Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Melanoma: HELP
Articles by John A. Thompson
Based on 41 articles published since 2009
(Why 41 articles?)
||||

Between 2009 and 2019, J. A. Thompson wrote the following 41 articles about Melanoma.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
Pages: 1 · 2
1 Guideline Guidelines of care for the management of primary cutaneous melanoma. 2019

Swetter, Susan M / Tsao, Hensin / Bichakjian, Christopher K / Curiel-Lewandrowski, Clara / Elder, David E / Gershenwald, Jeffrey E / Guild, Valerie / Grant-Kels, Jane M / Halpern, Allan C / Johnson, Timothy M / Sober, Arthur J / Thompson, John A / Wisco, Oliver J / Wyatt, Samantha / Hu, Shasa / Lamina, Toyin. ·Department of Dermatology, Stanford University Medical Center and Cancer Institute, Stanford, California; Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California. Electronic address: sswetter@stanford.edu. · Department of Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Wellman Center for Photomedicine, Boston, Massachusetts. · Department of Dermatology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan. · Division of Dermatology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, Arizona. · Department of Dermatology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Department of Pathology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. · Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Cancer Biology, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. · AIM at Melanoma Foundation, Plano, Texas. · Department of Dermatology, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut; Department of Pathology, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut; Department of Pediatrics, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut. · Department of Dermatology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. · Department of Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. · Division of Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, Washington. · Department of Dermatology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon. · Decatur Dermatology, Decatur, Alabama. · Department of Dermatology, University of Miami Health System, Miami, Florida. · American Academy of Dermatology, Rosemont, Illinois. ·J Am Acad Dermatol · Pubmed #30392755.

ABSTRACT: The incidence of primary cutaneous melanoma continues to increase each year. Melanoma accounts for the majority of skin cancer-related deaths, but treatment is usually curative following early detection of disease. In this American Academy of Dermatology clinical practice guideline, updated treatment recommendations are provided for patients with primary cutaneous melanoma (American Joint Committee on Cancer stages 0-IIC and pathologic stage III by virtue of a positive sentinel lymph node biopsy). Biopsy techniques for a lesion that is clinically suggestive of melanoma are reviewed, as are recommendations for the histopathologic interpretation of cutaneous melanoma. The use of laboratory, molecular, and imaging tests is examined in the initial work-up of patients with newly diagnosed melanoma and for follow-up of asymptomatic patients. With regard to treatment of primary cutaneous melanoma, recommendations for surgical margins and the concepts of staged excision (including Mohs micrographic surgery) and nonsurgical treatments for melanoma in situ, lentigo maligna type (including topical imiquimod and radiation therapy), are updated. The role of sentinel lymph node biopsy as a staging technique for cutaneous melanoma is described, with recommendations for its use in clinical practice. Finally, current data regarding pregnancy and melanoma, genetic testing for familial melanoma, and management of dermatologic toxicities related to novel targeted agents and immunotherapies for patients with advanced disease are summarized.

2 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.

3 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.

4 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.

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

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

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

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

Coit, Daniel G / Andtbacka, Robert / Anker, Christopher J / Bichakjian, Christopher K / Carson, William E / Daud, Adil / Dimaio, Dominick / Fleming, Martin D / Guild, Valerie / Halpern, Allan C / Hodi, F Stephen / Kelley, Mark C / Khushalani, Nikhil I / Kudchadkar, Ragini R / Lange, Julie R / Lind, Anne / Martini, Mary C / Olszanski, Anthony J / Pruitt, Scott K / Ross, Merrick I / Swetter, Susan M / Tanabe, Kenneth K / Thompson, John A / Trisal, Vijay / Urist, Marshall M / McMillian, Nicole / Ho, Maria / Anonymous4310755. ·Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. ·J Natl Compr Canc Netw · Pubmed #23584343.

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

7 Guideline Melanoma. 2012

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

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

8 Guideline Melanoma. 2009

Coit, Daniel G / Andtbacka, Robert / Bichakjian, Christopher K / Dilawari, Raza A / Dimaio, Dominick / Guild, Valerie / Halpern, Allan C / Hodi, F Stephen / Kashani-Sabet, Mohammed / Lange, Julie R / Lind, Anne / Martin, Lainie / Martini, Mary C / Pruitt, Scott K / Ross, Merrick I / Sener, Stephen F / Swetter, Susan M / Tanabe, Kenneth K / Thompson, John A / Trisal, Vijay / Urist, Marshall M / Weber, Jeffrey / Wong, Michael K / Anonymous5080627. · ·J Natl Compr Canc Netw · Pubmed #19401060.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

9 Editorial PD-1 Blockade in Melanoma: A Promising Start, but a Long Way to Go. 2016

Bhatia, Shailender / Thompson, John A. ·University of Washington, Seattle2Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington. ·JAMA · Pubmed #27092829.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

10 Editorial Agents make "preferred list" in metastatic melanoma. 2014

Thompson, John A. ·Presented by John A. Thompson, MD, Co-Director, Melanoma Clinic, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, Washington. ·J Natl Compr Canc Netw · Pubmed #24853217.

