9587 Background: The aim of this study is to evaluate the potency of short-term neoadjuvant cytoreductive therapy with dabrafenib and trametinib (BRAF and MEK inhibitor respectively) to allow radical surgical resection in patients with unresectable BRAF-mutated, locally advanced stage III or oligometastatic stage IV melanoma. Methods: A total of 25 patients with BRAF-mutated, unresectable locally advanced stage III or oligometastatic stage IV (≤3 metastases) melanoma will be treated with dabrafenib and trametinib for 8 weeks. Response evaluation by positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) will occur at 2 and 8 weeks. If sufficient downsizing occurs, surgical resection will be performed. Biopsies for translational research will be taken at baseline and 2 weeks. The dissection specimen will be stored at 8 weeks. Results: Currently 20 patients have been included. Of these, 2 patients showed PD upon treatment and did not proceed to surgery. In 17/18 (94%) patients resection was possible after neoadjuvant treatment, of which 16 (94%) were R0 resections. Median follow-up time is 28 months with a median recurrence free survival of 9 months in patients undergoing surgery. The 1-year overall survival (OS) was 94% and 2-year OS 82%. Median OS was not reached. Metabolic response rates (RR) on PET/CT at 8 weeks were: 4 (20%) CR, 14 (70%) PR, 0 (0%) SD, 2 (10%) PD. Pathologic RR differed: 7 (35%) CR, 7 (35%) PR, 3 (15%) SD, 0 (0%) PD and in 3 patients (15%) no pathologic response was measured, since no resection was performed. Most patients (85%) experienced any toxicity, of which 50% was grade 1, 20% grade 2 and 3 patients (15%) experienced grade 3 toxicity. The most common reported toxicity was fever. Conclusions: Neoadjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib shows to be a potent cytoreductive treatment, allowing radical resection of metastases in 16/20 (80%) patients with prior unresectable locally advanced melanoma. Patients with no recurrence remained disease-free for a prolonged period of time. If there was recurrent disease, this usually occurred within months after surgery and this may present an opportunity for further tailored adjuvant therapy. Clinical trial information: NTR4654.

Neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab showed high pathologic response rates (pRRs) in patients with macroscopic stage III melanoma in the phase 1b OpACIN ( NCT02437279 ) and phase 2 OpACIN-neo ( NCT02977052 ) studies1,2. While the results are promising, data on the durability of these pathologic responses and baseline biomarkers for response and survival were lacking. After a median follow-up of 4 years, none of the patients with a pathologic response (n = 7/9 patients) in the OpACIN study had relapsed. In OpACIN-neo (n = 86), the 2-year estimated relapse-free survival was 84% for all patients, 97% for patients achieving a pathologic response and 36% for nonresponders (P < 0.001). High tumor mutational burden (TMB) and high interferon-gamma-related gene expression signature score (IFN-γ score) were associated with pathologic response and low risk of relapse; pRR was 100% in patients with high IFN-γ score/high TMB; patients with high IFN-γ score/low TMB or low IFN-γ score/high TMB had pRRs of 91% and 88%; while patients with low IFN-γ score/low TMB had a pRR of only 39%. These data demonstrate long-term benefit in patients with a pathologic response and show the predictive potential of TMB and IFN-γ score. Our findings provide a strong rationale for a randomized phase 3 study comparing neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab versus standard adjuvant therapy with antibodies against the programmed cell death protein-1 (anti-PD-1) in macroscopic stage III melanoma. Long-term outcomes and biomarker analyses of two neoadjuvant immunotherapy clinical trials in melanoma patients support the clinical benefit of this treatment approach and uncover prognostic correlates of response.

