New fecal microbiota for cancer patients: The composition of the gut microbiome influences the response of cancer patients to immunotherapies. Baruch et al. and Davar et al. report first-in-human clinical trials to test whether fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) can affect how metastatic melanoma patients respond to anti–PD-1 immunotherapy (see the Perspective by Woelk and Snyder). Both studies observed evidence of clinical benefit in a subset of treated patients. This included increased abundance of taxa previously shown to be associated with response to anti–PD-1, increased CD8 ⁺ T cell activation, and decreased frequency of interleukin-8–expressing myeloid cells, which are involved in immunosuppression. These studies provide proof-of-concept evidence for the ability of FMT to affect immunotherapy response in cancer patients. Science , this issue p. 602 , p. 595 ; see also p. 573

BRAF is a serine/threonine protein kinase activating the MAP kinase/ERK-signaling pathway. About 50 % of melanomas harbors activating BRAF mutations (over 90 % V600E). BRAFV600E has been implicated in different mechanisms underlying melanomagenesis, most of which due to the deregulated activation of the downstream MEK/ERK effectors. The first selective inhibitor of mutant BRAF, vemurafenib, after highly encouraging results of the phase I and II trial, was compared to dacarbazine in a phase III trial in treatment-naïve patients (BRIM-3). The study results showed a relative reduction of 63 % in risk of death and 74 % in risk of tumor progression. Considering all trials so far completed, median overall survival reached approximately 16 months for vemurafenib compared to less than 10 months for dacarbazine treatment. Vemurafenib has been extensively tested on melanoma patients expressing the BRAFV600E mutated form; it has been demonstrated to be also effective in inhibiting melanomas carrying the V600K mutation. In 2011, both FDA and EMA therefore approved vemurafenib for metastatic melanoma carrying BRAFV600 mutations. Some findings suggest that continuation of vemurafenib treatment is potentially beneficial after local therapy in a subset of patients with disease progression (PD). Among who continued vemurafenib >30 days after local therapy of PD lesion(s), a median overall survival was not reached, with a median follow-up of 15.5 months from initiation of BRAF inhibitor therapy. For patients who did not continue treatment, median overall survival from the time of disease progression was 1.4 months. A clinical phase I/II trial is evaluating the safety, tolerability and efficacy of vemurafenib in combination with the CTLA-4 inhibitor mAb ipilimumab. In the BRIM-7 trial vemurafenib is tested in association with GDC-0973, a potent and highly selective inhibitor of MEK1/2. Preliminary data seem to indicate that an additional inhibitor of mutated BRAF, GSK2118436, might be also active on a wider range of BRAF mutations (V600E-K-D-R); actually, treatment with such a compound is under evaluation in a phase III study among stage III-IV melanoma patients positive for BRAF mutations. Overall, BRAF inhibitors were well tolerated; common adverse events are arthralgia, rash, fatigue, alopecia, keratoacanthoma or cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma, photosensitivity, nausea, and diarrhea, with some variants between different inhibitors.

PURPOSE: Combination programmed cell death protein 1/cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4–blockade and dual BRAF/MEK inhibition have each shown significant clinical benefit in patients with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma, leading to broad regulatory approval. Little prospective data exist to guide the choice of either initial therapy or treatment sequence in this population. This study was conducted to determine which initial treatment or treatment sequence produced the best efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a phase III trial, patients with treatment-naive BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma were randomly assigned to receive either combination nivolumab/ipilimumab (arm A) or dabrafenib/trametinib (arm B) in step 1, and at disease progression were enrolled in step 2 to receive the alternate therapy, dabrafenib/trametinib (arm C) or nivolumab/ipilimumab (arm D). The primary end point was 2-year overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were 3-year OS, objective response rate, response duration, progression-free survival, crossover feasibility, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 265 patients were enrolled, with 73 going onto step 2 (27 in arm C and 46 in arm D). The study was stopped early by the independent Data Safety Monitoring Committee because of a clinically significant end point being achieved. The 2-year OS for those starting on arm A was 71.8% (95% CI, 62.5 to 79.1) and arm B 51.5% (95% CI, 41.7 to 60.4; log-rank P = .010). Step 1 progression-free survival favored arm A ( P = .054). Objective response rates were arm A: 46.0%; arm B: 43.0%; arm C: 47.8%; and arm D: 29.6%. Median duration of response was not reached for arm A and 12.7 months for arm B ( P < .001). Crossover occurred in 52% of patients with documented disease progression. Grade ≥ 3 toxicities occurred with similar frequency between arms, and regimen toxicity profiles were as anticipated. CONCLUSION: Combination nivolumab/ipilimumab followed by BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy, if necessary, should be the preferred treatment sequence for a large majority of patients.