ABSTRACT: The 2014 version of the NCCN Guidelines for Melanoma lists 6 preferred regimens, most with a category 1 recommendation, and 8 "other active regimens." Effective new agents include ipilimumab, a monoclonal anti-CTLA4 antibody, and agents targeted against mutated BRAF and MEK. Researchers are now focused on the optimal way to combine or sequence these agents, while exploring other new classes.

11 Review Systemic therapy of metastatic melanoma: on the road to cure. 2015

Bhatia, Shailender / Tykodi, Scott S / Lee, Sylvia M / Thompson, John A. · ·Oncology (Williston Park) · Pubmed #25683834.

ABSTRACT: The 10-year survival rate for patients with metastatic melanoma has historically been less than 10%. However, recent successes with immunotherapy and BRAF-targeted therapy have ushered in a new era in systemic therapy of this disease. These therapies have been associated with significant improvements in patient outcomes in several randomized phase III trials. Not only have these breakthroughs increased the likelihood of long-term survival in patients with melanoma, but they have also spurred the investigation of a new generation of agents for treatment of melanoma. This article reviews both current options for systemic treatment of metastatic melanoma and promising investigational approaches. We also discuss important considerations in choosing among systemic therapy options, to match the unique goals of therapy for individual patients.

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

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

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

13 Review Systemic therapy for metastatic melanoma in 2012: dawn of a new era. 2012

Bhatia, Shailender / Thompson, John A. ·Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. sbhatia@u.washington.edu ·J Natl Compr Canc Netw · Pubmed #22393198.

ABSTRACT: The 10-year survival rate for patients with metastatic melanoma is less than 10%. Although surgery and radiation therapy have a role in the treatment of metastatic disease, systemic therapy is the mainstay of treatment for these patients. After decades of failed attempts to improve treatment outcomes, recent successes with ipilimumab and vemurafenib have ushered in a new era in systemic therapy. Both ipilimumab and vemurafenib are associated with significant improvements in overall survival of patients in randomized phase III trials, an end point that had proven elusive so far. These breakthroughs not only provide more treatment options for patients with melanoma but also spur the investigation of a new generation of drugs for cancer therapy in general. This article reviews both the current systemic treatment options for metastatic melanoma and promising investigational approaches.

14 Review Treatment of metastatic melanoma: an overview. 2009

Bhatia, Shailender / Tykodi, Scott S / Thompson, John A. ·Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, Washington 98109, USA. sbhatia@u.washington.edu ·Oncology (Williston Park) · Pubmed #19544689.

ABSTRACT: The 10-year survival rate for patients with metastatic melanoma is less than 10%. Although surgery and radiation therapy have a role in the treatment of metastatic disease, systemic therapy is the mainstay of treatment for most patients. Single-agent chemotherapy is well tolerated but is associated with response rates of only 5% to 20%. Combination chemotherapy and biochemotherapy may improve objective response rates but do not extend survival and are associated with greater toxicity. Immunotherapeutic approaches such as high-dose interleukin-2 are associated with durable responses in a small percentage of patients. In this article, we review the treatments for metastatic melanoma including promising investigational approaches.

15 Clinical Trial MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic as adjuvant therapy for patients with resected, MAGE-A3-positive, stage III melanoma (DERMA): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. 2018

