15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Neoadjuvant Immune Checkpoint Blockade in High-Risk Resectable Melanoma

      research-article
      , M.D. 1 , , M.D. 2 , , M.D. 1 , , M.D. 1 , , M.D. 3 , , M.D. 1 , , M.D. 3 , , M.D. 4 , , M.D. 1 , , M.D. 4 , , M.D. 1 , , M.D. 1 , , M.D. 3 , , M.D. 4 , , M.D. 4 , , M.D. 4 , , M.D. 3 , , D.V.M. 5 , , M.S. 6 , , M.D. 1 , , Ph.D. 7 , , Ph.D. 7 , , M.D. 1 , , M.D. 1 , , M.D. 3 , , M.D. 4 , , M.D. 3 , , M.D. 3 , , R.N. 1 , , MBA 3 , , B.S. 1 , , PhD 3 , , Ph.D 8 , , Ph.D 8 , , M.D. 9 , , B.S. 9 , , Ph.D. 3 , , Ph.D. 3 , , Ph.D. 3 , , Ph.D. 8 , , M.D. 5 , , M.D. 5 , 10 , , Ph.D. 5 , , M.D. 9 , 11 , , , M.D. 3 , 8
      Nature medicine

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Preclinical studies suggest that treatment with neoadjuvant immune checkpoint blockade is associated with enhanced survival and antigen-specific T cell responses over adjuvant treatment 1 ; however, optimal regimens have not been defined. Herein, we report results from a randomized phase II study of neoadjuvant nivolumab versus combined ipilimumab with nivolumab in 23 patients with high-risk resectable melanoma (NCT02519322). RECIST overall response rates (ORR), pathologic complete response rates (pCR), treatment-related adverse events (trAEs), and immune correlates of response were assessed. Treatment with combined ipilimumab and nivolumab yielded high response rates (RECIST ORR 73%, pCR 45%) but substantial toxicity (73% grade 3 trAEs), whereas treatment with nivolumab monotherapy yielded modest responses (ORR 25%, pCR 25%) and low toxicity (8% grade 3 trAEs). Immune correlates of response were identified, demonstrating higher lymphoid infiltrates in responders to both therapies and a more clonal and diverse T cell infiltrate in responders to nivolumab monotherapy. These results are the first to describe the feasibility of neoadjuvant immune checkpoint blockade in melanoma and emphasize the need for additional studies to optimize treatment regimens and to validate putative biomarkers.

          Related collections

          Most cited references6

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Melanoma staging: Evidence-based changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual

          Answer questions and earn CME/CNE To update the melanoma staging system of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) a large database was assembled comprising >46,000 patients from 10 centers worldwide with stages I, II, and III melanoma diagnosed since 1998. Based on analyses of this new database, the existing seventh edition AJCC stage IV database, and contemporary clinical trial data, the AJCC Melanoma Expert Panel introduced several important changes to the Tumor, Nodes, Metastasis (TNM) classification and stage grouping criteria. Key changes in the eighth edition AJCC Cancer Staging Manual include: 1) tumor thickness measurements to be recorded to the nearest 0.1 mm, not 0.01 mm; 2) definitions of T1a and T1b are revised (T1a, <0.8 mm without ulceration; T1b, 0.8-1.0 mm with or without ulceration or <0.8 mm with ulceration), with mitotic rate no longer a T category criterion; 3) pathological (but not clinical) stage IA is revised to include T1b N0 M0 (formerly pathologic stage IB); 4) the N category descriptors "microscopic" and "macroscopic" for regional node metastasis are redefined as "clinically occult" and "clinically apparent"; 5) prognostic stage III groupings are based on N category criteria and T category criteria (ie, primary tumor thickness and ulceration) and increased from 3 to 4 subgroups (stages IIIA-IIID); 6) definitions of N subcategories are revised, with the presence of microsatellites, satellites, or in-transit metastases now categorized as N1c, N2c, or N3c based on the number of tumor-involved regional lymph nodes, if any; 7) descriptors are added to each M1 subcategory designation for lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level (LDH elevation no longer upstages to M1c); and 8) a new M1d designation is added for central nervous system metastases. This evidence-based revision of the AJCC melanoma staging system will guide patient treatment, provide better prognostic estimates, and refine stratification of patients entering clinical trials. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:472-492. © 2017 American Cancer Society.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib versus standard of care in patients with high-risk, surgically resectable melanoma: a single-centre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial

            Dual BRAF and MEK inhibition produces a response in a large number of patients with stage IV BRAF-mutant melanoma. The existing standard of care for patients with clinical stage III melanoma is upfront surgery and consideration for adjuvant therapy, which is insufficient to cure most patients. Neoadjuvant targeted therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors (such as dabrafenib and trametinib) might provide clinical benefit in this high-risk p opulation.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Standardization of pathologic evaluation and reporting of postneoadjuvant specimens in clinical trials of breast cancer: recommendations from an international working group.

