Clinical Trials with VMO for Melanoma

M. Wallack,M. Sivanandham

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb44007.x

IF: 6.499

1993-08-01

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Volumetric-modulated Arc Therapy Using Multicriteria Optimization for Body and Extremity Sarcoma.

Michael R. Young,David L. Craft,Caroline M. Colbert,Kyla Remillard,Liam Vanbenthuysen,Yi Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i6.6547

2016-01-01

Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics

Abstract:This study evaluates the implementation of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using multicriteria optimization (MCO) in the RayStation treatment planning system (TPS) for complex sites, namely extremity and body sarcoma. The VMAT-MCO algorithm implemented in RayStation is newly developed and requires an integrated, comprehensive analysis of plan generation, delivery, and treatment efficiency. Ten patients previously treated by intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with MCO were randomly selected and replanned using VMAT-MCO. The plan quality was compared using homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI) of the planning target volume (PTV) and dose sparing of organs at risk (OARs). Given the diversity of the tumor location, the 10 plans did not have a common OAR except for skin. The skin D50 and Dmean was directly compared between VMAT-MCO and IMRT-MCO. Additional OAR dose points were compared on a plan-by-plan basis. The treatment efficiency was compared using plan monitor units (MU) and net beam-on time. Plan quality assurance was performed using the Sun Nuclear ArcCHECK phantom and a gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm. No statistically significant differences were found between VMAT- and IMRT-MCO for HI and CI of the PTV or D50 and Dmean to the skin. The VMAT-MCO plans showed general improvements in sparing to OARs. The VMAT-MCO plan set showed statistically significant improvements over the IMRT-MCO set in treatment efficiency per plan MU (p < 0.05) and net beam-on time (p < 0.01). The VMAT-MCO plan deliverability was validated. Similar gamma passing rates were observed for the two modalities. This study verifies the suitability of VMAT-MCO for sarcoma cancer and highlighted the comparability in plan quality and improve-ment in treatment efficiency offered by VMAT-MCO as compared to IMRT-MCO.
Bortezomib, Melphalan, and Prednisone with or Without Daratumumab in Transplant-ineligible Asian Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: the Phase 3 OCTANS Study.

Weijun Fu,Soo-Mee Bang,Honghui Huang,Kihyun Kim,Wei Li,Gang An,Je-Jung Lee,Zhen Cai,Jie Jin,Yafei Wang,Tung-Liang Lin,Chor Sang Chim,Ming Qi,Jianping Wang,Xiaolin Lu,Yang Song,Bin Jia,Xue Yang,Wenyu Liu,Tianyuan Zhou,Lu Yin,Yunan Li,Renyi Zhang,Jian Hou,Jianxiang Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2023.02.009

2023-01-01

Abstract:The phase 3 OCTANS study evaluated daratumumab+ bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone (D-VMP) compared to VMP alone in Asian patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. At a median follow-up of 1 year, D-VMP reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 57% compared to VMP alone and had a manageable safety profile. Efficacy and safety from OCTANS were consistent with the global ALCYONE study. Introduction: In the global phase 3 ALCYONE trial, daratumumab plus bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone (D-VMP) improved outcomes versus VMP in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients. Here, we report the primary analysis of the phase 3 OCTANS trial of D-VMP versus VMP in transplant-ineligible Asian NDMM patients. Patients and Methods: In total, 220 patients were randomized (2:1) to receive 9 cycles of VMP (bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 subcutaneously twice weekly in Cycle 1 and weekly in Cycles 2 to 9; melphalan 9 mg/m2 orally; and prednisone 60 mg/m2 orally on Days 1 to 4 of each cycle) & PLUSMN; daratumumab 16 mg/kg intravenously weekly in Cycle 1, every 3 weeks in Cycles 2 to 9, and every 4 weeks thereafter until disease progression. Results: After a median follow-up of 12.3 months, very good partial response or better rates (primary endpoint) were 74.0% versus 43.2% with D-VMP versus VMP (odds ratio, 3.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.99-6.43; P < .0001). Median progression-free survival (PFS) with DVMP versus VMP was not reached versus 18.2 months (hazard ratio, .43; 95% CI, .24-.77; P = .0033); 12-month PFS rates were 84.2% versus 64.6%. The most frequent grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events with D-VMP/VMP were thrombocytopenia (46.5%/45.1%), neutropenia (39.6%/50.7%), and leukopenia (31.3%/36.6%). Conclusion: D-VMP demonstrated a favorable benefit/risk profile in transplant-ineligible Asian NDMM patients. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT03217812.
A randomized, controlled, multicenter, phase 3 study of vusolimogene oderparepvec (VO) combined with nivolumab vs treatment of physician’s choice in patients with advanced melanoma that has progressed on anti–PD-1 and anti–CTLA-4 therapy (IGNYTE-3).