Dreno, Brigitte / Thompson, John F / Smithers, Bernard Mark / Santinami, Mario / Jouary, Thomas / Gutzmer, Ralf / Levchenko, Evgeny / Rutkowski, Piotr / Grob, Jean-Jacques / Korovin, Sergii / Drucis, Kamil / Grange, Florent / Machet, Laurent / Hersey, Peter / Krajsova, Ivana / Testori, Alessandro / Conry, Robert / Guillot, Bernard / Kruit, Wim H J / Demidov, Lev / Thompson, John A / Bondarenko, Igor / Jaroszek, Jaroslaw / Puig, Susana / Cinat, Gabriela / Hauschild, Axel / Goeman, Jelle J / van Houwelingen, Hans C / Ulloa-Montoya, Fernando / Callegaro, Andrea / Dizier, Benjamin / Spiessens, Bart / Debois, Muriel / Brichard, Vincent G / Louahed, Jamila / Therasse, Patrick / Debruyne, Channa / Kirkwood, John M. ·Department of Dermatooncology, Hotel Dieu Nantes University Hospital, Nantes, France. · Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. · Queensland Melanoma Project, Discipline of Surgery, The University of Queensland, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, QLD, Australia. · Melanoma Sarcoma Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan, Italy. · Service d'Oncologie Médicale, Hôpital François Mitterrand, Pau, France. · Skin Cancer Center Hannover, Department of Dermatology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany. · Petrov Research Institute of Oncology, St Petersburg, Russia. · Department of Soft Tissue, Bone Sarcoma, and Melanoma, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Institute, Oncology Center, Warsaw, Poland. · Department of Dermatology and Skin Cancers, La Timone APHM Hospital, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France. · Department of Skin and Soft Tissue Tumours, National Cancer Institute, Kiev, Ukraine. · Swissmed Centrum Zdrowia, Gdansk, Poland; Department of Surgical Oncology, Gdansk Medical University, Gdansk, Poland. · Dermatology Department, Hôpital Robert Debré, Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne, Reims, France. · Department of Dermatology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Tours, France; UFR de Médecine, Université François-Rabelais, Tours, France. · Melanoma Immunology and Oncology Group, Centenary Institute, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Melanoma Institute Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia. · Dermato-oncology Department, General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic. · Columbus Clinic Center, Milan, Italy. · Division of Hematology & Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. · Département de Dermatologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Hôpital Saint-Éloi, Montpellier, France. · Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer institute, Rotterdam, Netherlands. · Cancer Research Center, Moscow, Russia. · Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. · Department of Oncology and Medical Radiology, Dnipropetrovsk State Medical Academy, Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine. · Centrum Medyczne Bieńkowski, Klinika Chirurgii Plastycznej, Bydgoszcz, Poland; Department of Oncological Surgery, Oncology Center, Bydgoszcz, Poland. · Melanoma Unit, Dermatology Department, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Raras, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Barcelona, Spain. · Instituto de Oncología Ángel H Roffo, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina. · Department of Dermatology, Venereology, and Allergology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany. · Medical Statistics, Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands. · GlaxoSmithKline, Rixensart, Belgium. Electronic address: fernando.x.ulloa-montoya@GSK.com. · GlaxoSmithKline, Rixensart, Belgium. · GlaxoSmithKline, Rixensart, Belgium; Immunology Translational Medicine, UCB, Brussels, Belgium. · GlaxoSmithKline, Rixensart, Belgium; Biostatistics Department, Janssen Research & Development, Beerse, Belgium. · GlaxoSmithKline, Rixensart, Belgium; ViaNova Biosciences, Brussels, Belgium. · GlaxoSmithKline, Rixensart, Belgium; Laboratoires Servier, Paris, France. · GlaxoSmithKline, Rixensart, Belgium; University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. · UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #29908991.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Despite newly approved treatments, metastatic melanoma remains a life-threatening condition. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic in patients with stage IIIB or IIIC melanoma in the adjuvant setting. METHODS: DERMA was a phase 3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial done in 31 countries and 263 centres. Eligible patients were 18 years or older and had histologically proven, completely resected, stage IIIB or IIIC, MAGE-A3-positive cutaneous melanoma with macroscopic lymph node involvement and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0 or 1. Randomisation and treatment allocation at the investigator sites were done centrally via the internet. We randomly assigned patients (2:1) to receive up to 13 intramuscular injections of recombinant MAGE-A3 with AS15 immunostimulant (MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic; 300 μg MAGE-A3 antigen plus 420 μg CpG 7909 reconstituted in AS01B to a total volume of 0·5 mL), or placebo, over a 27-month period: five doses at 3-weekly intervals, followed by eight doses at 12-weekly intervals. The co-primary outcomes were disease-free survival in the overall population and in patients with a potentially predictive gene signature (GS-positive) identified previously and validated here via an adaptive signature design. The final analyses included all patients who had received at least one dose of study treatment; analyses for efficacy were in the as-randomised population and for safety were in the as-treated population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00796445. FINDINGS: Between Dec 1, 2008, and Sept 19, 2011, 3914 patients were screened, 1391 randomly assigned, and 1345 started treatment (n=895 for MAGE-A3 and n=450 for placebo). At final analysis (data cutoff May 23, 2013), median follow-up was 28·0 months [IQR 23·3-35·5] in the MAGE-A3 group and 28·1 months [23·7-36·9] in the placebo group. Median disease-free survival was 11·0 months (95% CI 10·0-11·9) in the MAGE-A3 group and 11·2 months (8·6-14·1) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·01, 0·88-1·17, p=0·86). In the GS-positive population, median disease-free survival was 9·9 months (95% CI 5·7-17·6) in the MAGE-A3 group and 11·6 months (5·6-22·3) in the placebo group (HR 1·11, 0·83-1·49, p=0·48). Within the first 31 days of treatment, adverse events of grade 3 or worse were reported by 126 (14%) of 894 patients in the MAGE-A3 group and 56 (12%) of 450 patients in the placebo group, treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse by 36 (4%) patients given MAGE-A3 vs six (1%) patients given placebo, and at least one serious adverse event by 14% of patients in both groups (129 patients given MAGE-A3 and 64 patients given placebo). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or worse were neoplasms (33 [4%] patients in the MAGE-A3 group vs 17 [4%] patients in the placebo group), general disorders and administration site conditions (25 [3%] for MAGE-A3 vs four [<1%] for placebo) and infections and infestations (17 [2%] for MAGE-A3 vs seven [2%] for placebo). No deaths were related to treatment. INTERPRETATION: An antigen-specific immunotherapeutic alone was not efficacious in this clinical setting. Based on these findings, development of the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic for use in melanoma has been stopped. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA.