PURPOSE: Effective treatment options are limited for patients with advanced (metastatic or unresectable) melanoma who progress after immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies. Adoptive cell therapy using tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes has demonstrated efficacy in advanced melanoma. Lifileucel is an autologous, centrally manufactured tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte product.METHODS: We conducted a phase II open-label, single-arm, multicenter study in patients with advanced melanoma who had been previously treated with checkpoint inhibitor(s) and BRAF ± MEK targeted agents. Lifileucel was produced from harvested tumor specimens in central Good Manufacturing Practice facilities using a streamlined 22-day process. Patients received a nonmyeloablative lymphodepletion regimen, a single infusion of lifileucel, and up to six doses of high-dose interleukin-2. The primary end point was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST, version 1.1.RESULTS: Sixty-six patients received a mean of 3.3 prior therapies (anti–programmed death 1 [PD-1] or programmed death ligand 1 [PD-L1]: 100%; anticytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein-4: 80%; BRAF ± MEK inhibitor: 23%). The ORR was 36% (95% CI, 25 to 49), with two complete responses and 22 partial responses. Disease control rate was 80% (95% CI, 69 to 89). Median duration of response was not reached after 18.7-month median study follow-up (range, 0.2-34.1 months). In the primary refractory to anti–PD-1 or PD-L1 therapy subset, the ORR and disease control rate were 41% (95% CI, 26 to 57) and 81% (95% CI, 66 to 91), respectively. Safety profile was consistent with known adverse events associated with nonmyeloablative lymphodepletion and interleukin-2.CONCLUSION: Lifileucel demonstrated durable responses and addresses a major unmet need in patients with metastatic melanoma with limited treatment options after approved therapy, including the primary refractory to anti–PD-1 or PD-L1 therapy subset.

The immunotherapy of cancer has made significant strides in the past few years due to improved understanding of the underlying principles of tumor biology and immunology. These principles have been critical in the development of immunotherapy in the laboratory and in the implementation of immunotherapy in the clinic. This improved understanding of immunotherapy, enhanced by increased insights into the mechanism of tumor immune response and its evasion by tumors, now permits manipulation of this interaction and elucidates the therapeutic role of immunity in cancer. Also important, this improved understanding of immunotherapy and the mechanisms underlying immunity in cancer has fueled an expanding array of new therapeutic agents for a variety of cancers. Pegylated interferon‐α2b as an adjuvant therapy and ipilimumab as therapy for advanced disease, both of which were approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for melanoma in March 2011, are 2 prime examples of how an increased understanding of the principles of tumor biology and immunology have been translated successfully from the laboratory to the clinical setting. Principles that guide the development and application of immunotherapy include antibodies, cytokines, vaccines, and cellular therapies. The identification and further elucidation of the role of immunotherapy in different tumor types, and the development of strategies for combining immunotherapy with cytotoxic and molecularly targeted agents for future multimodal therapy for cancer will enable even greater progress and ultimately lead to improved outcomes for patients receiving cancer immunotherapy. CA Cancer J Clin 2012. © 2012 American Cancer Society.

Background Within-household transmission of COVID-19 is responsible for a significant number of infections. The risk of within-household infection is greatly increased among those from Black Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) and low income communities. Efforts to protect these communities are urgently needed. The aim of this study is to explore the acceptability of the availability of accommodation to support isolation among at risk populations. Methods Our study used a mixed methods design structured in two phases. In phase 1, we conducted a survey study of a sample of volunteers from our existing database of 300 individuals who had provided consent to be contacted about ongoing research projects into infection control. In phase 2, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 19 participants from BAME communities and low income communities recruited through social media. Results Participants from the survey and interview phase of the study viewed the provision of accommodation as important and necessary. Factors influencing likely uptake of accommodation included perceived 1) vulnerability of household 2) exposure to the virus and 3) options for isolation at home. Barriers to accepting the offer of accommodation included 1) being able to isolate at home 2) wanting to be with family 3) caring responsibilities 4) concerns about mental wellbeing 5) upheaval of moving when ill and 6) concerns about infection control. Participants raised a series of issues that should be addressed before accommodation is offered. These included questions regarding who should use temporary accommodation and at what stage to effectively reduce transmission in the home, and how infection control in temporary accommodation would be managed. Conclusion This research provides evidence that the provision of accommodation to prevent within household transmission of the virus is viewed as acceptable, feasible and necessary by many people who are concerned about infection transmission in the home. We explore ways in which accommodation might be offered. In particular, vulnerable members of the household could be protected if accommodation is offered to individuals who are informed through test trace and isolate that they have been in contact with the virus.