Metastatic uveal melanoma : The final frontier

Publisher Copyright: © 2022Treatment of primary intraocular uveal melanoma has developed considerably, its driver genes are largely unraveled, and the ways to assess its risk for metastases are very precise, being based on an international staging system and genetic data. Unfortunately, the risk of distant metastases, which emerge in approximately one half of all patients, is unaltered. Metastases are the leading single cause of death after uveal melanoma is diagnosed, yet no consensus exists regarding surveillance, staging, and treatment of disseminated disease, and survival has not improved until recently. The final frontier in conquering uveal melanoma lies in solving these issues to cure metastatic disease. Most studies on metastatic uveal melanoma are small, uncontrolled, retrospective, and do not report staging. Meta-analyses confirm a median overall survival of 10–13 months, and a cure rate that approaches nil, although survival exceeding 5 years is possible, estimated 2% either with first-line treatment or with best supportive care. Hepatic ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging as surveillance methods have a sensitivity of 95–100% and 83–100%, respectively, to detect metastases without radiation hazard according to prevailing evidence, but computed tomography is necessary for staging. No blood-based tests additional to liver function tests are generally accepted. Three validated staging systems predict, each in defined situations, overall survival after metastasis. Their essential components include measures of tumor burden, liver function, and performance status or metastasis free interval. Age and gender may additionally influence survival. Exceptional mutational events in metastases may make them susceptible to checkpoint inhibitors. In a large meta-analysis, surgical treatment was associated with 6 months longer median overall survival as compared to conventional chemotherapy and, recently, tebentafusp as first-line treatment at the first interim analysis of a randomized phase III trial likewise provided a 6 months longer median overall survival compared to investigator's choice, mostly pembrolizumab; these treatments currently apply to selected patients. Promoting dormancy of micrometastases, harmonizing surveillance protocols, promoting staging, identifying predictive factors, initiating controlled clinical trials, and standardizing reporting will be critical steppingstones in reaching the final frontier of curing metastatic uveal melanoma.Peer reviewe

ESP, EORTC, and EURACAN Expert Opinion:practical recommendations for the pathological diagnosis and clinical management of intermediate melanocytic tumors and rare related melanoma variants

The recent WHO classification of skin tumors has underscored the importance of acknowledging intermediate grade melanocytic proliferations. A multistep acquisition of oncogenic events drives the progressive transformation of nevi into melanomas. The various pathways described are modulated by the initial oncogenic drivers that define the common, blue, and Spitz nevi groups. Intermediate lesions are most often the result of a clonal evolution within such nevi. Based on this established classification, we have suggested for each pathway a practical diagnostic approach, benefiting from the recently developed molecular tools, both in the setting of general pathology labs and expert centers. Moreover, recommendations regarding the re-excision and clinical follow-up are given to support decision-making in multidisciplinary tumor boards

Uveal Melanoma: A European Network to Face the Many Challenges of a Rare Cancer

Uveal melanoma (UM) is the most frequent primary ocular cancer in adults, accounting for 5% of all melanomas. Despite effective treatments for the primary tumour, up to 50% of UM patients will develop metastasis, leading to a very poor prognosis and a median overall survival of 6 to 12 months, with no major improvements in the last 30 years. There is no standard oncological treatment available for metastatic UM patients, and BRAF/MEK and immune checkpoint inhibitors show disappointing results when compared to cutaneous melanoma (CM). Recent advances in biology, however, identified specific gene and chromosome alterations, potentially permitting an actively tailored surveillance strategy, and dedicated clinical studies. Being a rare cancer, UM patients have to overcome issues such as identifying referral centres, having access to information, and partnering with oncologists for specific management strategies and research priorities. Here, we describe how the EUropean Rare Adult solid CAacer Network (EURACAN) will help in addressing these challenges and accelerating international collaborations to enhance the development of innovative treatments in UM

Randomised phase III trial of trabectedin versus doxorubicin-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy in translocation-related sarcomas