16 Clinical Trial Standard-dose pembrolizumab in combination with reduced-dose ipilimumab for patients with advanced melanoma (KEYNOTE-029): an open-label, phase 1b trial. 2017

Long, Georgina V / Atkinson, Victoria / Cebon, Jonathan S / Jameson, Michael B / Fitzharris, Bernie M / McNeil, Catriona M / Hill, Andrew G / Ribas, Antoni / Atkins, Michael B / Thompson, John A / Hwu, Wen-Jen / Hodi, F Stephen / Menzies, Alexander M / Guminski, Alexander D / Kefford, Richard / Kong, Benjamin Y / Tamjid, Babak / Srivastava, Archana / Lomax, Anna J / Islam, Mohammed / Shu, Xinxin / Ebbinghaus, Scot / Ibrahim, Nageatte / Carlino, Matteo S. ·Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, Mater Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Electronic address: georgina.long@sydney.edu.au. · Gallipoli Medical Research Foundation, Greenslopes Private Hospital, Greenslopes, QLD, Australia; University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. · Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute, Austin Health, School of Cancer Medicine, LaTrobe University, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia. · Regional Cancer Centre, Waikato Hospital, Hamilton, New Zealand. · Canterbury District Health Board, Christchurch Hospital, Christchurch, New Zealand. · Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, Camperdown, NSW, Australia. · Tasman Oncology Research, Southport Gold Coast, QLD, Australia. · Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. · Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC, USA. · Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. · University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. · Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. · Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, Mater Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia. · Westmead Hospital, Melanoma Institute Australia, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia. · Westmead Hospital, Westmead, NSW, Australia; Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Blacktown Hospital, Blacktown, NSW, Australia. · Merck & Co, Kenilworth, NJ, USA. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #28729151.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Reduced-dose nivolumab in combination with standard-dose ipilimumab improves objective response and progression-free survival compared with standard-dose ipilimumab alone, but increases toxicity. We assessed the safety and anti-tumour activity of standard-dose pembrolizumab in combination with reduced-dose ipilimumab. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 1b trial, we recruited patients from 12 medical centres in Australia, New Zealand, and the USA. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years, had advanced melanoma, had an Eastern Coooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, had measurable disease according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1, had adequate organ function, had resolution of toxic effects of the most recent previous chemotherapy to grade 1 or less, had no active autoimmune disease requiring systemic steroids or immunosuppressive agents, had no active non-infectious pneumonitis, had no uncontrolled thyroid dysfunction or diabetes, had no active brain metastases, and had not received previous immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Patients received intravenous pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg plus intravenous ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by intravenous pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks for up to 2 years or disease progression, intolerable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or investigator decision. The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability. The proportion of patients achieving an objective response assessed per RECIST version 1.1 by independent central review and overall survival were secondary endpoints. We also assessed progression-free survival. The primary endpoint was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of combination therapy. Activity was assessed in all enrolled patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02089685. Enrolment into this cohort is closed, but patients are still being monitored for safety and anti-tumour activity. FINDINGS: Between Jan 13, 2015, and Sept 17, 2015, we enrolled and treated 153 patients. As of the Oct 17, 2016, cutoff date, median follow-up was 17·0 months (IQR 14·8-18·8). 110 (72%) of 153 patients received all four pembrolizumab plus ipilimumab doses; 64 (42%) remained on pembrolizumab monotherapy. 110 grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 69 (45%) patients. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Treatment-related adverse events led to discontinuation of pembrolizumab and ipilimumab in 22 (14%) patients, including 17 (11%) who discontinued both treatments for the same event and five (3%) who discontinued ipilimumab for one event and later discontinued pembrolizumab for another. 12 (8%) patients discontinued ipilimumab only and 14 (9%) discontinued pembrolizumab only because of treatment-related adverse events. 158 immune-mediated adverse events of any grade occurred in 92 (60%) patients, and 50 immune-mediated adverse events of grade 3-4 occurred in 42 (27%) patients; the most common immune-mediated adverse events were hypothyroidism (25 [16%]) and hyperthyroidism (17 [11%]). 93 (61% [95% CI 53-69]) patients achieved an objective response. Estimated 1 year progression-free survival was 69% (95% CI 60-75), and estimated 1 year overall survival was 89% (95% CI 83-93). INTERPRETATION: Standard-dose pembrolizumab given in combination with four doses of reduced-dose ipilimumab followed by standard-dose pembrolizumab has a manageable toxicity profile and provides robust anti-tumour activity in patients with advanced melanoma. These data suggest that standard-dose pembrolizumab plus reduced-dose ipilimumab might be a tolerable, efficacious treatment option for patients with advanced melanoma. A randomised phase 2 trial of alternative dosing strategies of this combination is underway. FUNDING: Merck & Co, Inc.

17 Clinical Trial Combined IL-21-primed polyclonal CTL plus CTLA4 blockade controls refractory metastatic melanoma in a patient. 2016

Chapuis, Aude G / Lee, Sylvia M / Thompson, John A / Roberts, Ilana M / Margolin, Kim A / Bhatia, Shailender / Sloan, Heather L / Lai, Ivy / Wagener, Felecia / Shibuya, Kendall / Cao, Jianhong / Wolchok, Jedd D / Greenberg, Philip D / Yee, Cassian. ·Program in Immunology, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (FHCRC), Seattle, WA 98109. · Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington Medical Center/FHCRC/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA 98109. · Ludwig Center, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 100165. · Program in Immunology, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (FHCRC), Seattle, WA 98109 Department of Immunology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA 98195 cyee@mdanderson.org pgreen@u.washington.edu. · Program in Immunology, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (FHCRC), Seattle, WA 98109 cyee@mdanderson.org pgreen@u.washington.edu. ·J Exp Med · Pubmed #27242164.

