The RANK–RANKL axis : an opportunity for drug repurposing in cancer?

Drug repurposing offers advantages over traditional drug development in terms of cost, speed and improved patient outcomes. The receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa B (RANK) ligand (RANKL) inhibitor denosumab is approved for the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with advanced malignancies involving bone, including solid tumours and multiple myeloma. Following improved understanding of the role of RANK/RANKL in cancer biology, denosumab has already been repurposed as a treatment for giant cell tumour of bone. Here, we review the role of RANK/RANKL in tumourigenesis, including effects on tumour initiation, progression and metastasis and consider the impact of RANK/RANKL on tumour immunology and immune evasion. Finally, we look briefly at ongoing trials and future opportunities for therapeutic synergy when combining denosumab with anti-cancer agents such as immune checkpoint inhibitors

Frequency of breast cancer with hereditary risk features in Spain: Analysis from GEICAM “El Álamo III” retrospective study

Purpose: To determine the frequency of breast cancer (BC) patients with hereditary risk features in a wide retrospective cohort of patients in Spain. Methods: a retrospective analysis was conducted from 10, 638 BC patients diagnosed between 1998 and 2001 in the GEICAM registry “El Álamo III”, dividing them into four groups according to modified ESMO and SEOM hereditary cancer risk criteria: Sporadic breast cancer group (R0); Individual risk group (IR); Familial risk group (FR); Individual and familial risk group (IFR) with both individual and familial risk criteria. Results: 7, 641 patients were evaluable. Of them, 2, 252 patients (29.5%) had at least one hereditary risk criteria, being subclassified in: FR 1.105 (14.5%), IR 970 (12.7%), IFR 177 (2.3%). There was a higher frequency of newly diagnosed metastatic patients in the IR group (5.1% vs 3.2%, p = 0.02). In contrast, in RO were lower proportion of big tumors (> T2) (43.8% vs 47.4%, p = 0.023), nodal involvement (43.4% vs 48.1%, p = 0.004) and lower histological grades (20.9% G3 for the R0 vs 29.8%) when compared to patients with any risk criteria. Conclusions: Almost three out of ten BC patients have at least one hereditary risk cancer feature that would warrant further genetic counseling. Patients with hereditary cancer risk seems to be diagnosed with worse prognosis factors

Five-Year Survival with Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma

945 patients with inoperable stage III or stage IV melanoma were randomised to ipilimumab plus nivolumab (ipi/nivo)(314), nivolumab (nivo) (316) or ipilimumab (Ipilimumab) (315). The minimum follow up from randomisation of the last patient was 60 months. Objective responses were seen in 58% of Ipilimumab/nivo, 45% of nivo and 19% of Ipilimumab patients. Complete responses were seen in 22% (Ipilimumab/nivo), 19% (nivo) and 6% (Ipi) patients. Overall survival (OS) at five years was 52% (Ipilimumab/nivo), 44% (nivo) and 26% (Ipi). In patients with and without bras mutations the OS at five years was 60 & 48% (Ipilimumab/nivo), 46 & 43% (nivo) and 30 & 25% (Ipi) respectively. OS curves were flat beyond three years indicating that these treatments lead to sustained long term survival of these patients

SEOM clinical guideline for the management of malignant melanoma (2017).

All melanoma suspected patients must be confirmed histologically and resected. Sentinel node biopsy must be done when tumor is over 1 mm or if less with high-risk factors. Adjuvant therapy with interferon could be offered for patients with high-risk melanoma and in selected cases radiotherapy can be added. Metastatic melanoma treatment is guided by mutational BRAF status. BRAF wild type patients must receive anti-PD1 containing therapy and BRAF mutated patients BRAF/MEK inhibitors or anti-PD1 containing therapy. Up to 10 years follow up is reasonable for melanoma patients with dermatologic examinations and physical exams

ESMO consensus conference recommendations on the management of locoregional melanoma: under the auspices of the ESMO Guidelines Committee

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) held a consensus conference on melanoma on 5-7 September 2019 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The conference included a multidisciplinary panel of 32 leading experts in the management of melanoma. The aim of the conference was to develop recommendations on topics that are not covered in detail in the current ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline and where available evidence is either limited or conflicting. The main topics identified for discussion were: (1) the management of locoregional disease; (2) targeted versus immunotherapies in the adjuvant setting; (3) targeted versus immunotherapies for the first-line treatment of metastatic melanoma; (4) when to stop immunotherapy or targeted therapy in the metastatic setting; and (5) systemic versus local treatment for brain metastases. The expert panel was divided into 5 working groups in order to each address questions relating to one of the five topics outlined above. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the working groups and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This manuscript presents the results relating to the management of locoregional melanoma, including findings from the expert panel discussions, consensus recommendations and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation. All participants approved the final manuscript

ESMO consensus conference recommendations on the management of locoregional melanoma: under the auspices of the ESMO Guidelines Committee

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) held a consensus conference on melanoma on 5–7 September 2019 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The conference included a multidisciplinary panel of 32 leading experts in the management of melanoma. The aim of the conference was to develop recommendations on topics that are not covered in detail in the current ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline and where available evidence is either limited or conflicting. The main topics identified for discussion were: (i) the management of locoregional disease; (ii) targeted versus immunotherapies in the adjuvant setting; (iii) targeted versus immunotherapies for the first-line treatment of metastatic melanoma; (iv) when to stop immunotherapy or targeted therapy in the metastatic setting; and (v) systemic versus local treatment of brain metastases. The expert panel was divided into five working groups in order to each address questions relating to one of the five topics outlined above. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the working groups and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This manuscript presents the results relating to the management of locoregional melanoma, including findings from the expert panel discussions, consensus recommendations and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation. All participants approved the final manuscript. © 2020 European Society for Medical Oncolog

ESMO consensus conference recommendations on the management of metastatic melanoma: under the auspices of the ESMO Guidelines Committee

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) held a consensus conference on melanoma on 5-7 September 2019 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The conference included a multidisciplinary panel of 32 leading experts in the management of melanoma. The aim of the conference was to develop recommendations on topics that are not covered in detail in the current ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline and where available evidence is either limited or conflicting. The main topics identified for discussion were: (1) the management of locoregional disease; (2) targeted versus immunotherapies in the adjuvant setting; (3) targeted versus immunotherapies for the first-line treatment of metastatic melanoma; (4) when to stop immunotherapy or targeted therapy in the metastatic setting; and (5) systemic versus local treatment for brain metastases. The expert panel was divided into 5 working groups in order to each address questions relating to one of the five topics outlined above. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the working groups and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This manuscript presents the results relating to the management of metastatic melanoma, including findings from the expert panel discussions, consensus recommendations and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation. All participants approved the final manuscript