Melanoma is an aggressive skin cancer with historically limited treatment options. Approximately 50% of melanomas harbor BRAF V600 mutations. This report describes a 32-year-old man with metastatic BRAF V600-mutant melanoma who presented with cardiac involvement. Recently developed treatment options for patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma include BRAF inhibitors (vemurafenib, dabrafenib), MEK inhibitors (trametinib), and immune-based therapeutics (interleukin-2 or ipilimumab), but the most effective strategy for first-line therapy is heavily debated. Opinions vary for treatment selection, but the general consensus recommends immune-based therapies initially for asymptomatic patients with low-volume disease, and BRAF inhibitors for those with highly symptomatic or rapidly progressing disease. In this case, melanoma with cardiac involvement, although clinically uncommon, presents challenging management decisions.
Douglas B. Johnson and Jeffrey A. Sosman
Douglas B. Johnson, Riyue Bao, Kristin K. Ancell, Anthony B. Daniels, Deborah Wallace, Jeffrey A. Sosman and Jason J. Luke
Background: Uveal melanoma (UM) is an uncommon melanoma subtype with poor prognosis. Agents that have transformed the management of cutaneous melanoma have made minimal inroads in UM. Methods: We conducted a single-arm phase II study of pembrolizumab in patients with metastatic UM and performed bioinformatics analyses of publicly available datasets to characterize the activity of anti–PD-1 in this setting and to understand the mutational and immunologic profile of this disease. Results: A total of 5 patients received pembrolizumab in this study. Median overall survival was not reached, and median progression-free survival was 11.0 months. One patient experienced a complete response after one dose and 2 others experienced prolonged stable disease (20% response rate, 60% clinical benefit rate); 2 additional patients had rapidly progressing disease. Notably, the patients who benefited had either no liver metastases or small-volume disease, whereas patients with rapidly progressing disease had bulky liver involvement. We performed a bioinformatics analysis of The Cancer Genome Atlas for UM and confirmed a low mutation burden and low rates of T-cell inflammation. Note that the lack of T-cell inflammation strongly correlated with MYC pathway overexpression. Conclusions: Anti–PD-1–based therapy may cause clinical benefit in metastatic UM, seemingly more often in patients without bulky liver metastases. Lack of mutation burden and T-cell infiltration and MYC overexpression may be factors limiting therapeutic responses.
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02359851
Robert J. Motzer, Eric Jonasch, Neeraj Agarwal, Sam Bhayani, William P. Bro, Sam S. Chang, Toni K. Choueiri, Brian A. Costello, Ithaar H. Derweesh, Mayer Fishman, Thomas H. Gallagher, John L. Gore, Steven L. Hancock, Michael R. Harrison, Won Kim, Christos Kyriakopoulos, Chad LaGrange, Elaine T. Lam, Clayton Lau, M. Dror Michaelson, Thomas Olencki, Phillip M. Pierorazio, Elizabeth R. Plimack, Bruce G. Redman, Brian Shuch, Brad Somer, Guru Sonpavde, Jeffrey Sosman, Mary Dwyer and Rashmi Kumar
The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for the clinical management of patients with clear cell and non–clear cell renal carcinoma. These guidelines are developed by a multidisciplinary panel of leading experts from NCCN Member Institutions consisting of medical oncologists, hematologists and hematologic oncologists, radiation oncologists, urologists, and pathologists. The NCCN Guidelines are in continuous evolution and are updated annually or sometimes more often, if new high-quality clinical data become available in the interim.
John A. Thompson, Bryan J. Schneider, Julie Brahmer, Stephanie Andrews, Philippe Armand, Shailender Bhatia, Lihua E. Budde, Luciano Costa, Marianne Davies, David Dunnington, Marc S. Ernstoff, Matthew Frigault, Brianna Hoffner, Christopher J. Hoimes, Mario Lacouture, Frederick Locke, Matthew Lunning, Nisha A. Mohindra, Jarushka Naidoo, Anthony J. Olszanski, Olalekan Oluwole, Sandip P. Patel, Sunil Reddy, Mabel Ryder, Bianca Santomasso, Scott Shofer, Jeffrey A. Sosman, Momen Wahidi, Yinghong Wang, Alyse Johnson-Chilla and Jillian L. Scavone
The aim of the NCCN Guidelines for Management of Immunotherapy-Related Toxicities is to provide guidance on the management of immune-related adverse events resulting from cancer immunotherapy. The NCCN Management of Immunotherapy-Related Toxicities Panel is an interdisciplinary group of representatives from NCCN Member Institutions and ASCO, consisting of medical and hematologic oncologists with expertise in a wide array of disease sites, and experts from the fields of dermatology, gastroenterology, neuro-oncology, nephrology, emergency medicine, cardiology, oncology nursing, and patient advocacy. Several panel representatives are members of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC). The initial version of the NCCN Guidelines was designed in general alignment with recommendations published by ASCO and SITC. The content featured in this issue is an excerpt of the recommendations for managing toxicity related to immune checkpoint blockade and a review of existing evidence. For the full version of the NCCN Guidelines, including recommendations for managing toxicities related to chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, visit NCCN.org.