Jason J. Luke,George Kong,Giuseppe Gullo,Caroline Robert

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.16_suppl.tps9604

IF: 45.3

2024-06-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:TPS9604 Background: Melanoma is the 5 th most common cancer type, with ~100,000 new cases and ~8,000 deaths estimated in the US for 2024. First-line systemic treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors improved the objective response rate (ORR) and extended progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients with advanced disease. The combination of anti–PD-1 nivolumab (nivo) + anti–CTLA-4 ipilimumab (ipi) therapy is associated with the highest ORR and best PFS and OS in this setting. However, only about half of patients respond, and there is no standard of care for patients who progress after anti–PD-1–based therapy. VO (also referred to as RP1) is a selectively replication-competent HSV-1 oncolytic virus that expresses human GM-CSF and a fusogenic glycoprotein (GALV-GP-R–). Preliminary data from the phase 1/2 study (IGNYTE) showed that intratumoral (IT) VO plus intravenous (IV) nivolumab (nivo) was well tolerated and had meaningful antitumor activity (ORR, 31.4%) with durable responses in patients with advanced melanoma who progressed on prior anti–PD-1 therapy. This phase 3 study will evaluate the overall survival and clinical benefit as well as the safety of VO plus nivo for patients with advanced melanoma whose disease has progressed after receiving anti–PD-1 and anti–CTLA-4 therapy (or who are not eligible for anti–CTLA-4 therapy in addition to anti–PD-1) versus physician’s choice. Methods: This is a randomized, controlled, multicenter, phase 3 clinical trial comparing VO in combination with nivo vs physician’s choice of treatment in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Key eligibility criteria include age ≥12 years, stage IIIb–IV/M1a–M1d cutaneous melanoma, confirmed disease progression on an anti–PD–1 and anti–CTLA-4 treatment (administered in combination or in sequence with anti–PD-1 last), at least 1 measurable tumor (≥1 cm), and adequate hematologic, hepatic, and renal function. Patients who are not candidates for anti–CTLA-4 therapy may enroll if they have confirmed progression on anti–PD-1 therapy. Patients with BRAF V600 mutant melanoma must have received an anti-BRAF + anti-MEK targeted therapy prior to enrollment. Patients (N = ~400) will be randomized 1:1 to receive VO plus nivo or physician’s choice (nivo + relatlimab, anti–PD–1 monotherapy rechallenge [nivo or pembrolizumab], or single-agent chemotherapy [dacarbazine, temozolomide, or paclitaxel/albumin-bound paclitaxel]). VO is given IT Q2W; nivo is administered IV at 240 mg Q2W or 480 mg Q4W starting with the 2 nd dose of VO. The primary endpoint of the study is OS; the key secondary endpoints are PFS and ORR. Additional endpoints include complete response rate, duration of response, disease control rate, and safety. Clinical trial information: NCT06264180 .

oncology
Efficacy and Tolerability of Vemurafenib in BRAF-mutant Acral and Mucosal Melanoma.

Xue Bai,Lu Si,Zhihong Chi,Xinan Sheng,Chuanliang Cui,Yan Kong,Jie Dai,Li,Xuan Wang,Si Ming Li,Bixia Tang,Bin Lian,Li Zhou,Xieqiao Yan,Jun Guo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2017.35.15_suppl.e21017

IF: 45.3

2017-01-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:e21017 Background: Vemurafenib has substantially impressive clinical efficacy in cutaneous melanoma (CM). However, compared with their cutaneous counterpart, acral melanoma (AM) and mucosal melanoma (MM) have distinct genetic patterns and worse prognosis. The efficacy and safety profiles of vemurafenib in AM and mm remain unclear. Methods: Clinical, pathological, and therapeutic data were collected and reviewed of patients (pts) with metastatic or unresectable BRAF-mutant AM and mm hospitalized and administrated vemurafenib during January 2011 and January 2017. Responses were evaluated by RECIST v1.1, survival data were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier survival curve, and adverse effects were assessed by CTCAE v4.0. Results: 24 pts were identified, 13 (54.2%) with AM, 11 (45.8%) with mm (1 patient without available radiology data). All 13 AM pts harbored BRAF V600E mutation (1 with simultaneous C-KIT E861K mutation); 10/11 (90.9%) mm pts carried BRAF V600E mutation (1 with simultaneous PDGFRA V824I mutation), 1/11 (9.1%) had BRAF D594N mutation. Median PFS were 5.4 (95%CI 3.5-8.7) and 4.5 (95%CI 1.5-15.0) months, median OS were 11.7 (95%CI 8.1-23.6) and 7.9 (95%CI 4.6-26.2) months; ORRs were 61.5% (8/13) and 40.0% (4/10), DCRs were 92.3% (12/13) and 90.0% (9/10) in AM and MM, respectively. Vemurafenib was well tolerated. The most common adverse effects (AEs) were hand-foot syndrome in AM and elevation of total cholesterol in MM, with the incidence of 23.1% (3/13) and 18.2% (2/11), respectively. Grade 3/4 AEs have not been observed. No patient discontinued vemurafenib because of treatment related toxicity. Conclusions: Vemurafenib yields substantial response in pts with AM and MM. Compared with in CM, vemurafenib has similar efficacy and safety profiles in BRAF-mutant AM and MM.
Melanoma trials that defined surgical management: Brief overview of current/upcoming adjuvant/neoadjuvant trials

Ankit Patel,Joseph Skitzki

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.26746

2021-12-13

Journal of Surgical Oncology

Abstract:Adjuvant systemic therapy for cutaneous melanoma has experienced practice-changing shifts over the last decade. The successful results of immunotherapies and targeted therapies in the metastatic setting have allowed for investigative trials of the same therapies in the adjuvant and now neoadjuvant setting, with the potential for improved clinical outcomes in patients with high risk resected Stage III and IV melanoma.

