Overall Survival Benefit with Tebentafusp in Metastatic Uveal Melanoma

Background: Uveal melanoma is a disease that is distinct from cutaneous melanoma, with a low tumor mutational burden and a 1-year overall survival of approximately 50% in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma. Data showing a proven overall survival benefit with a systemic treatment are lacking. Tebentafusp is a bispecific protein consisting of an affinity-enhanced T-cell receptor fused to an anti-CD3 effector that can redirect T cells to target glycoprotein 100-positive cells. Methods: In this open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned previously untreated HLA-A*02:01-positive patients with metastatic uveal melanoma in a 2:1 ratio to receive tebentafusp (tebentafusp group) or the investigator's choice of therapy with single-agent pembrolizumab, ipilimumab, or dacarbazine (control group), stratified according to the lactate dehydrogenase level. The primary end point was overall survival. Results: A total of 378 patients were randomly assigned to either the tebentafusp group (252 patients) or the control group (126 patients). Overall survival at 1 year was 73% in the tebentafusp group and 59% in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37 to 0.71; P<0.001) in the intention-to-treat population. Progression-free survival was also significantly higher in the tebentafusp group than in the control group (31% vs. 19% at 6 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.94; P = 0.01). The most common treatment-related adverse events in the tebentafusp group were cytokine-mediated events (due to T-cell activation) and skin-related events (due to glycoprotein 100-positive melanocytes), including rash (83%), pyrexia (76%), and pruritus (69%). These adverse events decreased in incidence and severity after the first three or four doses and infrequently led to discontinuation of the trial treatment (2%). No treatment-related deaths were reported. Conclusions: Treatment with tebentafusp resulted in longer overall survival than the control therapy among previously untreated patients with metastatic uveal melanoma. (Funded by Immunocore; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03070392; EudraCT number, 2015-003153-18.). Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society

Three-Year Overall Survival with Tebentafusp in Metastatic Uveal Melanoma.

BackgroundTebentafusp, a T-cell receptor-bispecific molecule that targets glycoprotein 100 and CD3, is approved for adult patients who are positive for HLA-A*02:01 and have unresectable or metastatic uveal melanoma. The primary analysis in the present phase 3 trial supported a long-term survival benefit associated with the drug.MethodsWe report the 3-year efficacy and safety results from our open-label, phase 3 trial in which HLA-A*02:01-positive patients with previously untreated metastatic uveal melanoma were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive tebentafusp (tebentafusp group) or the investigator's choice of therapy with pembrolizumab, ipilimumab, or dacarbazine (control group), with randomization stratified according to the lactate dehydrogenase level. The primary end point was overall survival.ResultsAt a minimum follow-up of 36 months, median overall survival was 21.6 months in the tebentafusp group and 16.9 months in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.54 to 0.87). The estimated percentage of patients surviving at 3 years was 27% in the tebentafusp group and 18% in the control group. The most common treatment-related adverse events of any grade in the tebentafusp group were rash (83%), pyrexia (76%), pruritus (70%), and hypotension (38%). Most tebentafusp-related adverse events occurred early during treatment, and no new adverse events were observed with long-term administration. The percentage of patients who discontinued treatment because of adverse events continued to be low in both treatment groups (2% in the tebentafusp group and 5% in the control group). No treatment-related deaths occurred.ConclusionsThis 3-year analysis supported a continued long-term benefit of tebentafusp for overall survival among adult HLA-A*02:01-positive patients with previously untreated metastatic uveal melanoma. (Funded by Immunocore; IMCgp100-202 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03070392; EudraCT number, 2015-003153-18.)

Durvalumab Plus Carboplatin/Paclitaxel Followed by Maintenance Durvalumab With or Without Olaparib as First-Line Treatment for Advanced Endometrial Cancer: The Phase III DUO-E Trial

PURPOSE Immunotherapy and chemotherapy combinations have shown activity in endometrial cancer, with greater benefit in mismatch repair (MMR)-deficient (dMMR) than MMR-proficient (pMMR) disease. Adding a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor may improve outcomes, especially in pMMR disease. METHODS This phase III, global, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial randomly assigned eligible patients with newly diagnosed advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer 1:1:1 to: carboplatin/paclitaxel plus durvalumab placebo followed by placebo maintenance (control arm); carboplatin/paclitaxel plus durvalumab followed by maintenance durvalumab plus olaparib placebo (durvalumab arm); or carboplatin/paclitaxel plus durvalumab followed by maintenance durvalumab plus olaparib (durvalumab + olaparib arm). The primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) in the durvalumab arm versus control and the durvalumab + olaparib arm versus control. RESULTS Seven hundred eighteen patients were randomly assigned. In the intention-to-treat population, statistically significant PFS benefit was observed in the durvalumab (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.89]; P = .003) and durvalumab + olaparib arms (HR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.43 to 0.69]; P < .0001) versus control. Prespecified, exploratory subgroup analyses showed PFS benefit in dMMR (HR [durvalumab v control], 0.42 [95% CI, 0.22 to 0.80]; HR [durvalumab + olaparib v control], 0.41 [95% CI, 0.21 to 0.75]) and pMMR subgroups (HR [durvalumab v control], 0.77 [95% CI, 0.60 to 0.97]; HR [durvalumab + olaparib v control] 0.57; [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.73]); and in PD-L1-positive subgroups (HR [durvalumab v control], 0.63 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.83]; HR [durvalumab + olaparib v control], 0.42 [95% CI, 0.31 to 0.57]). Interim overall survival results (maturity approximately 28%) were supportive of the primary outcomes (durvalumab v control: HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.56 to 1.07]; P = .120; durvalumab + olaparib v control: HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.83]; P = .003). The safety profiles of the experimental arms were generally consistent with individual agents. CONCLUSION Carboplatin/paclitaxel plus durvalumab followed by maintenance durvalumab with or without olaparib demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful PFS benefit in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer

Management of metastatic melanoma with new immunotherapy approaches beyond PD-1/CTLA-4 inhibitors.

If we may cure metastatic melanoma patients thanks to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), it is fair to say that around 2/3 of the patients present primary or secondary resistance to ICI. Therefore, progresses are needed and numerous new treatments are tested either alone or in combination with cytolytic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) or (PD)-1 blockade to overcome this resistance. In this review, we focused on new immunotherapeutic approaches studied in advanced melanoma previously treated by anti-PD-1 (Programmed cell Death 1 receptor) or anti-CTLA-4 antibodies. The different approaches have been classified based on 'the cancer immunity cycle'. These new strategies target either the T-cell priming and activation step, T-cell trafficking and tumor infiltration, or tumor antigen recognition by T-cell and tumor killing. Most of these novel strategies are based on mAbs targeting T-cell inhibitory or stimulatory coreceptors. The second main focus is based on modifying the tumor micro-environment. Combination strategies seem promising in few patients and suggest that a deeper understanding of the resistance in individual patients is mandatory to go further

Tamoxifen and ovarian function.

BACKGROUND: Some studies suggest that the clinical parameter "amenorrhea" is insufficient to define the menopausal status of women treated with chemotherapy or tamoxifen. In this study, we investigated and compared the ovarian function defined either by clinical or biological parameters in pre-menopausal breast cancer patients treated with tamoxifen administered as adjuvant therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 1999 and 2003, 138 premenopausal patients consecutively treated for early breast cancer were included. Sixty-eight received tamoxifen in monotherapy as the only adjuvant systemic treatment (Group I) and 70 were treated with tamoxifen after adjuvant chemotherapy (Group II). All patients had a confirmed premenopausal status based on clinical parameters and hormonal values at study entry. They were followed prospectively every 3 months for 3 years: menses data, physical examination and blood tests (LH, FSH, 17-beta-estradiol). Vaginal ultrasonography was carried out every 6 months. After 3 years, prospective evaluation was completed and monitoring of ovarian function was performed as usual in our institution (1x/year). All data were retrospectively evaluated in 2011. RESULTS: Three patients were excluded from the study in group I and 2 were excluded in group II. Patients were divided into 4 subgroups according to clinical data, i.e. menses patterns. These patterns were assessed by questionnaires. a: Regular menses (>10 cycles/year) b: Oligomenorrhea (5 to 9 cycles/year) c: Severe oligomenorrhea (1 to 4 cycles/year) d: Complete amenorrhea Estrogen levels did not appear to have any impact on disease-free survival rates after 3 or 8 years. FSH values were also documented and analyzed. They exhibited the same profile as estradiol values. CONCLUSIONS: Amenorrhea is an insufficient parameter to define menopausal status in patients receiving tamoxifen. Low estradiol levels must be coupled with other biological parameters to characterize endocrine status. These data are very important for the choice of endocrine therapy

Standard of care in 2021 for patients with ovarian cancer in Belgium

Ovarian cancer is often diagnosed at an advanced stage, which is associated with worse survival outcomes and more limited therapeutic options. Over the last years, knowledge regarding the molecular features of ovarian cancer has advanced considerably, enabling the development of several options for diagnosis and treatment in a patient-tailored approach. Identification of homologous recombination deficiency (such as mutations of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, or genomic instability) affecting DNA repair, has become essential in guiding treatment decisions, especially after the development of targeted agents. Therapeutic decisions take into consideration the cancer subtype, its molecular features and disease stage. Fundamental principles of good treatment for women with ovarian cancer include debulking surgery (to reduce the tumour to no residual disease whenever possible), along with appropriate systemic treatment (chemotherapy and targeted agents). To aid Belgian physicians in developing the best individual medical strategies for patients with primary and recurrent ovarian cancer, we present here standard of care applicable in Belgium, that also includes recently developed targeted agents and currently applicable reimbursement criteria

Disease-free survival and overall survival in group I and group II.

<p>Disease-free survival and overall survival in group I and group II.</p

Recommendations for skin cancer consultation and surgery during COVID-19 pandemic

SCOPUS: no.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Menses patterns.

<p>Menses patterns.</p