Abstract Aim This randomised phase III trial evaluated first-line trabectedin versus doxorubicin-based chemotherapy (DXCT) in patients with advanced/metastatic translocation-related sarcomas (TRS). Methods Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive trabectedin 1.5mg/m 2 24-h intravenous (i.v.) infusion every 3weeks (q3wk) ( Arm A ), or doxorubicin 75mg/m 2 i.v. q3wk, or doxorubicin 60mg/m 2 i.v. plus ifosfamide (range, 6–9g/m 2 ) i.v. q3wk ( Arm B ). Progression-free survival (PFS) by independent review was the primary efficacy end-point. Results One hundred and twenty-one patients were randomised; 88 of them had TRS confirmed by central pathology review (efficacy population). Twenty-nine PFS events were assessed by independent review (16 with trabectedin; 13 with DXCT). PFS showed non-significant difference between arms (stratified log rank test, p =0.9573; hazard ratio=0.86, p =0.6992). At the time of this analysis, 63.9% and 58.3% of patients were alive in trabectedin and DXCT arms, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in survival curves. Response rate according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) v.1.0 was significantly higher in DXCT arm (27.0% versus 5.9%), but response according to Choi criteria showed fewer differences between treatment arms (45.9% versus 37.3%). Safety profile was as expected for both arms, with higher incidence of severe neutropenia, alopecia and mucositis in the DXCT arm. Conclusion Neither trabectedin nor doxorubicin-based chemotherapy showed significant superiority in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced translocation-related sarcoma

So close, yet so far : discrepancies between uveal and other melanomas. A Position Paper from UM Cure 2020

Despite much progress in our understanding of uveal melanoma (UM) over the past decades, this rare tumour is still often misclassified. Although UM, like other melanomas, is very probably derived from melanocytes, it is drastically different from cutaneous melanoma and most other melanoma subtypes in terms of epidemiology, aetiology, biology and clinical features, including an intriguing metastatic hepatotropism. UM carries distinctive prognostic chromosome alterations, somatic mutations and gene expression profiles, allowing an active tailored surveillance strategy and dedicated adjuvant clinical trials. There is no standard systemic treatment for disseminated UM at present. In contrast to cutaneous melanoma, UMs are not BRAF-mutated, thus curtailing the use of B-Raf inhibitors. Although these tumours are characterised by some immune infiltrates, immune checkpoint inhibitors are rarely effective, possibly due to a low mutation burden. UM patients across the world not only face rare cancer-related issues (e.g., specific management strategies, access to information and to expert centres), but also specific UM problems, which can be exacerbated by the common misconception that it is a subtype of cutaneous melanoma. As a European Consortium dedicated to research on UM and awareness on the disease, “UM Cure 2020” participants urge medical oncologists, pharmaceutical companies, and regulatory agencies to acknowledge UM as a melanoma with specific issues, in order to accelerate the development of new therapies for patients

Selumetinib in combination with dacarbazine in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma: a phase III, multicentre, randomised trial (SUMIT)

Purpose: Uveal melanoma is the most common primary intraocular malignancy in adults with no effective systemic treatment option in the metastatic setting. Selumetinib (AZD6244, ARRY-142886) is an oral, potent, and selective MEK1/2 inhibitor with a short half-life, which demonstrated single-agent activity in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma in a randomized phase II trial. Methods: The Selumetinib (AZD6244: ARRY-142886) (Hyd-Sulfate) in Metastatic Uveal Melanoma (SUMIT) study was a phase III, double-blind trial (ClinicalTrial.gov identifier: NCT01974752) in which patients with metastatic uveal melanoma and no prior systemic therapy were randomly assigned (3:1) to selumetinib (75 mg twice daily) plus dacarbazine (1,000 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 of every 21- day cycle) or placebo plus dacarbazine. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central radiologic review. Secondary end points included overall survival and objective response rate. Results: A total of 129 patients were randomly assigned to receive selumetinib plus dacarbazine (n = 97) or placebo plus dacarbazine (n = 32). In the selumetinib plus dacarbazine group, 82 patients (85%) experienced a PFS event, compared with 24 (75%) in the placebo plus dacarbazine group (median, 2.8 v 1.8 months); the hazard ratio for PFS was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.48 to 1.27; two-sided P = .32). The objective response rate was 3% with selumetinib plus dacarbazine and 0% with placebo plus dacarbazine (two-sided P = .36). At 37% maturity (n = 48 deaths), analysis of overall survival gave a hazard ratio of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.39 to 1.46; two-sided P = .40). The most frequently reported adverse events (selumetinib plus dacarbazine v placebo plus dacarbazine) were nausea (62% v 19%), rash (57% v 6%), fatigue (44% v 47%), diarrhea (44% v 22%), and peripheral edema (43% v 6%). Conclusion: In patients with metastatic uveal melanoma, the combination of selumetinib plus dacarbazine had a tolerable safety profile but did not significantly improve PFS compared with placebo plus dacarbazine

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

First-line therapy with gemcitabine and paclitaxel in locally, recurrent or metastatic breast cancer: A phase II study