ABSTRACT: Adoptive transfer of peripheral blood-derived, melanoma-reactive CD8(+) cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) alone is generally insufficient to eliminate bulky tumors. Similarly, monotherapy with anti-CTLA4 infrequently yields sustained remissions in patients with metastatic melanoma. We postulated that a bolus of enhanced IL-21-primed polyclonal antigen-specific CTL combined with CTLA4 blockade might boost antitumor efficacy. In this first-in-human case study, the combination successfully led to a durable complete remission (CR) in a patient whose disease was refractory to both monoclonal CTL and anti-CTLA4. Long-term persistence and sustained anti-tumor activity of transferred CTL, as well as responses to nontargeted antigens, confirmed mutually beneficial effects of the combined treatment. In this first-in-human study, Chapuis et al. demonstrate that the combination of adoptive cellular therapy with CTLA4 blockade induces long-term remission in a melanoma patient resistant to both modalities administered serially and individually.

18 Clinical Trial A phase I study of the investigational NEDD8-activating enzyme inhibitor pevonedistat (TAK-924/MLN4924) in patients with metastatic melanoma. 2016

Bhatia, Shailender / Pavlick, Anna C / Boasberg, Peter / Thompson, John A / Mulligan, George / Pickard, Michael D / Faessel, Hélène / Dezube, Bruce J / Hamid, Omid. ·Department of Medicine/Medical Oncology, University of Washington Medical Center/Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, 825 Eastlake Ave W, G4-830, Seattle, WA, 98109-1023, USA. sbhatia@uw.edu. · Departments of Medicine (Perlmutter Cancer Center) and Dermatology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. · The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Translational Research & Cutaneous Oncology, Los Angeles, CA, USA. · Department of Medicine/Medical Oncology, University of Washington Medical Center/Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, 825 Eastlake Ave W, G4-830, Seattle, WA, 98109-1023, USA. · Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Cambridge, MA, USA. ·Invest New Drugs · Pubmed #27056178.

ABSTRACT: Purpose The therapeutic index of proteasome inhibitors may be improved through selective inhibition of a sub-component of the ubiquitin-proteasome system, such as the NEDD8-conjugation pathway. This multicenter, phase I, dose-escalation study assessed safety and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and antitumor activity of pevonedistat, an investigational NEDD8-activating enzyme (NAE) inhibitor, in patients with metastatic melanoma. Methods Patients received intravenous pevonedistat on Days 1, 4, 8, 11 (schedule A) or 1, 8, 15 (schedule B) of 21-day cycles. Results 26 patients received pevonedistat 50-278 mg/m(2) on schedule A; 11 patients received pevonedistat 157 mg/m(2) on schedule B. The schedule A MTD was 209 mg/m(2): dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) included grade 3 hypophosphatemia and grade 3 increased blood creatinine (associated with grade 3 hyperbilirubinemia). Two schedule A patients experienced acute organ failure toxicities, one of whom experienced grade 5 acute renal failure. Dose escalation did not occur in schedule B: DLTs included grade 3 myocarditis, grade 2 acute renal failure, and grade 2 hyperbilirubinemia in a single patient. Pevonedistat pharmacokinetics were approximately dose-proportional across the dose range studied, with a biphasic disposition profile characterized by a short elimination half-life (~10 h). Pharmacodynamic studies showed increases in NAE-regulated transcripts post-treatment; all post-dose biopsy samples were positive for pevonedistat-NEDD8 adduct. One schedule A patient achieved a partial response; 15 patients had stable disease (4 lasting ≥6.5 months). Conclusions Pevonedistat was generally well tolerated at the MTD. Anticipated pharmacodynamic effects of NAE inhibition were observed with single-agent pevonedistat in peripheral blood and tumor tissue.

19 Clinical Trial Southwest Oncology Group S0008: a phase III trial of high-dose interferon Alfa-2b versus cisplatin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine, plus interleukin-2 and interferon in patients with high-risk melanoma--an intergroup study of cancer and leukemia Group B, Children's Oncology Group, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, and Southwest Oncology Group. 2014