oncology,surgery
Safety and immunologic correlates of Melanoma GVAX, a GM-CSF secreting allogeneic melanoma cell vaccine administered in the adjuvant setting

Evan J Lipson,William H Sharfman,Shuming Chen,Tracee L McMiller,Theresa S Pritchard,January T Salas,Susan Sartorius-Mergenthaler,Irwin Freed,Sowmya Ravi,Hao Wang,Brandon Luber,Janice Davis Sproul,Janis M Taube,Drew M Pardoll,Suzanne L Topalian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-015-0572-3

2015-07-05

Abstract:Background: Limited adjuvant treatment options exist for patients with high-risk surgically resected melanoma. This first-in-human study investigated the safety, tolerability and immunologic correlates of Melanoma GVAX, a lethally irradiated granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF)-secreting allogeneic whole-cell melanoma vaccine, administered in the adjuvant setting. Methods: Patients with stage IIB-IV melanoma were enrolled following complete surgical resection. Melanoma GVAX was administered intradermally once every 28 days for four cycles, at 5E7 cells/cycle (n = 3), 2E8 cells/cycle (n = 9), or 2E8 cells/cycle preceded by cyclophosphamide 200 mg/m(2) to deplete T regulatory cells (Tregs; n = 8). Blood was collected before each vaccination and at 4 and 6 months after treatment initiation for immunologic studies. Vaccine injection site biopsies and additional blood samples were obtained 2 days after the 1st and 4th vaccines. Results: Among 20 treated patients, 18 completed 4 vaccinations. Minimal treatment-related toxicity was observed. One patient developed vitiligo and patches of white hair during the treatment and follow-up period. Vaccine site biopsies demonstrated complex inflammatory infiltrates, including significant increases in eosinophils and PD-1+ lymphocytes from cycle 1 to cycle 4 (P < 0.05). Serum GM-CSF concentrations increased significantly in a dose-dependent manner 48 h after vaccination (P = 0.0086), accompanied by increased numbers of activated circulating monocytes (P < 0.0001) and decreased percentages of myeloid-derived suppressor cells among monocytes (CD14+ , CD11b+ , HLA-DR low or negative; P = 0.002). Cyclophosphamide did not affect numbers of circulating Tregs. No significant changes in anti-melanoma immunity were observed in peripheral T cells by interferon-gamma ELIPSOT, or immunoglobulins by serum Western blotting. Conclusion: Melanoma GVAX was safe and tolerable in the adjuvant setting. Pharmacodynamic testing revealed complex vaccine site immune infiltrates and an immune-reactive profile in circulating monocytic cell subsets. These findings support the optimization of Melanoma GVAX with additional monocyte and dendritic cell activators, and the potential development of combinatorial treatment regimens with synergistic agents. Trial registration: NCT01435499.
Where Are We Now with Oncolytic Viruses in Melanoma and Nonmelanoma Skin Malignancies?

George Nassief,Angela Anaeme,Karen Moussa,David Chen,George Ansstas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ph17070916

IF: 4.6

2024-07-10

Pharmaceuticals

Abstract:Skin cancer prognosis has greatly improved recently due to the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). However, many patients with advanced skin cancer still experience immunotherapy resistance and disease progression during ICI treatment, thus calling for novel therapeutics which address this treatment gap. Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) has gained popularity in recent years as a viable treatment option for patients with skin cancer. In preclinical studies, T-VEC demonstrated both a direct anti-tumor effect in injected lesions as well as a systemic immune-mediated effect in non-injected lesions, which could pose additional benefits when combined with ICI therapy. Following promising results from the OPTiM trial, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the usage of T-VEC as a single agent in advanced melanoma. However, the MASTERKEY-265 trial demonstrated that adding T-VEC to pembrolizumab did not offer additional clinical benefit in patients with melanoma. Nevertheless, the promising efficacy of T-VEC and its approval by the FDA helped oncolytic viruses (OVs) gain wide attention in cancer therapy, and extensive research has been undertaken to evaluate the usage of OVs in other tumors such as sarcomas and breast cancers. Here, we provide a review of clinical results from 2022 to 2024 that investigate the efficacy and safety of OVs as a monotherapy or in combination with other therapies in skin malignancies. Furthermore, we delineate the current limitations in OV utilization and outline future directions to enhance clinical outcomes for patients with skin malignancies receiving OV-based therapies.

pharmacology & pharmacy,chemistry, medicinal
Neoadjuvant nivolumab + T-VEC combination therapy for resectable early stage or metastatic (IIIB-IVM1a) melanoma with injectable disease: study protocol of the NIVEC trial

Maartje W. Rohaan,Emma H. A. Stahlie,Viola Franke,Lisanne P. Zijlker,Sofie Wilgenhof,Vincent van der Noort,Alexander C. J. van Akkooi,John B. A. G. Haanen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-022-09896-4

IF: 4.638

2022-08-05

BMC Cancer

Abstract:Trials investigating neoadjuvant treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in patients with melanoma have shown high clinical and pathologic response rates. Treatment with talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC), a modified herpes simplex virus type-1 (HSV-1), is approved for patients with unresectable stage IIIB-IVM1a melanoma and has the potential to make tumors more susceptible for ICI. Combination ICI and intralesional T-VEC has already been investigated in patients with unresectable stage IIIB-IV disease, however, no data is available yet on the potential benefit of this combination therapy in neoadjuvant setting.