Background Continuous combination of MAPK pathway inhibition (MAPKi) and anti-programmed death-(ligand) 1 (PD-(L)1) showed high response rates, but only limited improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) at the cost of a high frequency of treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) in patients with BRAF V600 -mutated melanoma. Short‐term MAPKi induces T-cell infiltration in patients and is synergistic with anti-programmed death-1 (PD‐1) in a preclinical melanoma mouse model. The aim of this phase 2b trial was to identify an optimal regimen of short-term MAPKi with dabrafenib plus trametinib in combination with pembrolizumab. Methods Patients with treatment-naïve BRAF V600E/K -mutant advanced melanoma started pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks. In week 6, patients were randomized to continue pembrolizumab only (cohort 1), or to receive, in addition, intermittent dabrafenib 150 mg two times per day plus trametinib 2 mg one time per day for two cycles of 1 week (cohort 2), two cycles of 2 weeks (cohort 3), or continuously for 6 weeks (cohort 4). All cohorts continued pembrolizumab for up to 2 years. Primary endpoints were safety and treatment-adherence. Secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) at week 6, 12, 18 and PFS. Results Between June 2016 and August 2018, 33 patients with advanced melanoma have been included and 32 were randomized. Grade 3–4 TRAE were observed in 12%, 12%, 50%, and 63% of patients in cohort 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. All planned targeted therapy was given in 88%, 63%, and 38% of patients in cohort 2, 3, and 4. ORR at week 6, 12, and 18 were 38%, 63%, and 63% in cohort 1; 25%, 63%, and 75% in cohort 2; 25%, 50%, and 75% in cohort 3; and 0%, 63%, and 50% in cohort 4. After a median follow-up of 43.5 months, median PFS was 10.6 months for pembrolizumab monotherapy and not reached for patients treated with pembrolizumab and intermittent dabrafenib and trametinib (p=0.17). The 2-year and 3-year landmark PFS were both 25% for cohort 1, both 63% for cohort 2, 50% and 38% for cohort 3 and 75% and 60% for cohort 4. Conclusions The combination of pembrolizumab plus intermittent dabrafenib and trametinib seems more feasible and tolerable than continuous triple therapy. The efficacy is promising and appears to be favorable over pembrolizumab monotherapy. Trial registration number NCT02625337 .

Background Outcome of high-risk stage III melanoma patients (pts) was poor with a 5-year OS rate of < 50%. Adjuvant (adj) IPI improved 5-year RFS and OS and adjuvant anti-PD-1 improved RFS further. Preclinical data suggested that neoadjuvant (neoadj) treatment might be more favorable due to broader immune activation. The investigator-initiated OpACIN trial compared neoadj with adj IPI + NIVO. Neoadj IPI + NIVO induced a pathologic (path) response in a high percentage of pts (7/9 evaluable pts, 78%). None of the reponders relapsed during the first 2 years, but long-term outcome is pending. Here we present the 3-year landmark safety and survival data. Methods Between Augustus 2015 and October 2016, 20 stage IIIB/IIIC melanoma pts with palpable nodal disease were included in the phase Ib feasibility OpACIN trial. Pts were randomized to receive IPI 3 mg/kg …

Background Outcome of high-risk stage III melanoma patients (pts) was poor with a 5-year OS rate of Methods Between Augustus 2015 and October 2016, 20 stage IIIB/IIIC melanoma pts with palpable nodal disease were included in the phase Ib feasibility OpACIN trial. Pts were randomized to receive IPI 3 mg/kg + NIVO 1 mg/kg, either adj 4 courses or split 2 courses neoadj and 2 adj. Path response, as reviewed by a blinded pathologist, was defined as Results After a median FU of 36.7 months (minimum 28.3 months FU of pts alive) none of the 7 pts with a path response in the neoadj arm have relapsed. Both non-responding pts in the neoadj have relapsed versus 4 pts in the adj arm. One pt has died in the neoadj arm and 3 in the adj arm. The estimated 3-year RFS rate was 80% for the neoadj arm and 60% for the adj arm. The 3-year OS rates were 90% and 67%, respectively. Of the 18 (90%) pts that had developed 1 or more grade 3-4 adverse events all have recovered to ≤ grade 1, except for grade 2 endocrine toxicities needing hormonal supplementation therapy that are ongoing in 8 (50%) of 16 pts alive. Conclusions OpACIN was the first trial investigating neoadj IPI + NIVO in pts with macroscopic stage III melanoma, thus having the longest FU. At 3 years FU, no new safety events occurred and none of the pts with a path response have relapsed, suggesting that path response could be considered as surrogate marker for RFS and OS in neoadjuvant checkpoint inhibitor trials. Clinical trial identification NCT02437279. Legal entity responsible for the study Netherlands Cancer Institute. Funding BMS. Disclosure C.U. Blank: Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: GSK; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: GenMab; Advisory / Consultancy: Lilly; Research grant / Funding (institution): NanoString; Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre. J.V. van Thienen: Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis. J.B.A.G. Haanen: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: AZ/MedImmune; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche/Genentech; Advisory / Consultancy: Ipsen; Advisory / Consultancy: Bayer; Advisory / Consultancy: Immunocore; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Seattle Genetics; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Neon