Flaherty, Lawrence E / Othus, Megan / Atkins, Michael B / Tuthill, Ralph J / Thompson, John A / Vetto, John T / Haluska, Frank G / Pappo, Alberto S / Sosman, Jeffrey A / Redman, Bruce G / Moon, James / Ribas, Antoni / Kirkwood, John M / Sondak, Vernon K. ·Lawrence E. Flaherty, Wayne State University, Detroit · Bruce G. Redman, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI · Megan Othus, James Moon, Southwest Oncology Group Statistical Center · John A. Thompson, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA · Michael B. Atkins, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington DC · Ralph J. Tuthill, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH · John T. Vetto, Oregon Health & Science University/Knight Cancer Institute, Portland, OR · Frank G. Haluska, Tufts-New England Medical Center, Boston, MA · Alberto S. Pappo, Texas Children's Cancer Center, Houston, TX · Jeffrey A. Sosman, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine Nashville, TN · Antoni Ribas, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA · John M. Kirkwood, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA · Vernon K. Sondak, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL. ·J Clin Oncol · Pubmed #25332243.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: High-dose interferon (IFN) for 1 year (HDI) is the US Food and Drug Administration-approved adjuvant therapy for patients with high-risk melanoma. Efforts to modify IFN dose and schedule have not improved efficacy. We sought to determine whether a shorter course of biochemotherapy would be more effective. PATIENTS AND METHODS: S0008 (S0008: Chemotherapy Plus Biological Therapy in Treating Patients With Melanoma) was an Intergroup phase III trial that enrolled high-risk patients (stage IIIA-N2a through IIIC-N3), randomly assigning them to receive either HDI or biochemotherapy consisting of dacarbazine, cisplatin, vinblastine, interleukin-2, IFN alfa-2b (IFN-α-2b) and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor given every 21 days for three cycles. Coprimary end points were relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: In all, 432 patients were enrolled. Grade 3 and 4 adverse events occurred in 57% and 7% of HDI patients and 36% and 40% of biochemotherapy patients, respectively. At a median follow-up of 7.2 years, biochemotherapy improved RFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.97; P = .015), with a median RFS of 4.0 years (95% CI, 1.9 years to not reached [NR]) versus 1.9 years for HDI (95% CI, 1.2 to 2.8 years) and a 5-year RFS of 48% versus 39%. Median OS was not different (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.31; P = .55), with a median OS of 9.9 years (95% CI, 4.62 years to NR) for biochemotherapy versus 6.7 years (95% CI, 4.5 years to NR) for HDI and a 5-year OS of 56% for both arms. CONCLUSION: Biochemotherapy is a shorter, alternative adjuvant treatment for patients with high-risk melanoma that provides statistically significant improvement in RFS but no difference in OS and more toxicity compared with HDI.

20 Clinical Trial Adjuvant vaccine immunotherapy of resected, clinically node-negative melanoma: long-term outcome and impact of HLA class I antigen expression on overall survival. 2014

Carson, William E / Unger, Joseph M / Sosman, Jeffrey A / Flaherty, Lawrence E / Tuthill, Ralph J / Porter, Mark J / Thompson, John A / Kempf, Raymond A / Othus, Megan / Ribas, Antoni / Sondak, Vernon K. ·Division of Surgical Oncology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. william.carson@osumc.edu. · SWOG Statistical Center, Seattle, Washington. · Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee. · Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan. · Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio. · Division of Surgical Oncology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. · Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, Washington. · Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. · University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. · H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida. ·Cancer Immunol Res · Pubmed #24994597.

ABSTRACT: Associations between HLA class I antigen expression and the efficacy of a melanoma vaccine (Melacine; Corixa Corp.) were initially described in stage IV melanoma. Similar associations were observed in S9035, a phase III adjuvant trial evaluating Melacine for 2 years compared with observation in patients with stage II melanoma. This report provides long-term results. The effects of treatment on relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated, and prespecified analyses investigated associations between treatment and HLA expression. Multivariable analyses were adjusted for tumor thickness, ulceration and site, method of nodal staging, and sex. P = 0.01 was considered statistically significant in subset analyses to account for multiple comparisons. For the entire study population of 689 patients, there were no significant differences in RFS or OS by treatment arm. HLA serotyping was performed on 553 (80%) patients (vaccine, 294; observation, 259). Among the subpopulation with HLA-A2 and/or HLA-Cw3 serotype, vaccine arm patients (n = 178) had marginally improved RFS (adjusted P = 0.02) and significantly improved OS compared with observation arm patients (n = 145), with 10-year OS of 75% and 63%, respectively [hazard ratio (HR), 0.62; 99% confidence interval (CI), 0.37-1.02; P = 0.01]. There was no impact of HLA-A2 and/or HLA-Cw3 expression on observation arm patients. An analysis of mature data from S9035 indicates a significant OS benefit from adjuvant vaccine therapy for patients with HLA-A2- and/or HLA-Cw3-expressing melanoma. The possibility of interactions between HLA type and outcome should be considered in future immunotherapy trials. Further investigations of melanoma-associated antigens present in Melacine and presented by HLA-A2 and HLA-Cw3 may be warranted.