oncology
Local Therapy in the Management of Mucosal Melanoma: An NCDB Analysis

R.A. Ishteiwy,M. Townsend,E. Cash,Z. Liu,M. Kong,D. Crawford,T. Gupta,L. Kahloon,N.E. Dunlap

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.01.183

IF: 8.013

2024-04-01

International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics

Abstract:Purpose/Objective(s) Mucosal melanoma of the head and neck is a rare and deadly disease. The optimal treatment for mucosal melanoma remains uncertain, and there is no consensus on the most effective treatment approach, including the extent of surgical resection, the use of adjuvant therapy, and the role of immunotherapy. Current controversies and unknowns about disease treatment and outcomes stem from the rarity of mucosal melanoma, the lack of large-scale clinical trials, and the heterogeneity of the disease. This study aims to determine the survival benefit of immunotherapy, surgery and radiation in setting of mucosal melanoma. Materials/Methods We extracted data from NCDB database with histology codes (ICD-O 2 melanoma codes M872–M879) for patients with mucosal melanoma diagnosed from year 2000-2020 with a total sample size 3937. The patients’ characteristics were summarized by median and interquartile range (IQR) for a continuous variable and by frequency and percentage for a categorical variable. We considered the different combinations of treatments in terms of surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and immunotherapy. The outcome variables are (1) time to death since diagnosis, and (2) death. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were used. The log-rank test was employed to compare the survival distributions of the different treatment groups. Cox Proportional Hazard Regression model was performed to evaluate the association between the treatment combinations and survival outcome, adjusting the clinical and demographic variables (e.g., sex, age, stage of cancer). Hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were reported. Mortality rate for each treatment combination was also reported, and the multiple logistic regression model was used to examine the effect of different treatment on mortality. Results The median overall survival (OS) time for all patients diagnosed with mucosal melanoma was 25.7 months. Among them, 50.1% were males, 9.4% younger than 50 years old and 50.6% older than 70, 88.7% white, and 57.6% with Medicare. Cox proportional hazard model showed that the survival time is significantly associated with the following factors: age group 60-70 (HR 1.25, 95%CI [1.06, 1.48]) and >70 (HR 1.83, 95%CI [1.56, 2.13]) comparing with age group <50. Male sex increased the risk of death (HR 1.13, 95%CI[1.04, 1.22]). Surgery decreased the risk of death (HR 0.49, 95%CI [0.44, 0.55]). The use of radiation and immunotherapy had no association with survival. Chemotherapy increased the risk of death (HR 1.33, 95%CI [1.18,1.51]), and was associated with more advanced age and high tumor stage. The multiple logistic regression model showed similar impact of these factors on mortality. Conclusion Treatment paradigms for mucosal melanoma vary widely. Local therapy remains important for improved survival. Further analyses should be done to explore the benefits of multi-modality treatment.

oncology,radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging
Mucosal Melanoma Clinical Management and Prognostic Implications: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Laia Clavero-Rovira,Álvaro Gómez-Tomás,Patricia Bassas-Freixas,Domingo Bodet,Berta Ferrer,Javier Hernández-Losa,Eva Muñoz-Couselo,Assumpció Pérez-Benavente,Vicente García-Patos,Carla Ferrándiz-Pulido

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16010227

2024-01-04

Cancers

Abstract:Mucosal melanoma (MM) is an uncommon melanoma subtype affecting mucosal surfaces of the head and neck, anorectal region, and vulvovaginal area. We aimed to present our experience at a tertiary-level hospital regarding MM diagnosis, management, monitoring of progression, mutations, and outcome predictors. We performed a registry-based cohort study including MM cases diagnosed from 2012 to 2022 and retrospectively characterized somatic mutations on BRAF, NRAS and c-KIT. We employed Kaplan–Meier curves, log-rank tests, and Cox regression analysis to explore prognostic factors and survival outcomes in a cohort of 35 patients, mainly women (63%) with a median age of 70 years. Predominantly, MM occurred in the vulvovaginal region (48.6%). At diagnosis, 28.6% had lymph node involvement, and 31.4% also had distant metastasis. Mutations in BRAF and c-KIT were identified in 3/35 (9%) and 2/6 patients (33%), respectively. Surgery was performed in 71.4% of patients, and most received systemic treatment (65.7%). Lower disease stage, thinner Breslow depth, and surgical resection were associated with improved overall survival. Notably, age, sex, radiotherapy, and BRAF mutant status did not affect survival. Standard management typically involves immunotherapy. Cases with BRAF or c-KIT mutations may be considered for targeted therapies. Unfortunately, MM prognosis remains unfavorable, with a less than 50% survival rate at 2 years.

oncology
Clinical Experience from a Single Italian Center

Rosa Falcone,Sofia Verkhovskaia,Francesca Romana Di Pietro,Giulia Poti,Tonia Samela,Maria Luigia Carbone,Maria Francesca Morelli,Albina Rita ZappalÃ,Zorika Christiana di Rocco,Roberto Morese,Gabriele Piesco,Paolo Marchetti,Cristina Maria Failla,Federica De Galitiis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31010042