Therapeutics; Advisory / Consultancy: Celsius Therapautics; Advisory / Consultancy: Gadet; Advisory / Consultancy: GSK. A.C.J. van Akkooi: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Amgen; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD Merck; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck-Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: 4SC. T.N. Schumacher: Advisory / Consultancy: Adaptive Biotechnologies; Advisory / Consultancy, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: AIMM Therapeutics; Advisory / Consultancy, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Allogene Therapeutics; Advisory / Consultancy: Amgen; Advisory / Consultancy, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Merus; Advisory / Consultancy, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Neon Therapeutics; Advisory / Consultancy: Scenic Biotech; Research grant / Funding (institution): MSD; Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS; Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck KGaA; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Neogene Therapeutics; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Venture partner: Third Rock Venture. E.A. Rozeman: Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: MSD; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: NanoString. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Background: The outcome of patients (pts) with BRAFV600 mutated advanced melanoma has dramatically improved by the introduction of TT and CPI. Pts responding on CPI have a high chance of long-term benefit. Pts with fast progressive disease (PD), high LDH and/or symptomatic (brain) metastasis often start with TT to induce a fast response, although most pts will relapse. Short-term TT increases intratumoral T-cell infiltration, which is diminished at PD. In addition, LDH level normalization and improvement of performance status (PS) during response to TT, might also argue for an earlier switch to CPI before PD. Methods: We retrospectively identified pts that started treatment with TT and switched to subsequent CPI (either anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-1 plus anti-CTLA-4) at our institute. Progression was defined as radiological PD according to RECIST 1.1 or clinical PD defined by treating physician. Progression free survival (PFS) from start CPI (PFS-CPI), start TT (PFS-total) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed by Kaplan Meier methods and hazard ratio’s (HR) were calculated by Cox regression analysis. Results: In total 74 pts were included; 37 pts switched to CPI prior to PD (noPD-switch) and 37 pts switched at PD (PD-switch); 32 vs 51% had brain metastases and 41 vs 49% had an elevated LDH. Median time on TT in the noPD-switch and the PD-switch group was 3.2 and 4.5 months, respectively. PFS-CPI was 2.5 months in the noPD-switch group vs 1.2 months in the PD-switch group (p = 0.11). OS was superior in the noPD-switch group with a median of 30.6 vs 14.1 months (p = 0.01). After correcting for previous treatment, LDH, PS, brain metastasis and number of metastatic sites, HR for OS was 0.48 (95% CI 0.22–1.01). Subgroup analysis revealed that pts with brain metastasis seem to benefit most from switch prior to PD. In pts that had reinduction of TT after CPI failure, the noPD-switch group benefitted longer from this subsequent TT line, although total time of benefit on TT (before and after CPI) was the same in both groups. Conclusions: Pts that switch to CPI prior to PD upon TT have an increased OS, which can be attributed to the benefit from CPI and not the total time on TT. Legal entity responsible for the study: Netherlands Cancer Institute. Funding: Has not received any funding. Disclosure: J.V. van Thienen: Travel support: Roche. J.B.A.G. Haanen: Advisory boards: BMS, Merck, Roche, Neon Therapeutics, Pfizer, Ipsen; Grants to NKI from BMS, Merck, Novartis, Neon Therapeutics, outside the submitted work. C.U. Blank: Advisory boards: MSD, BMS, Roche, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly; Grants: BMS, Novartis; Stock ownership: Verastem outside the submitted work. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Adjuvant ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4) and nivolumab (anti-PD-1) both improve relapse-free survival of stage III melanoma patients 1 , 2 . In stage IV disease, the combination of ipilimumab + nivolumab is superior to ipilimumab alone and also appears to be more effective than nivolumab monotherapy 3 . Preclinical work suggests that neoadjuvant application of checkpoint inhibitors may be superior to adjuvant therapy 4 . To address this question and to test feasibility, 20 patients with palpable stage III melanoma were 1:1 randomized to receive ipilimumab 3 mg kg −1 and nivolumab 1 mg kg −1 , as either four courses after surgery (adjuvant arm) or two courses before surgery and two courses postsurgery (neoadjuvant arm). Neoadjuvant therapy was feasible, with all patients undergoing surgery at the preplanned time point. However in both arms, 9/10 patients experienced one or more grade 3/4 adverse events. Pathological responses were achieved in 7/9 (78%) patients treated in the neoadjuvant arm. None of these patients have relapsed so far (median follow-up, 25.6 months). We found that neoadjuvant ipilimumab + nivolumab expand more tumor-resident T cell clones than adjuvant application. While neoadjuvant therapy appears promising, with the current regimen it induced high toxicity rates; therefore, it needs further investigation to preserve efficacy but reduce toxicity.

