, hyperenhancement of colonic mucosa, colonic wall thickening, fluid-filled colonic distension, pneumoperitoneum, pneumatosis, and diverticulosis in the inflamed segment of colon. One nuclear medicine radiologist reviewed PET images for abnormally increased FDG uptake in the colon. The diagnosis of ipilimumab-associated colitis was made based on clinical presentation, imaging findings, and laboratory data. RESULTS: Common CT findings of ipilimumab-associated colitis included colonic mucosal hyperenhancement (10/12 [83%]), mesenteric vessel engorgement (9/12 [75.0%]), colonic wall thickening (9/12 [75%]), and pericolonic fat stranding (2/12 [16%]). No patient developed pneumatosis or pneumoperitoneum. Diffuse colitis was present in 4/12 (33%) patients. Segmental colitis with associated diverticulosis (was present in 2/12 (17%) patients). A third pattern, isolated recto-sigmoid colitis without diverticulosis, was observed in 6/12 (50%) patients. All patients with colitis demonstrated recto-sigmoid involvement. CONCLUSIONS: A third radiologic pattern of ipilimumab-associated colitis was observed in this study: isolated recto-sigmoid colitis without diverticulosis. All patterns of ipilimumab-associated colitis include recto-sigmoid involvement.

21 Article Computed Tomography-Based Limb Volume Measurements for Isolated Limb Infusion in Melanoma. 2016

Brys, Adam K / Bhatti, Lubna / Bashir, Mustafa R / Jaffe, Tracy A / Beasley, Georgia M / Nath, Neel S / Salama, April K S / Tyler, Douglas S / Mosca, Paul J. ·Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. · Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. · Center for Advanced Magnetic Resonance Development, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. · Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA. · Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. · Department of Surgery, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA. · Division of Advanced Oncologic and GI Surgery, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. paul.mosca@duke.edu. ·Ann Surg Oncol · Pubmed #26572755.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Despite advances in cross-sectional imaging, chemotherapeutic dosing for isolated limb infusion (ILI) in melanoma is currently calculated through cumbersome and potentially imprecise manual measurements. The primary objective of this study was to examine the feasibility of using computed tomography (CT) to calculate limb volume, its concordance with manual measurement, and its ability to predict clinical response and toxicity in patients undergoing ILI. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing lower extremity ILI at Duke University Medical Center between 2003 and 2014 was performed. Data pertaining to manually measured limb volume, chemotherapeutic dosing, and patient outcome was obtained. CT-based measurements of limb volume were performed in all patients for whom imaging was available and subsequently compared with manually measured values. RESULTS: CT data were sufficient for measurement in 73 patients. The mean measurement time was 4.61 ± 2.13 min. Although average CT-based measurements were 1.20 L higher in the case of lower limbs, they correlated well with those obtained manually (r (2) = 0.90). Unlike manual measurement, patients with complete responses to chemotherapy had smaller limb volumes than those with disease progression as measured by CT (9.3 vs. 10.7 L; p = .038). Patients suffering grade 3 and 4 toxicities also had statistically lower limb volumes as measured by CT than those who did not (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: CT-based limb volume measurement is feasible for chemotherapy dosing in patients undergoing ILI for melanoma and has predictive value with respect to clinical response and toxicity.

22 Article Neoadjuvant use of ipilimumab in locally advanced melanoma. 2015

Howie, Lynn J / Tyler, Douglas S / Salama, April K S. ·Division of Medical Oncology, Duke University, Trinity, North Carolina. · Department of Surgery, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas. · Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, North Carolina. ·J Surg Oncol · Pubmed #26768512.

ABSTRACT: Recent advances in immune modulating therapies show great promise for patients with advanced melanoma, however optimal strategies for achieving long-term disease control in locally advanced melanoma are unclear. We present two cases of neoadjuvant ipilimumab, one case in combination with isolated limb infusion (ILI) followed by surgical resection and one followed by surgery alone. Both patients have had durable responses. These cases highlight the ongoing need for prospective trials in the neoadjuvant setting.

