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.

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.

We evaluated neoadjuvant ipilimumab in patients with surgically operable regionally advanced melanoma in order to define markers of activity in the blood and tumor as assessed at baseline (before ipilimumab) and early on-treatment. Patients were treated with ipilimumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks ×2 doses) bracketing surgery. Tumor and blood biospecimens were obtained at baseline and at surgery. Flow cytometry and immunohistochemistry for select biomarkers were performed. Thirty five patients were enrolled; IIIB (3; N2b), IIIC (32; N2c, N3), IV (2). Worst toxicities included Grade 3 diarrhea/colitis (5; 14%), hepatitis (2; 6%), rash (1; 3%), elevated lipase (3; 9%). Median follow up was 18 months: among 33 evaluable patients, median progression free survival (PFS) was 11 months, 95% CI (6.2–19.2). There was a significant decrease in circulating myeloid derived suppressor cells (MDSC). Greater decrease in circulating monocyte gate MDSC Lin1−/HLA-DR−/CD33+/CD11b+ was associated with improved PFS (p = 0.03). There was a significant increase in circulating regulatory T cells (Treg; CD4+CD25hi+Foxp3+) that, unexpectedly, was associated with improved PFS (HR = 0.57; p = 0.034). Baseline evidence of fully activated type I CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ antigen-specific T cell immunity against cancer-testis (NY-ESO-1) and melanocytic lineage (MART-1, gp100) antigens was detected and was significantly potentiated after ipilimumab. In tumor, there was a significant increase in CD8⁺ T cells after ipilimumab (p = 0.02). Ipilimumab induced increased tumor infiltration by fully activated (CD69⁺) CD3⁺/CD4⁺ and CD3⁺/CD8⁺ T cells with evidence of induction/potentiation of memory T cells (CD45RO⁺). The change in Treg observed within the tumor showed an inverse relationship with clinical benefit and greater decrease in tumor MDSC subset Lin1−/HLA-DR−/CD33⁺/CD11b⁺ was associated with improved PFS at one year. Neoadjuvant evaluation revealed a significant immunomodulating role for ipilimumab on Treg, MDSC and effector T cells in the circulation and tumor microenvironment that warrants further pursuit in the quest for optimizing melanoma immunotherapy.

Interleukin-2 (IL-2) was historically one of the few treatments for adults with stage IV solid tumors that could produce complete responses (CRs) that were often durable for decades without further therapy. The majority of complete responders with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and metastatic melanoma (mM) could probably be classified as "cures". Recent publications have suggested improved efficacy, perhaps due to improved patient selection based on a better understanding of clinical features predicting outcomes. Guidelines for clinical management were established from experience at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and an affiliation of institutions known as the Cytokine Working Group (CWG), who were among the first to utilize HD IL-2 treatment outside of the NCI. As new centers have opened, further management variations have emerged based upon center-specific experience, to optimize administration of IL-2 and provide high quality care for patients at each individual site. Twenty years of evolution in differing environments has led to a plethora of clinical experience and effective management approaches. The goal of this review is to summarize the spectrum of HD IL-2 treatment approaches, describing various effective strategies that incorporate newer adjunctive treatments for managing the side effects of IL-2 in patients with mRCC and mM. The goal for IL-2 therapy is typically to administer the maximum number of doses of IL-2 without putting the patient at unacceptable risk for severe, irreversible toxicity. This review is based upon a consensus meeting and includes guidelines on pre-treatment screening, criteria for administration and withholding doses, and defines consensus criteria for safe administration and toxicity management. The somewhat heterogeneous best practices of 2014 will be compared and contrasted with the guidelines provided in 2001 and the package inserts from 1992 and 1998.

Efforts over nearly four decades have focused on ways to use cytokines to manipulate the host immune response towards cancer cell recognition and eradication. Significant advances were achieved with interleukin-2 (IL-2) and interferon-α (IFN-α), primarily in the treatment of patients with melanoma and renal cell carcinoma. However, the utility of other cytokines showing promise in the preclinical setting has not been established largely because of toxicity, the complex functionality of each cytokine and the difficulty mimicking in preclinical models the human environment. Here, we review the basic biology and the clinical experiences with IFN-α, IL-2, IL-15, IL-21, and IL-12. We will also review ongoing clinical trials and discuss future directions including potential use of cytokines in combination with other effective immunotherapy approaches that have come of age in recent years.

PURPOSE: Phase III adjuvant trials have reported significant benefits in both relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) for high-dose interferon alfa (HDI) and ipilimumab at 10 mg/kg (ipi10). E1609 evaluated the safety and efficacy of ipilimumab at 3 mg/kg (ipi3) and ipi10 versus HDI.PATIENTS AND METHODS: E1609 was a phase III trial in patients with resected cutaneous melanoma (American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th edition stage IIIB, IIIC, M1a, or M1b). It had 2 coprimary end points: OS and RFS. A 2-step hierarchic approach first evaluated ipi3 versus HDI followed by ipi10 versus HDI.RESULTS: Between May 2011 and August 2014, 1,670 adult patients were centrally randomly assigned (1:1:1) to ipi3 (n = 523), HDI (n = 636), or ipi10 (n = 511). Treatment-related adverse events grade ≥ 3 occurred in 37% of patients receiving ipi3, 79% receiving HDI, and 58% receiving ipi10, with adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation in 35%, 20%, and 54%, respectively. Comparison of ipi3 versus HDI used an intent-to-treat analysis of concurrently randomly assigned patient cases (n = 1,051) and showed significant OS difference in favor of ipi3 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95.6% repeated CI, 0.61 to 0.99; P = .044; RFS: HR, 0.85; 99.4% CI, 0.66 to 1.09; P = .065). In the second step, for ipi10 versus HDI (n = 989), trends in favor of ipi10 did not achieve statistical significance. Salvage patterns after melanoma relapse showed significantly higher rates of ipilimumab and ipilimumab/anti–programmed death 1 use in the HDI arm versus ipi3 and ipi10 ( P ≤ .001).CONCLUSION: Adjuvant therapy with ipi3 benefits survival versus HDI; for the first time to our knowledge in melanoma adjuvant therapy, E1609 has demonstrated a significant improvement in OS against an active control regimen. The currently approved adjuvant ipilimumab dose (ipi10) was more toxic and not superior in efficacy to HDI.