2024-01-22

Current Oncology

Abstract:(1) Background: Mucosal melanoma (MM) is a rare tumor, accounting for about 1% of all diagnosed melanomas. The etiology and pathogenesis of this tumor are unknown. It is characterized by an aggressive phenotype with poor prognosis and a low response rate to approved treatments. (2) Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical features, treatments and outcomes of patients diagnosed with MM from different sub-sites (head and neck, gynecological and gastro-intestinal region) between 2013 and 2023 at our Institute. Survival times were estimated with the Kaplan–Meier method. Multivariate Cox regression was used to test the independence of significant factors in univariate analysis. (3) Results: Twenty-five patients were included in this study; the disease was equally distributed among females and males. The median age at diagnosis was 74 years old. The majority had MM originating from the head and neck (56%), particularly from the nasal cavity. BRAF V600 mutations were detected in 16% of the study population, limited to gastro-intestinal and gynecological MM. At diagnosis, at least half the patients (52%) had the disease located also at distant sites. The median overall survival (OS) in the whole study population was 22 months, with a longer OS for patients diagnosed at an early stage (38 months, p < 0.001). Longer OSs were reported for head and neck MM compared to other anatomic regions (0.06). Surgery of the primary tumor and radiotherapy were performed in 64% and 36% of the study population, respectively. Radiotherapy was performed only in head and neck MM. At multivariate analysis, the single factor that showed a reduced hazard ratio for death was radiotherapy. (4) Conclusions: The overall survival of MM from different sub-sites treated at our Italian Institution was 22 months, with better outcomes for early-stage disease and head and neck MM. Performing radiotherapy may have a protective effect on OS for head and neck MM. New treatment strategies are urgently needed to improve the outcome in this disease.

oncology
Neoadjuvant Therapy in Advanced Melanoma.

Shalana O'Brien,Jimson Dsouza,Shirly Shohat,Neha Goel,Sanjay S. Reddy,Anthony J. Olszanski,Sujana Movva,Hong Wu,Jian Qin Yu,Miriam Lango,Jeffrey M. Farma

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2018.36.15_suppl.e21555

IF: 45.3

2018-01-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:e21555 Background: Treatment paradigms in advanced melanoma are evolving with the success of new targeted and immunotherapies. The purpose of this study is to explore the outcomes associated with neoadjuvant therapy for advanced melanoma at our institution. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients diagnosed with melanoma who received neoadjuvant immunotherapy for locally and regionally advanced primary or recurrent disease at an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. Demographic information, primary tumor staging and characteristics, treatment regimen, clinical and pathological responses, and radiologic reports were collected. Results: The analytic cohort consisted of 14 patients who either completed or are receiving neoadjuvant immunotherapy. 11 have a cutaneous primary and 3 have an unknown primary. Treatment regimens consisted of PD-1 inhibitor (n = 9), TVEC (n = 1), combination of PD-1 inhibitor and TVEC (n = 3) and combination of CCR2 and PD-1 inhibitors (n = 1). Prior therapy included Ipilimumab in 3 patients and radiation in 2 patients. 5 patients received neoadjuvant therapy for primary disease and 9 patients received neoadjuvant therapy for recurrent disease. 7 patients had overall clinical response (5 complete response (CR), 2 partial response (PR)), 3 patients had stable disease (SD) and 3 patients had progression. 8 patients underwent surgical resection after therapy, 4 of these patients had clinically SD, 1 patient had a PR and 3 patients had progression. Surgeries performed included excision of 2 primary and 2 recurrent sites, 5 lymph node dissections and 1 resection of in-transit disease. Median time to surgery from the start of immunotherapy was 7.5 months (range 0 - 14). 5 patients had a partial and 3 patients had a complete pathological response. 2 patients continued therapy after resection. An additional 6 patients are currently receiving immunotherapy with intent to undergo resection. Median follow-up time from diagnosis was 27 months (range 10 - 95). Conclusions: At our tertiary referral center select patients with locally and regionally advanced melanoma are considered for neoadjuvant immunotherapy with an overall response in 50% of patients. Further studies are currently pending which will likely validate our results.
1104PPREDICTORS OF TREATMENT (TX) RESPONSE AND PROGRESSION IN BRAF V600E METASTATIC MELANOMA (MM) PATIENTS (PTS) WITH BRAIN METASTASES (BM) RECEIVING VEMURAFENIB (VEM) IN A REAL-WORLD SETTING

geoffrey t gibney,g gauthier,charles ayas,philip galebach,e wu,yeun mi yim,sarang abhyankar,carolina reyes,a guerin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdu344.20

2014-01-01

Abstract:Aim: mM pts with BM are associated with poor prognosis. Selective BRAF inhibitors may have a significant role in the tx of BM but data are limited. This study investigates predictors of intracranial tx response and intracranial progression among BRAFV600E mM pts with BM receiving vem in a real-word setting.
A Phase II Study of Vorolanib (CM082) in Combination with Toripalimab (JS001) in Patients with Advanced Mucosal Melanoma.