Background: Continuous combination of MAPKi and anti-PD-(L)1 is currently tested in several trials to improve outcome of BRAFV600 mutated melanoma patients (pts). However, a major obstacle for continuous combination is the high frequency of grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAE). We showed that short‐time MAPKi induces T cell infiltration and is synergistic with anti-PD‐1 in mice. In pts we found increased T cell infiltration upon D+T after short-term MAPKi, while this was frequently below baseline levels after >2 weeks (W) MAPKi. The aim of this phase 2b study was to identify the optimal duration of D+T in combination with PEM. Methods: Treatment-naïve BRAFV600E/K mutant advanced melanoma pts (n = 32) started PEM 200mg Q3W and were randomized in W6 to continue PEM only (cohort 1), or to receive in addition intermittent D 150 mg BID + T 2mg QD for 2 x 1W (cohort 2), 2 x 2W (cohort 3), or continuous for 6W (cohort 4). All cohorts continued PEM for up to 2 years. Primary endpoints were safety and treatment adherence. Secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR, RECIST 1.1) at week 6, 12, and 18 compared to baseline, and PFS. Results: Of the 32 pts enrolled, 4 (13%) had LDH>ULN and 16 (50%) had M1c disease. So far, 26 pts completed the first 18W and were evaluable for toxicity and response. Grade 3/4 TRAE within the first 18W were observed in 0%, 14%, 33%, and 50% of pts in cohort 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. All planned D+T was given in 86%, 50%, and 33% of pts in cohort 2, 3, and 4. Most pts needed to interrupt D+T due to fever. D+T was discontinued in 1 pt in cohort 2 due to myalgia, 3 in cohort 3 due to fever (2x) and mucositis, and 3 pts in cohort 4 due to fever and liver toxicity. PEM was stopped in 1 pt in cohort 2 due to myalgia and interrupted in 2 pts in cohort 3 due to mucositis and liver toxicity and 3 in cohort 4 due to liver toxicity. ORR at W6, W12, and W18 were 29%, 57%, and 57% in cohort 1, 29%, 71%, and 71% in cohort 2, 33%, 50%, and 83% in cohort 3 and 0%, 50%, and 50% in cohort 4. Conclusions: IMPemBra indicates that PEM + intermittent D+T for 2x 1W or 2x 2W are promising combinations in terms of safety and feasibility, warranted to be tested in subsequent trials. Clinical trial identification: NCT02625337. Legal entity responsible for the study: Netherlands Cancer Institute. Funding: MSD. Disclosure: E.A. Rozeman: Travel support: MSD, NanoString. J.B.A.G. Haanen: Advisory boards: BMS, Merck, Roche, Neon Therapeutics, Pfizer, Ipsen; Grants: BMS, Merck, Novartis, Neon Therapeutics. J.W.B. de Groot: Advisory boards: BMS, MSD, Roche. J.V. van Thienen: Travel support: Roche. C.U. Blank: Advisory boards: BMS, Roche, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly; Research grants: BMS, Novartis. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Hand–foot syndrome (HFS) is a side effect of sunitinib with considerable impact on quality of life. Seasonal variation and hyperhydrosis are possibly correlated to occurrence of HFS. Therefore, we proposed to study the prevalence of HFS in different seasons retrospectively and to study the relationship between sunitinib sweat secretion and HFS prospectively.

PURPOSE:Therapies for breast cancer may induce hot flashes that can affect quality of life. We undertook a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with the primary objective of comparing the average daily hot flash scores in the twelfth week among patients treated with venlafaxine, clonidine, and placebo. Additional analyses of the hot flash score over the full 12 weeks of treatment were performed.PATIENTS AND METHODS:In all, 102 patients with a history of breast cancer were randomly assigned (2:2:1) to venlafaxine 75 mg, clonidine 0.1 mg, or placebo daily for 12 weeks. Questionnaires at baseline and during treatment assessed daily hot flash scores, sexual function, sleep quality, anxiety, and depression.RESULTS:After 12 weeks, a total of 80 patients were evaluable for the primary end point. During week 12, hot flash scores were significantly lower in the clonidine group versus placebo (P = .03); for venlafaxine versus placebo, the difference was borderline not significant (P = .07). However, hot flash scores were equal in the clonidine and venlafaxine groups. Over the course of 12 weeks, the differences between both treatments and placebo were significant (P <.001 for venlafaxine v placebo; P = .045 for clonidine v placebo). Frequencies of treatment-related adverse effects of nausea (P = .02), constipation (P = .04), and severe appetite loss were higher in the venlafaxine group.CONCLUSION:Venlafaxine and clonidine are effective treatments in the management of hot flashes in patients with breast cancer. Venlafaxine resulted in a more immediate reduction of hot flash scores when compared with clonidine; however, hot flash scores at week 12 were lower in the clonidine group than in the venlafaxine group.