              Neoadjuvant systemic therapy is being used increasingly in the treatment of early-stage breast cancer. Response, in the form of pathological complete response, is a validated and evaluable surrogate end point of survival after neoadjuvant therapy. Thus, pathological complete response has become a primary end point for clinical trials. However, there is a current lack of uniformity in the definition of pathological complete response. A review of standard operating procedures used by 28 major neoadjuvant breast cancer trials and/or 25 sites involved in such trials identified marked variability in specimen handling and histologic reporting. An international working group was convened to develop practical recommendations for the pathologic assessment of residual disease in neoadjuvant clinical trials of breast cancer and information expected from pathology reports. Systematic sampling of areas identified by informed mapping of the specimen and close correlation with radiological findings is preferable to overly exhaustive sampling, and permits taking tissue samples for translational research. Controversial areas are discussed, including measurement of lesion size, reporting of lymphovascular space invasion and the presence of isolated tumor cells in lymph nodes after neoadjuvant therapy, and retesting of markers after treatment. If there has been a pathological complete response, this must be clearly stated, and the presence/absence of residual ductal carcinoma in situ must be described. When there is residual invasive carcinoma, a comment must be made as to the presence/absence of chemotherapy effect in the breast and lymph nodes. The Residual Cancer Burden is the preferred method for quantifying residual disease in neoadjuvant clinical trials in breast cancer; other methods can be included per trial protocols and regional preference. Posttreatment tumor staging using the Tumor-Node-Metastasis system should be included. These recommendations for standardized pathological evaluation and reporting of neoadjuvant breast cancer specimens should improve prognostication for individual patients and allow comparison of treatment outcomes within and across clinical trials.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                9502015
                8791
                Nat Med
                Nat. Med.
                Nature medicine
                1078-8956
                1546-170X
                28 August 2018
                08 October 2018
                November 2018
                24 April 2019
                : 24
                : 11
                : 1649-1654
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Melanoma Medical Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
                [2 ]Department of Breast Medical Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
                [3 ]Department of Surgical Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
                [4 ]Department of Head and Neck Surgery, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
                [5 ]Department of Immunology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
                [6 ]Department of Biostatistics, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
                [7 ]Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, San Francisco, California, USA
                [8 ]Department of Genomic Medicine, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
                [9 ]Department of Pathology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
                [10 ]Department of Genitourinary Cancers, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
                [11 ]Department of Translational and Molecular Pathology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
                Author notes
                [≠]

                Shared senior authorship

                Author Contributions: R.N.A. and J.A.W. designed the study. R.N.A., H.A.T., M.A.D., M.I.R., I.C.G., J.N.C., C.L., W.-J.H., E.H., A.D., M.K.W., R.R., N.G., R.W., S.Y.L., R.E., P.H., S.P.P., A.L., A.H., J.E.L., J.G., L.S., and J.A.W. recruited and/or treated patients. R.N.A., S.M.R., J.B., D.R.M., S.W., R.K., D.K.W., L.H., L.S., E.M.B., L.P., L.W., S.Z., A.J.L., C.W.H., V.G., A.R., M.C.A., C.N.S., V.P., P.S., J.A., M.T.T. and J.A.W. analysed and interpreted data. D.R.M. developed the statistical analysis plan. All authors developed and approved the manuscript. R.N.A. and S.M.R. contributed equally. M.T.T. and J.A.W. shared senior authorship.

                Corresponding Author: Jennifer A. Wargo, MD, MMSc, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 1484, Houston, TX 77030, jwargo@ 123456mdanderson.org
                Article
                NIHMS1504432
                10.1038/s41591-018-0197-1
                6481682
                30297909
                a53761f3-b186-4eff-a18d-a424c3e0dc78

                Users may view, print, copy, and download text and data-mine the content in such documents, for the purposes of academic research, subject always to the full Conditions of use: http://www.nature.com/authors/editorial_policies/license.html#terms

                History
                Categories
                Article

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article