Lu Si,Xinan Sheng,Lili Mao,Caili Li,Xuan Wang,Xue Bai,Zhong Hui Qi,Zhihong Chi,Chuanliang Cui,Bin Lian,Bixia Tang,Xieqiao Yan,Li Zhou,Siming Li,Rong Duan,Huayan Xu,Li Mao,Lieming Ding,Jun Guo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2020.38.15_suppl.10040

IF: 45.3

2020-01-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:10040 Background: Vorolanib (CM082) is a multi-target tyrosine kinase inhibitor including VEGF, PDGF, c-kit, and Flt-3. Toripalimab (JS001) is a humanized IgG4 mAb against programmed death-1 (PD-1) with clinical activity in metastasis melanoma but not in its mucosal subtype. In this phase II study (NCT03602547), we investigated the safety and efficacy of CM082 in combination with JS001 in patients (pts) with advanced mucosal melanoma. Methods: The study enrolled pts from 18 to 75 years-old with histologically confirmed metastatic mucosal melanoma, ECOG PS 0-1, no prior systemic anti-cancer treatment. Eligible pts were treated with CM082 tablet (150 or 200 mg once daily) combined with JS001 (240mg every 2 weeks, IV, Q2W) until confirmed disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Clinical response was evaluated every 8 week. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) using RECIST v1.1. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR), duration of remission (DOR), and time to first remission (TTR) according to RECIST v1.1 and iRECIST. The safety was also assessed. Results: Between July 2018 and April 12, 2019, 40 pts (19 pts in 150mg group; 21 pts in 200mg group) were enrolled and 38 pts were evaluable for tumor response (150mg n = 18, 200mg n = 20), with 4 (22.2%) confirmed partial response (PR), 6 (33.3%) stable disease (SD) and 8 (44.4%) progression disease (PD) in the 150mg CM082 group; 3 (15%) PRs (including 2 unconfirmed), 10 (50%) SD, and 7 (35%) PD were reported in the 200mg CM082 group. Tumors shrank in 10 pts (56%) in the 150mg group and 10 pts (50%) in the 200mg group. At data cut-off (November 28, 2019), 29 pts had PFS events (150mg n = 12; 200mg n = 17). The median PFS was 5.7 (95% CI 2.0, NE) months and 5.6 (1.9, 7.7) months in the two groups, respectively. The most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were grade 1 or 2, including leukopenia, elevated LDH, increased ALT, neutropenia, increased AST, and elevated GGT. Common grade 3 or higher adverse events ( > 10%) were increased ALT (12 pts, 30%), increased AST (11 pts, 27.5%), neutropenia (6 pts, 15%) and elevated GGT (6 pts, 15%). Eight pts had 9 serious AEs (SAEs). The study is still ongoing and more data will be presented in the future. Conclusions: PFS benefit was observed in both 150mg and 200mg subgroups. This study demonstrated potentially improved efficacy with predictable toxicities of CM082 in combination with JS001 therapy, which may be an effective treatment option for pts with advanced mucosal melanoma. Clinical trial information: NCT03602547.
Primary analysis of a phase 2, open-label, multicenter trial of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) plus pembrolizumab (pembro) for the treatment (Tx) of patients (pts) with advanced melanoma (MEL) who progressed on prior anti–PD-1 therapy: MASTERKEY-115.

Brian Gastman,Caroline Robert,Helen Gogas,Piotr Rutkowski,Georgina V. Long,Marya F. Chaney,Harshada Joshi,Yu-Lin Lin,Wendy Snyder,Jason Alan Chesney

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2022.40.16_suppl.9518

IF: 45.3

2022-06-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:9518 Background: Despite advances in anti–PD-1–based Tx for MEL, an unmet need remains for immunotherapy failure in advanced metastatic or unresectable MEL. Also, there is a growing population of pts who received adjuvant anti–PD-1 and recurred; yet trials to address this population are lacking. Combination Tx with T-VEC, an oncolytic viral intratumoral Tx designed to produce GM-CSF, and pembro, an anti–PD-1 agent, may overcome immunotherapy failure. We report the MASTERKEY-115 primary analysis on the efficacy and safety of T-VEC + pembro in pts with advanced MEL who had progressive disease (PD) on prior anti–PD-1. Methods: This open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase 2 study (NCT04068181) enrolled pts at 26 international sites (Jan 2020‒Feb 2021). Cohorts 1 and 2, primary and acquired resistance, respectively, received anti–PD-1 in a locally recurrent or metastatic setting and had PD within 12 wks of the last anti–PD-1 dose. Cohorts 3 and 4 included only pts who received adjuvant anti–PD-1 and were disease-free for < 6 mos (Cohort 3) or ≥ 6 mos (Cohort 4) before confirmed PD. Eligible pts had histologically confirmed unresectable or metastatic stage IIIB–IVM1d MEL, measurable and injectable disease, ECOG PS 0/1, and progressed on anti–PD-1 directly before enrollment. T-VEC at standard dosage and pembro 200 mg were given Q3W. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). Key secondary endpoints were complete response (CR) rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and safety. Tx decisions were per modified immune-related response criteria (irRECIST). Results: 72 pts (median age, 65 y) were enrolled. Of the 71 evaluable pts, 37 (52.1%) had stage IVM1b‒d disease, 30 (42.3%) had confirmed PD-L1–positive tumor (CPS ≥ 1%), 20 (28.2%) had a BRAF V600 mutation, and 21 (29.6%) had LDH > 1ULN. At data cutoff (Aug 2021), 47 (65.3%) pts remained on study. ORR was 0%, 6.7%, 40%, and 46.7% in cohorts 1–4, respectively (table). Any-grade Tx-related adverse events (TRAEs) were reported in 54 (76.1%) pts; the most common were pyrexia (29.6%), fatigue, and influenza-like illness (15.5% each). Grade ≥ 3 TRAEs occurred in 9 (12.7%) pts. Conclusions: T-VEC + pembro showed manageable safety in pts with advanced MEL after anti–PD-1 failure; the promising ORR observed in pts who progressed on prior adjuvant anti–PD-1 warrants further analysis. Clinical trial information: NCT04068181. [Table: see text]

