Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE: Brain metastasis is the major cause of mortality among melanoma patients. A molecular prognostic test that can reliably stratify patients at initial melanoma diagnosis by risk of developing brain metastasis may inform the clinical management of these patients. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We performed a retrospective, cohort-based study analyzing genome-wide and targeted microRNA expression profiling of primary melanoma tumors of three patient cohorts (n= 92, n= 119, n= 45) with extensive clinical follow up. We used Cox regression analysis to establish a microRNA-based signature that improves the ability of the current clinicopathologic staging system to predict the development of brain metastasis. RESULTS: Our analyses identified a 4-microRNA (miR-150-5p, miR-15b-5p, miR-16-5p, and miR-374b-3p) prognostic signature that, in combination with stage, distinguished primary melanomas that metastasized to the brain from non-recurrent and non-brain-metastatic primary tumors (training cohort: C-index=81.4%, validation cohort: C-index=67.4%, independent cohort: C-index=76.9%). Corresponding Kaplan-Meier curves of high- vs. low-risk patients displayed a clear separation in brain-metastasis-free and overall survival (training: p<0.001, p<0.001, validation: p=0.033, p=0.007, independent: p=0.021, p=0.022, respectively). Finally, of the microRNA in the prognostic model, we found that the expression of a key lymphocyte miRNA, miR-150-5p, which is less abundant in primary melanomas metastatic to brain, correlated with presence of CD45+ tumor infiltrating lymphocytes. CONCLUSIONS: A prognostic assay based on the described miRNA expression signature combined with the currently used staging criteria may improve accuracy of primary melanoma patient prognoses and aid clinical management of patients, including selection for adjuvant treatment or clinical trials of adjuvant therapies.

BACKGROUND: Patients with melanoma that progresses on ipilimumab and, if BRAFV600 mutant-positive, a BRAF or MEK inhibitor or both, have few treatment options. We assessed the efficacy and safety of two pembrolizumab doses versus investigator-choice chemotherapy in patients with ipilimumab-refractory melanoma. METHODS: We carried out a randomised phase 2 trial of patients aged 18 years or older from 73 hospitals, clinics, and academic medical centres in 12 countries who had confirmed progressive disease within 24 weeks after two or more ipilimumab doses and, if BRAFV600 mutant-positive, previous treatment with a BRAF or MEK inhibitor or both. Patients had to have resolution of all ipilimumab-related adverse events to grade 0-1 and prednisone 10 mg/day or less for at least 2 weeks, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and at least one measurable lesion to be eligible. Using a centralised interactive voice response system, we randomly assigned (1:1:1) patients in a block size of six to receive intravenous pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks or investigator-choice chemotherapy (paclitaxel plus carboplatin, paclitaxel, carboplatin, dacarbazine, or oral temozolomide). Randomisation was stratified by ECOG performance status, lactate dehydrogenase concentration, and BRAFV600 mutation status. Individual treatment assignment between pembrolizumab and chemotherapy was open label, but investigators and patients were masked to assignment of the dose of pembrolizumab. We present the primary endpoint at the prespecified second interim analysis of progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01704287. The study is closed to enrolment but continues to follow up and treat patients. FINDINGS: Between Nov 30, 2012, and Nov 13, 2013, we enrolled 540 patients: 180 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg, 181 to receive pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg, and 179 to receive chemotherapy. Based on 410 progression-free survival events, progression-free survival was improved in patients assigned to pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.45-0.73; p<0.0001) and those assigned to pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg (0.50, 0.39-0.64; p<0.0001) compared with those assigned to chemotherapy. 6-month progression-free survival was 34% (95% CI 27-41) in the pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg group, 38% (31-45) in the 10 mg/kg group, and 16% (10-22) in the chemotherapy group. Treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 20 (11%) patients in the pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg group, 25 (14%) in the pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg group, and 45 (26%) in the chemotherapy group. The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse event in the pembrolizumab groups was fatigue (two [1%] of 178 patients in the 2 mg/kg group and one [<1%] of 179 patients in the 10 mg/kg group, compared with eight [5%] of 171 in the chemotherapy group). Other treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events include generalised oedema and myalgia (each in two [1%] patients) in those given pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg; hypopituitarism, colitis, diarrhoea, decreased appetite, hyponatremia, and pneumonitis (each in two [1%]) in those given pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg; and anaemia (nine [5%]), fatigue (eight [5%]), neutropenia (six [4%]), and leucopenia (six [4%]) in those assigned to chemotherapy. INTERPRETATION: These findings establish pembrolizumab as a new standard of care for the treatment of ipilimumab-refractory melanoma. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme.

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

BACKGROUND: Due to high melanoma immunogenicity, germline genetic variants in immune pathways have been studied for association with melanoma prognosis. However, limited candidate selection, inadequate power, or lack of independent validation have hampered the reproducibility of these prior findings, preventing personalised clinical applicability in melanoma prognostication. Our objective was to assess the prognostic utility of genetic variants in immunomodulatory pathways for prediction of melanoma clinical outcomes. METHODS: We genotyped 72 tag single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 44 immunomodulatory genes in a population sample of 1022 melanoma patients and performed Cox regression analysis to test the association between SNPs and melanoma recurrence-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS). We have further investigated the most significant associations using a fine mapping strategy and followed with functional analyses in CD4+ T cells in a subset of 75 melanoma patients. RESULTS: The most significant associations were found with melanoma OS for rs3024493 in IL10 at chromosome 1q32.1 (heterozygous HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.86; p=0.0006), a variant previously shown to be linked with autoimmune conditions. Multiple additional SNPs at 1q32.1 were also nominally associated with OS confirming at least two independent association signals in this locus. In addition, we found rs3024493 associated with the downregulation of interleukin 10 (IL10) secretion in CD4+ T cells. CONCLUSIONS: We discovered novel associations of IL10 with melanoma survival at 1q32.1, suggesting this locus should be considered as a novel melanoma prognostic biomarker with potential for aiding melanoma patient management. Our findings also provide further support for an alternative role of IL10 in stimulation of anti-tumour immune response.

The incidence of cutaneous melanoma is rising faster than that of almost any other cancer in the United States. Acral lentiginous melanoma is a subtype of melanoma that involves the palms, soles, and nail beds. Although it is one of the rarer types of melanoma, it has a poorer prognosis than other more common subtypes. We describe a case of plantar acral melanoma in a 66-year-old woman that was initially misdiagnosed as a traumatic foot ulcer. We highlight this case to emphasize the importance of close observation and biopsy of ulcerative lesions of the foot that have atypical features or are refractory to standard treatment.