21 Clinical Trial A phase 2 randomised study of ramucirumab (IMC-1121B) with or without dacarbazine in patients with metastatic melanoma. 2014

Carvajal, Richard D / Wong, Michael K / Thompson, John A / Gordon, Michael S / Lewis, Karl D / Pavlick, Anna C / Wolchok, Jedd D / Rojas, Patrick B / Schwartz, Jonathan D / Bedikian, Agop Y. ·Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: carvajar@mskcc.org. · USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. · Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA, USA. · Pinnacle Oncology Hematology, Scottsdale, AZ, USA. · University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, CO, USA. · New York University, New York, NY, USA. · Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. · ImClone Systems LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly and Company, Bridgewater, NJ, USA. · MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #24930625.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ramucirumab (IMC-1121B; LY3009806), a fully human monoclonal antibody targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2, alone and in combination with dacarbazine in chemotherapy-naïve patients with metastatic melanoma (MM). METHODS: Eligible patients received ramucirumab (10mg/kg) + dacarbazine (1000 mg/m(2)) (Arm A) or ramucirumab only (10mg/kg) (Arm B) every 3 weeks. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end-points included overall survival (OS), overall response and safety. FINDINGS: Of 106 randomised patients, 102 received study treatment (Arm A, N=52; Arm B, N=50). Baseline characteristics were similar in both arms. Median PFS was 2.6 months (Arm A) and 1.7 months (Arm B); median 6-month PFS rates were 30.7% and 17.9% and 12-month PFS rates were 23.7% and 15.6%, respectively. In Arm A, 9 (17.3%) patients had partial response (PR) and 19 (36.5%), stable disease (SD); PR and SD in Arm B were 2 (4.0%) and 21 (42.0%), respectively. Median OS was 8.7 months in Arm A and 11.1 months in Arm B. Patients in both arms tolerated the treatment with limited Grade 3/4 toxicities. INTERPRETATION: Ramucirumab alone or in combination with dacarbazine was associated with an acceptable safety profile in patients with MM. Although the study was not powered for comparison between treatment arms, PFS appeared greater with combination therapy. Sustained disease control was observed on both study arm.

22 Clinical Trial Ipilimumab in treatment-naive and previously treated patients with metastatic melanoma: retrospective analysis of efficacy and safety data from a phase II trial. 2012

Thompson, John A / Hamid, Omid / Minor, David / Amin, Asim / Ron, Ilan G / Ridolfi, Ruggero / Assi, Hazem / Berman, David / Siegel, Jonathan / Weber, Jeffrey S. ·Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. jat@u.washington.edu ·J Immunother · Pubmed #22130164.

ABSTRACT: Ipilimumab is a fully human, monoclonal antibody that blocks cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 to potentiate antitumor T-cell responses. In a phase III trial, ipilimumab monotherapy at 3 mg/kg demonstrated an improvement in overall survival (OS) in patients with previously treated, metastatic melanoma. Here, we conducted a retrospective analysis of efficacy and safety data from a phase II clinical trial in which treatment-naive and previously treated patients with metastatic melanoma received ipilimumab at an investigational dose of 10 mg/kg. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive oral budesonide or placebo, and ipilimumab at 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks for 4 doses, to determine whether prophylactic budesonide affected the rate of grade ≥2 diarrhea. One hundred fifteen patients were randomized and treated: 62 had received prior systemic therapy for metastatic disease and 53 had not. No efficacy endpoint was affected by budesonide therapy, and the efficacy data were therefore pooled for budesonide and placebo subgroups. Median OS was 30.5 months for treatment-naive patients who received ipilimumab, with survival rates of 69.4%, 62.9%, and 56.9% at 12, 18, and 24 months. In previously treated patients who received ipilimumab, median OS was 13.6 months, with survival rates of 50.0%, 37.7%, and 28.5% at 12, 18, and 24 months. There were no meaningful differences in the number of objective responses or rate of grade ≥2 diarrhea between groups. These retrospective analyses are the first to provide survival data for ipilimumab in treatment-naive and previously treated patients within the same clinical trial.

23 Clinical Trial A randomised, phase II study of intetumumab, an anti-αv-integrin mAb, alone and with dacarbazine in stage IV melanoma. 2011

O'Day, S / Pavlick, A / Loquai, C / Lawson, D / Gutzmer, R / Richards, J / Schadendorf, D / Thompson, J A / Gonzalez, R / Trefzer, U / Mohr, P / Ottensmeier, C / Chao, D / Zhong, B / de Boer, C J / Uhlar, C / Marshall, D / Gore, M E / Lang, Z / Hait, W / Ho, P / Anonymous1060700. ·The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, 2001 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 560W, Santa Monica, CA, USA. soday@theangelesclinic.org ·Br J Cancer · Pubmed #21750555.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: α(v) integrins are involved in angiogenesis and melanoma tumourigenesis. Intetumumab (CNTO 95) is a fully human anti-α(v)-integrin monoclonal antibody. METHODS: In a multicentre, randomised, phase II study, stage IV melanoma patients were randomised 1:1:1:1 to 1000 mg m(-2) dacarbazine+placebo (n=32), 1000 mg m(-2) dacarbazine+10 mg kg(-1) intetumumab (n=32), 10 mg kg(-1) intetumumab (n=33), or 5 mg kg(-1) intetumumab (n=32) q3w. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), adverse events, and pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in efficacy were observed between groups. In the dacarbazine+placebo, dacarbazine+intetumumab, 10 mg kg(-1) intetumumab, and 5 mg kg(-1) intetumumab groups, median PFS was 1.8, 2.5, 1.4, and 1.4 months; median OS was 8, 11, 15, and 9.8 months; and ORR of complete+partial response was 10, 3, 6, and 0%. Nonlinear intetumumab pharmacokinetics and potential intetumumab-dacarbazine interactions were observed. Transient, asymptomatic, nonrecurring, grade 1-2, uveitic reactions that resolved spontaneously or with topical steroids were seen in 22-30% of intetumumab-treated patients. Low-grade infusion-reaction symptoms (headache, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, fever, chills) were observed, as expected, in 16-73% of dacarbazine-treated patients. No intetumumab-related myelosuppression, laboratory/electrocardiogram abnormalities, or deaths occurred. CONCLUSION: With its favourable safety profile and a nonsignificant trend towards improved OS, intetumumab merits further investigation in advanced melanoma.