oncology
Beyond the Scalpel: Advancing Strategic Approaches and Targeted Therapies in Nonexcisable Melanomas

Vivian Li,Kelly Frasier,Julia Vinagolu-Baur,Olivia Chapman,Alexandra Loperfito,Kathleen Daly,Viktoria Taranto

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/2167176

2024-08-27

Abstract:Melanoma in challenging anatomical locations such as the face, acral surfaces, and mucosal areas presents unique hurdles for surgical excision. This review examines alternative nonsurgical treatment modalities in the context of these complexities, addressing the gaps in current guidelines and the varied efficacy of existing therapies. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The review focuses on peer-reviewed articles discussing nonsurgical treatment options for melanoma in complex anatomical locations. Articles were screened by three independent researchers, ensuring a broad analysis of topical agents, immunotherapies, radiotherapies, and targeted therapies. The review highlights significant advancements in localized treatments such as imiquimod and intralesional therapy with talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC), which show promise in managing nonexcisable melanomas. BRAF and MEK inhibitors, as well as checkpoint inhibitors targeting CTLA-4 and PD-1/PD-L1 pathways, demonstrate improved survival rates but pose challenges with resistance and systemic side effects. Radiotherapy serves as an adjunctive strategy due to melanoma's inherent radioresistant properties. Despite advancements, there is a notable absence of comprehensive, evidence-based protocols to guide the treatment of melanoma in these critical areas. This paper underscores the need for standardized treatment guidelines that account for the efficacy, side effects, and psychosocial impacts of therapies. Future research should focus on refining existing treatments and exploring innovative modalities to enhance patient outcomes in the management of nonexcisable melanomas. Comprehensive guidelines and long-term efficacy studies are essential to optimize care and improve the quality of life for patients afflicted with melanoma in challenging anatomical locations.
The TGFβ type I receptor kinase inhibitor vactosertib in combination with pomalidomide in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: a phase 1b trial

Ehsan Malek,Priyanka S Rana,Muthulekha Swamydas,Michael Daunov,Masaru Miyagi,Elena Murphy,James J Ignatz-Hoover,Leland Metheny,Seong Jin Kim,James J Driscoll

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-51442-2

2024-08-27

Abstract:Functional blockade of the transforming growth factor-beta (TGFβ) signalling pathway improves the efficacy of cytotoxic and immunotherapies. Here, we conducted a phase 1b study (ClinicalTrials.gov., NCT03143985) to determine the primary endpoints of safety, tolerability, and maximal tolerated dose (200 mg twice daily) for the orally-available TGFβ type I receptor kinase inhibitor vactosertib in combination with pomalidomide in relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients who had received ≥2 lines of chemoimmunotherapy. Secondary endpoints demonstrated sustained clinical responses, favorable pharmacokinetic parameters and a 6-month progression-free survival of 82%. Vactosertib combined with pomalidomide was well-tolerated at all dose levels and displayed a manageable adverse event profile. Exploratory analysis indicated that vactosertib co-treatment with pomalidomide also reduced TGFβ levels in patient bone marrow as well as the level of CD8+ T-cells that expressed the immunoinhibitory marker PD-1. In vitro experiments indicated that vactosertib+pomalidomide co-treatment decreased the viability of MM cell lines and patient tumor cells, and increased CD8+ T-cell cytotoxic activity. Vactosertib is a safe therapeutic that demonstrates tumor-intrinsic activity and can overcome immunosuppressive challenges within the tumor microenvironment to reinvigorate T-cell fitness. Vactosertib offers promise to improve immunotherapeutic responses in heavily-pretreated MM patients refractory to conventional agents.
Phase III safety study of rituximab administered as a 90-minute infusion in patients with previously untreated diffuse large B-cell and follicular lymphoma

S. Dakhil,R. Hermann,M. Schreeder,S. Gregory,M. Monte,Kevin Windsor,D. Hurst,A. Chai,M. Brewster,P. Richards

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/10428194.2013.877135

2014-01-29

Abstract:Abstract This phase III, multicenter, single-arm trial investigated the impact of 90 min rituximab infusions on infusion-related reactions (IRRs) in patients with untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or follicular lymphoma (FL). Patients received six or eight cycles of rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin and prednisone for DLBCL or plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine and prednisolone for FL. A total of 425 patients received the first rituximab infusion per standard guidelines; median duration 240 min. Patients who did not experience grade ≥ 3 IRRs received subsequent infusions over 90 min (363 patients). A total of 303 patients received ≥ 6 cycles of rituximab. Fifty-three patients withdrew after cycle 1; 10 for grade 3 or 4 IRRs and one for a grade 3 adverse event. During cycle 2, 139 patients had IRRs, including four grade 3 IRRs. A 90 min rituximab infusion is well tolerated and feasible for patients with DLBCL or FL who tolerate the first standard rate infusion.
Evaluating early intervention in smoldering myeloma clinical trials: a systematic review