23 Article Nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab in untreated melanoma. 2015

Postow, Michael A / Chesney, Jason / Pavlick, Anna C / Robert, Caroline / Grossmann, Kenneth / McDermott, David / Linette, Gerald P / Meyer, Nicolas / Giguere, Jeffrey K / Agarwala, Sanjiv S / Shaheen, Montaser / Ernstoff, Marc S / Minor, David / Salama, April K / Taylor, Matthew / Ott, Patrick A / Rollin, Linda M / Horak, Christine / Gagnier, Paul / Wolchok, Jedd D / Hodi, F Stephen. ·From Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (M.A.P., J.D.W.), Weill Cornell Medical College (M.A.P., J.D.W.), and New York University, Perlmutter Cancer Center (A.C.P.) - all in New York · J. Graham Brown Cancer Center, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY (J.C.) · Institute Gustave Roussy, Villejuif (C.R.), Paris-Sud University, Orsay (C.R.), and Institut Universitaire du Cancer, Toulouse (N.M.) - all in France · Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City (K.G.) · Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (D. McDermott) and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (P.A.O., F.S.H.) - both in Boston · Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis (G.P.L.) · Greenville Health System, Greenville, SC (J.K.G.) · St. Luke's Cancer Center, Bethlehem, PA (S.S.A.) · University of New Mexico, Albuquerque (M.S.) · Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland (M.S.E.) · California Pacific Center for Melanoma Research, San Francisco (D. Minor) · Duke University, Durham, NC (A.K.S.) · Oregon Health and Science University, Portland (M.T.) · Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lawrenceville, NJ (C.H.) · and Bristol-Myers Squibb, Wallingford, CT (L.M.R., P.G.). ·N Engl J Med · Pubmed #25891304.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: In a phase 1 dose-escalation study, combined inhibition of T-cell checkpoint pathways by nivolumab and ipilimumab was associated with a high rate of objective response, including complete responses, among patients with advanced melanoma. METHODS: In this double-blind study involving 142 patients with metastatic melanoma who had not previously received treatment, we randomly assigned patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) combined with either nivolumab (1 mg per kilogram) or placebo once every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) or placebo every 2 weeks until the occurrence of disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The primary end point was the rate of investigator-assessed, confirmed objective response among patients with BRAF V600 wild-type tumors. RESULTS: Among patients with BRAF wild-type tumors, the rate of confirmed objective response was 61% (44 of 72 patients) in the group that received both ipilimumab and nivolumab (combination group) versus 11% (4 of 37 patients) in the group that received ipilimumab and placebo (ipilimumab-monotherapy group) (P<0.001), with complete responses reported in 16 patients (22%) in the combination group and no patients in the ipilimumab-monotherapy group. The median duration of response was not reached in either group. The median progression-free survival was not reached with the combination therapy and was 4.4 months with ipilimumab monotherapy (hazard ratio associated with combination therapy as compared with ipilimumab monotherapy for disease progression or death, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.23 to 0.68; P<0.001). Similar results for response rate and progression-free survival were observed in 33 patients with BRAF mutation-positive tumors. Drug-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported in 54% of the patients who received the combination therapy as compared with 24% of the patients who received ipilimumab monotherapy. Select adverse events with potential immunologic causes were consistent with those in a phase 1 study, and most of these events resolved with immune-modulating medication. CONCLUSIONS: The objective-response rate and the progression-free survival among patients with advanced melanoma who had not previously received treatment were significantly greater with nivolumab combined with ipilimumab than with ipilimumab monotherapy. Combination therapy had an acceptable safety profile. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01927419.).

24 Article Efficacy of repeat sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients who develop recurrent melanoma. 2014

Beasley, Georgia M / Speicher, Paul / Sharma, Ketan / Seigler, Hilliard / Salama, April / Mosca, Paul / Tyler, Douglas S. ·Division of Surgical Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. · Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. · Division of Surgical Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. Electronic address: tyler002@acpub.duke.edu. ·J Am Coll Surg · Pubmed #24529806.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Even after negative sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for primary melanoma, patients who develop in-transit (IT) melanoma or local recurrences (LR) can have subclinical regional lymph node involvement. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective database identified 33 patients with IT melanoma/LR who underwent technetium 99m sulfur colloid lymphoscintigraphy alone (n = 15) or in conjunction with lymphazurin dye (n = 18) administered only if the IT melanoma/LR was concurrently excised. RESULTS: Seventy-nine percent (26 of 33) of patients undergoing SLNB in this study had earlier removal of lymph nodes in the same lymph node basin as the expected drainage of the IT melanoma or LR at the time of diagnosis of their primary melanoma. Lymphoscintography at time of presentation with IT melanoma/LR was successful in 94% (31 of 33) cases, and at least 1 sentinel lymph node was found intraoperatively in 97% (30 of 31) cases. The SLNB was positive in 33% (10 of 30) of these cases. Completion lymph node dissection was performed in 90% (9 of 10) of patients. Nine patients with negative SLNB and IT melanoma underwent regional chemotherapy. Patients in this study with a positive sentinel lymph node at the time the IT/LR was mapped had a considerably shorter time to development of distant metastatic disease compared with those with negative sentinel lymph nodes. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we demonstrate the technical feasibility and clinical use of repeat SLNB for recurrent melanoma. Performing SLNB cannot only optimize local, regional, and systemic treatment strategies for patients with LR or IT melanoma, but also appears to provide important prognostic information.

25 Article Hazard-rate analysis and patterns of recurrence in early stage melanoma: moving towards a rationally designed surveillance strategy. 2013

Salama, April K S / de Rosa, Nicole / Scheri, Randall P / Pruitt, Scott K / Herndon, James E / Marcello, Jennifer / Tyler, Douglas S / Abernethy, Amy P. ·Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA. ·PLoS One · Pubmed #23516415.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: While curable at early stages, few treatment options exist for advanced melanoma. Currently, no consensus exists regarding the optimal surveillance strategy for patients after resection. The objectives of this study were to identify patterns of metastatic recurrence, to determine the influence of metastatic site on survival, and to identify high-risk periods for recurrence. METHODS: A retrospective review of the Duke Melanoma Database from 1970 to 2004 was conducted that focused on patients who were initially diagnosed without metastatic disease. The time to first recurrence was computed from the date of diagnosis, and the associated hazard function was examined to determine the peak risk period of recurrence. Metastatic sites were coded by the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) system including local skin, distant skin and nodes (M1a), lung (M1b), and other distant (M1c). RESULTS: Of 11,615 patients initially diagnosed without metastatic disease, 4616 (40%) had at least one recurrence. Overall the risk of initial recurrence peaked at 12 months. The risk of initial recurrence at the local skin, distant skin, and nodes peaked at 8 months, and the risk at lung and other distant sites peaked at 24 months. Patients with a cutaneous or nodal recurrence had improved survival compared to other recurrence types. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of developing recurrent melanoma peaked at one year, and the site of first recurrence had a significant impact on survival. Defining the timing and expected patterns of recurrence will be important in creating an optimized surveillance strategy for this patient population.

Next