24 Clinical Trial Extended schedule, escalated dose temozolomide versus dacarbazine in stage IV melanoma: final results of a randomised phase III study (EORTC 18032). 2011

Patel, Poulam M / Suciu, Stefan / Mortier, Laurent / Kruit, Wim H / Robert, Caroline / Schadendorf, Dirk / Trefzer, Uwe / Punt, Cornelis J A / Dummer, Reinhard / Davidson, Neville / Becker, Juergen / Conry, Robert / Thompson, John A / Hwu, Wen-Jen / Engelen, Kristel / Agarwala, Sanjiv S / Keilholz, Ulrich / Eggermont, Alexander M M / Spatz, Alain / Anonymous2540695. ·Academic Unit of Clinical Oncology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom. poulam.patel@nottingham.ac.uk ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #21600759.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of an extended schedule escalated dose of temozolomide versus standard dose dacarbazine in a large population of patients with stage IV melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 859 patients were randomised to receive oral temozolomide at 150 mg/m(2)/day for seven consecutive days every 2 weeks or dacarbazine, administered as an intravenous infusion at 1000 mg/m(2)/day on day 1 every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), using an intent-to-treat principle. EudraCT number 2004-000654-23 NCI registration number NCT00005052. RESULTS: Median OS was 9.1 months in the temozolomide arm and 9.4 months in the dacarbazine arm, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.00 (95%confidence interval [CI]: 0.86, 1.17; P=0.99). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.3 months in the temozolomide arm and 2.2 months in the dacarbazine arm, with a HR of 0.92 (95%CI: 0.80, 1.06; P=0.27). In patients with measurable disease, overall response rate was higher in the temozolomide arm than in the dacarbazine arm (14.5% versus 9.8%, respectively), but the median duration of response was longer for dacarbazine. The extended schedule, escalated dose temozolomide arm showed more toxicity than the standard dose, single agent dacarbazine arm. The most common non-haematological treatment emergent adverse events reported in both treatment arms were nausea, fatigue and vomiting and constipation. CONCLUSION: Extended schedule escalated dose Temozolomide (7 days on 7 days off) is feasible and has an acceptable safety profile, but does not improve OS and PFS in metastatic melanoma when compared to standard dose dacarbazine.

25 Clinical Trial Phase 2 trial of combination thalidomide plus temozolomide in patients with metastatic malignant melanoma: Southwest Oncology Group S0508. 2010

Clark, Joseph I / Moon, James / Hutchins, Laura F / Sosman, Jeffrey A / Kast, W Martin / Da Silva, Diane M / Liu, P Y / Thompson, John A / Flaherty, Lawrence E / Sondak, Vernon K. ·Cardinal Bernardin Cancer Center, Loyola University Medical Center, Division of Hematology/Oncology, 2160 South First Avenue, Maywood, IL 60153, USA. jclark@lumc.edu ·Cancer · Pubmed #19918923.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: In limited institution phase 2 studies, thalidomide and temozolomide has yielded response rates (RRs) up to 32% for advanced melanoma, leading to the use of this combination as "standard" by some. We conducted a multicenter phase 2 trial to better define the clinical efficacy of thalidomide and temozolomide and the immune modulatory effects of thalidomide, when combined with temozolomide, in patients with metastatic melanoma. METHODS: Patients must have had stage IV cutaneous melanoma, no active brain metastases, Zubrod PS 0-1, up to 1 prior systemic therapy excluding thalidomide, temozolomide, or dacarbazine, adequate organ function, and given informed consent. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), RR, toxicities, and assessment of relationships between biomarkers and clinical outcomes. Patients received thalidomide (200 mg/d escalated to 400 mg/d for patients <70, or 100 mg/d escalated to 250 mg/d for patients > or =70) plus temozolomide (75 mg/m(2)/d x 6 weeks, and then 2 weeks rest). RESULTS: Sixty-four patients were enrolled; 2 refused treatment. The 6-month PFS was 15% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6%-23%), the 1-year OS was 35% (95% CI, 24%-47%), and the RR was 13% (95% CI, 5%-25%), all partial. One treatment-related death occurred from myocardial infarction; 3 other grade 4 events occurred, including pulmonary embolism, neutropenia, and central nervous system (CNS) ischemia. There was no significant correlation between biomarkers and PFS or OS. CONCLUSIONS: This combination of thalidomide and temozolomide does not appear to have a clinical benefit that exceeds dacarbazine alone. We would not recommend it further for phase 3 trials or for standard community use.

Next