Apoorva Kakkilaya,Aaron Trando,Edward R Scheffer Cliff,Hira Mian,Samer Al Hadidi,Muhammad Aziz,Aaron M Goodman,Ah-Reum Jeong,Wade L Smith,Amar H Kelkar,David A Russler-Germain,Nikita Mehra,Rajshekhar Chakraborty,Morie A Gertz,Ghulam Rehman Mohyuddin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyae219

2024-09-05

The Oncologist

Abstract:Abstract Background Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), an asymptomatic precursor of multiple myeloma (MM), carries a variable risk of progression to MM. There is little consensus on the efficacy or optimal timing of treatment in SMM. We systematically reviewed the landscape of all clinical trials in SMM. We compared the efficacy of treatment regimens studied in SMM to results from these regimens when used in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), to determine whether the data suggest deeper responses in SMM versus NDMM. Methods All prospective interventional clinical trials for SMM, including published studies, meeting abstracts, and unpublished trials listed on ClinicalTrials.gov up to April 1, 2023, were identified. Trial-related variables were captured, including treatment strategy and efficacy results. Relevant clinical endpoints were defined as overall survival (OS) and quality of life. Results Among 45 SMM trials identified, 38 (84.4%) assessed active myeloma drugs, while 7 (15.6%) studied bone-modifying agents alone. Of 18 randomized trials in SMM, only one (5.6%) had a primary endpoint of OS; the most common primary endpoint was progression-free survival (n = 7, 38.9%). Among 32 SMM trials with available results, 9 (28.1%) met their prespecified primary endpoint, of which 5 were single-arm studies. Six treatment regimens were tested in both SMM and NDMM; 5 regimens yielded a lower rate of very good partial response rate or better (≥VGPR) in SMM compared to the corresponding NDMM trial (32% vs 63%, 43% vs 53%, 40% vs 63%, 86% vs 89%, 92% vs 95%, and 94% vs 87%, respectively). Conclusion In this systematic review of all prospective interventional clinical trials in SMM, we found significant variability in trial design, including randomization status, primary endpoints, and types of intervention used. Despite the statistical limitations, comparison of treatment regimens revealed no compelling evidence that the treatment is more effective when introduced early in SMM compared to NDMM.

oncology

Clinical Trials with VMO for Melanoma

Volumetric-modulated Arc Therapy Using Multicriteria Optimization for Body and Extremity Sarcoma.

Bortezomib, Melphalan, and Prednisone with or Without Daratumumab in Transplant-ineligible Asian Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: the Phase 3 OCTANS Study.

A randomized, controlled, multicenter, phase 3 study of vusolimogene oderparepvec (VO) combined with nivolumab vs treatment of physician’s choice in patients with advanced melanoma that has progressed on anti–PD-1 and anti–CTLA-4 therapy (IGNYTE-3).

Efficacy and Tolerability of Vemurafenib in BRAF-mutant Acral and Mucosal Melanoma.

Melanoma trials that defined surgical management: Brief overview of current/upcoming adjuvant/neoadjuvant trials

Safety and immunologic correlates of Melanoma GVAX, a GM-CSF secreting allogeneic melanoma cell vaccine administered in the adjuvant setting

Where Are We Now with Oncolytic Viruses in Melanoma and Nonmelanoma Skin Malignancies?

Neoadjuvant nivolumab + T-VEC combination therapy for resectable early stage or metastatic (IIIB-IVM1a) melanoma with injectable disease: study protocol of the NIVEC trial

Local Therapy in the Management of Mucosal Melanoma: An NCDB Analysis

Mucosal Melanoma Clinical Management and Prognostic Implications: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Clinical Experience from a Single Italian Center

Neoadjuvant Therapy in Advanced Melanoma.

1104PPREDICTORS OF TREATMENT (TX) RESPONSE AND PROGRESSION IN BRAF V600E METASTATIC MELANOMA (MM) PATIENTS (PTS) WITH BRAIN METASTASES (BM) RECEIVING VEMURAFENIB (VEM) IN A REAL-WORLD SETTING

A Phase II Study of Vorolanib (CM082) in Combination with Toripalimab (JS001) in Patients with Advanced Mucosal Melanoma.

Primary analysis of a phase 2, open-label, multicenter trial of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) plus pembrolizumab (pembro) for the treatment (Tx) of patients (pts) with advanced melanoma (MEL) who progressed on prior anti–PD-1 therapy: MASTERKEY-115.

Beyond the Scalpel: Advancing Strategic Approaches and Targeted Therapies in Nonexcisable Melanomas

The TGFβ type I receptor kinase inhibitor vactosertib in combination with pomalidomide in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: a phase 1b trial

Phase III safety study of rituximab administered as a 90-minute infusion in patients with previously untreated diffuse large B-cell and follicular lymphoma

Evaluating early intervention in smoldering myeloma clinical trials: a systematic review