BACKGROUND: This phase II study evaluated the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine (G) plus paclitaxel (T) as first-line therapy in recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: Patients with locally, recurrent or metastatic breast cancer and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease received G 1200 mg/m(2 )on days 1 and 8, and T 175 mg/m(2 )on day 1 (before G) every 21 days for a maximum of 10 cycles. RESULTS: Forty patients, 39 metastatic breast cancer and 1 locally-advanced disease, were enrolled. Their median age was 61.5 years, and 85% had a World Health Organization performance status (PS) of 0 or 1. Poor prognostic factors at baseline included visceral involvement (87.5%) and ≥2 metastatic sites (70%). Also, 27 (67.5%) patients had prior adjuvant chemotherapy, 25 of which had prior anthracyclines. A total of 220 cycles (median 6; range, 1–10) were administered. Of the 40 enrolled patients, 2 had complete response and 12 partial response, for an overall response rate of 35.0% for intent-to-treat population. Among 35 patients evaluable for efficacy the response rate was 40%. Additional 14 patients had stable disease, and 7 had progressive disease. The median duration of response was 12 months; median time to progression, 7.2 months; median survival, 25.7 months. Common grade 3/4 toxicities were neutropenia in 17 (42.5%) patients each, grade 3 leukopenia in 19 (47.5%), and grade 3 alopecia in 30 (75.0%) patients; 1 (2.5%) patient had grade 4 thrombocytopenia. CONCLUSION: GT exhibited encouraging activity and tolerable toxicity as first-line therapy in metastatic breast cancer. Phase III trials for further evaluation are ongoing

Characterization of Macrophages and Osteoclasts in the Osteosarcoma Tumor Microenvironment at Diagnosis: New Perspective for Osteosarcoma Treatment?

Biological and histopathological techniques identified osteoclasts and macrophages as targets of zoledronic acid (ZA), a therapeutic agent that was detrimental for patients in the French OS2006 trial. Conventional and multiplex immunohistochemistry of microenvironmental and OS cells were performed on biopsies of 124 OS2006 patients and 17 surgical (“OSNew”) biopsies respectively. CSF-1R (common osteoclast/macrophage progenitor) and TRAP (osteoclast activity) levels in serum of 108 patients were correlated to response to chemotherapy and to prognosis. TRAP levels at surgery and at the end of the protocol were significantly lower in ZA+ than ZA− patients (padj = 0.0011; 0.0132). For ZA+-patients, an increase in the CSF-1R level between diagnosis and surgery and a high TRAP level in the serum at biopsy were associated with a better response to chemotherapy (p = 0.0091; p = 0.0251). At diagnosis, high CD163+ was associated with good prognosis, while low TRAP activity was associated with better overall survival in ZA− patients only. Multiplex immunohistochemistry demonstrated remarkable bipotent CD68+/CD163+ macrophages, homogeneously distributed throughout OS regions, aside osteoclasts (CD68+/CD163−) mostly residing in osteolytic territories and osteoid-matrix-associated CD68−/CD163+ macrophages. We demonstrate that ZA not only acts on harmful osteoclasts but also on protective macrophages, and hypothesize that the bipotent CD68+/CD163+ macrophages might present novel therapeutic targets

Off-label use of targeted therapies in osteosarcomas: data from the French registry OUTC'S (Observatoire de l'Utilisation des Thérapies Ciblées dans les Sarcomes):

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to explore the off-label use of targeted therapies (TTs) for patients with osteosarcoma registered within the French Sarcoma Group--Bone Tumor Study Group (GSF-GETO) national registry. METHODS: All patients with an osteosarcoma, registered between January 1, 2009 and July 15, 2013 were analyzed. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients with refractory relapsed osteosarcomas received 33 treatment lines of TTs. The median age at the beginning of treatment was 19 years (range 9-72). The median number of previous lines of chemotherapy was 3 (range 1-8). Before inclusion, 3 patients were in second complete remission, 26 were in progression for metastatic relapse. Twenty-three patients received sirolimus (in combination with cyclophosphamide for 18); 5, sunitinib; 4, sorafenib; and one, pazopanib. Stable disease was observed for 45.5% of patients (95% Confidence Interval (CI) [20-52.8]). The median Progression-Free Survival (PFS) was 3 months (95% CI [2-5.4]) for patients treated by sirolimus and 1.8 months (95% CI [1.3-2.8]) for patients receiving multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors; 6-month PFS 15%. The median Overall Survival (OS) was 6.8 months (95% CI [4.7-12.1]), and one-year OS was 24%. In a multivariate analysis, PFS was superior for patients receiving sirolimus compared to other TTs (Hazard Ratio (HR) = 2.7, 95% CI [1.05-7.1]). No toxic death was reported. Grade 3 and 4 toxicities were observed in 27 and 6% of cases respectively. CONCLUSION: Off-label TTs, especially sirolimus, reported benefit in the treatment of refractory osteosarcomas with an acceptable toxicity profile, including in pediatric population