Skin reactions are side effects of sunitinib therapy with an adverse impact on quality of life often necessitating dose reductions. For conventional antineoplastic agents, such as doxorubicin, previous studies have indicated a possible relationship between sweat excretion and the development of skin toxicity. However, the determination of sunitinib and its active metabolite in sweat has not yet been reported. A sensitive and accurate method for the determination of sunitinib and its active metabolite N-desethylsunitinib in human sweat was developed using high-performance liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry detection (LC-MS-MS). Sweat samples of a patient treated with sunitinib were collected using Pharmchek™ Drugs of Abuse patches to determine cumulative amounts of sunitinib and metabolite. Validation of the LC-MS-MS method was performed over a range from 1.0 to 200 ng/patch with good intra- and interassay accuracies for sunitinib and N-desethylsunitinib. Ranges of 76-119 and 7.9-10.5 ng/patch for cumulative secretion of sunitinib and metabolite, respectively, were found in patient samples. To our knowledge, this is the first method for determination of cumulative secretion of sunitinib and N-desethylsunitinib in human sweat samples. Sunitinib and its metabolite were easily detectable in sweat patches of a patient treated with sunitinib.

Abstract Background: Therapies for breast cancer may result in symptoms as hot flashes, genitourinary atrophy and psychological distress. Hot flashes are common symptoms that can interfere with quality of life. We undertook a double-blind, placebo controlled trial to assess the efficacy of venlafaxine and clonidine during 12 weeks of treatment. Methods: 102 patients with a history of breast cancer with at least two hot flashes per day were randomly assigned (2:2:1) to venlafaxine 75 mg/d, clonidine 0.1 mg/d or placebo. Daily hot flash scores were recorded at baseline and during treatment. Questionnaires at baseline and during week 4 and 12 assessed sexual function (SAQ), sleep quality (GSQ), anxiety and depression (HADS). The primary endpoint was differences in the average daily hot flash score in the twelfth week between venlafaxine, clonidine and placebo. Secondary objectives were to determine the effect of both drugs on sexual function, sleep quality, anxiety, depression and treatment side effects. Analyses were by intention to treat. Results: 80 patients had evaluable data over the whole study period of 12 weeks. At week 12, treatment was associated with a decrease in the occurrence of hot flashes by 45% versus placebo (p=0.03). There was no significant difference between venlafaxine and clonidine treatment however, over the course of 12 weeks hot flash scores were reduced by 41% in the venlafaxine group and by 26% in the clonidine group (Figure 1). The differences between both treatments and placebo over the 12 week period were significant (p=0.0004 venlafaxine versus placebo, p=0.045 clonidine versus placebo, p=0.002 both treatments versus placebo). Sexual function and sleep quality were not significantly different between the two treatment groups. Adjusting for baseline scores, the week 12 anxiety scores were higher in the clonidine group than in the venlafaxine group (p=0.04) and the depression scores were higher in the venlafaxine group than in the clonidine group (p=0.03). Frequencies of treatment-related side effects, nausea (p=0.02) and constipation (p=0.04) were significantly higher in the venlafaxine group. Only appetite loss (p=0.003) occurred more frequently in the venlafaxine group as severe side effect. Premature discontinuation for adverse events occurred in 2 (5%) patients in the venlafaxine group and 6 (15%) patients in the clonidine group (p=0.26). 41 patients (40%) continued the study treatment after the end of the study. Figure 1. Hot flash score over 12 weeks (blue=placebo, red=clonidine, green=venlafaxine; Discussion: Venlafaxine and clonidine are effective treatments in the management of hot flashes. Venlafaxine treatment resulted in a swifter reduction in the hot flash score in comparison to clonidine. Venlafaxine is more effective than clonidine over the 12 week period of treatment, but at the cost of more side effects. These findings suggest that venlafaxine is to be preferred above clonidine. In case of intolerance clonidine is a realistic treatment alternative. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2010;70(24 Suppl):Abstract nr PD08-04.