Treatment of primary intraocular uveal melanoma has developed considerably, its driver genes are largely unraveled, and the ways to assess its risk for metastases are very precise, being based on an international staging system and genetic data. Unfortunately, the risk of distant metastases, which emerge in approximately one half of all patients, is unaltered. Metastases are the leading single cause of death after uveal melanoma is diagnosed, yet no consensus exists regarding surveillance, staging, and treatment of disseminated disease, and survival has not improved until recently. The final frontier in conquering uveal melanoma lies in solving these issues to cure metastatic disease. Most studies on metastatic uveal melanoma are small, uncontrolled, retrospective, and do not report staging. Meta-analyses confirm a median overall survival of 10-13 months, and a cure rate that approaches nil, although survival exceeding 5 years is possible, estimated 2% either with first-line treatment or with best supportive care. Hepatic ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging as surveillance methods have a sensitivity of 95-100% and 83-100%, respectively, to detect metastases without radiation hazard according to prevailing evidence, but computed tomography is necessary for staging. No blood-based tests additional to liver function tests are generally accepted. Three validated staging systems predict, each in defined situations, overall survival after metastasis. Their essential components include measures of tumor burden, liver function, and performance status or metastasis free interval. Age and gender may additionally influence survival. Exceptional mutational events in metastases may make them susceptible to checkpoint inhibitors. In a large meta-analysis, surgical treatment was associated with 6 months longer median overall survival as compared to conventional chemotherapy and, recently, tebentafusp as first-line treatment at the first interim analysis of a randomized phase III trial likewise provided a 6 months longer median overall survival compared to investigator's choice, mostly pembrolizumab; these treatments currently apply to selected patients. Promoting dormancy of micrometastases, harmonizing surveillance protocols, promoting staging, identifying predictive factors, initiating controlled clinical trials, and standardizing reporting will be critical steppingstones in reaching the final frontier of curing metastatic uveal melanoma.

Despite much progress in our understanding of uveal melanoma (UM) over the past decades, this rare tumour is still often misclassified. Although UM, like other melanomas, is very probably derived from melanocytes, it is drastically different from cutaneous melanoma and most other melanoma subtypes in terms of epidemiology, aetiology, biology and clinical features, including an intriguing metastatic hepatotropism. UM carries distinctive prognostic chromosome alterations, somatic mutations and gene expression profiles, allowing an active tailored surveillance strategy and dedicated adjuvant clinical trials. There is no standard systemic treatment for disseminated UM at present. In contrast to cutaneous melanoma, UMs are not BRAF-mutated, thus curtailing the use of B-Raf inhibitors. Although these tumours are characterised by some immune infiltrates, immune checkpoint inhibitors are rarely effective, possibly due to a low mutation burden. UM patients across the world not only face rare cancer-related issues (e.g., specific management strategies, access to information and to expert centres), but also specific UM problems, which can be exacerbated by the common misconception that it is a subtype of cutaneous melanoma. As a European Consortium dedicated to research on UM and awareness on the disease, “UM Cure 2020” participants urge medical oncologists, pharmaceutical companies, and regulatory agencies to acknowledge UM as a melanoma with specific issues, in order to accelerate the development of new therapies for patients.

Up to 50% of patients with uveal melanoma (UM) develop metastatic disease, for which there is no effective systemic treatment. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the orally available protein kinase C inhibitor, AEB071, in patients with metastatic UM, and to perform genomic profiling of metastatic tumor samples, with the aim to propose combination therapies. Patients with metastatic UM (n = 153) were treated with AEB071 in a phase I, single-arm study. Patients received total daily doses of AEB071 ranging from 450 to 1,400 mg. First-cycle dose-limiting toxicities were observed in 13 patients (13%). These were most commonly gastrointestinal system toxicities and were dose related, occurring at doses ≥700 mg/day. Preliminary clinical activity was observed, with 3% of patients achieving a partial response and 50% with stable disease (median duration 15 weeks). High-depth, targeted next-generation DNA sequencing was performed on 89 metastatic tumor biopsy samples. Mutations previously identified in UM were observed, including mutations in GNAQ, GNA11, BAP1, SF3B1, PLCB4, and amplification of chromosome arm 8q. GNAQ/GNA11 mutations were observed at a similar frequency (93%) as previously reported, confirming a therapeutic window for inhibition of the downstream effector PKC in metastatic UM. In conclusion, the protein kinase C inhibitor AEB071 was well tolerated, and modest clinical activity was observed in metastatic UM. The genomic findings were consistent with previous reports in primary UM. Together, our data allow envisaging combination therapies of protein kinase C inhibitors with other compounds in metastatic UM.

Background: Up to 50% of patients with uveal melanoma develop metastases (MUM) with a poor prognosis and median overall survival of approximately 1 year. Methods: This phase I study evaluated the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and efficacy of the oral protein kinase C inhibitor LXS196 in 68 patients with MUM (NCT02601378). Patients received LXS196 doses ranging from 100–1000 mg once daily (QD; n = 38) and 200–400 mg twice daily (BID; n = 30). Results: First cycle dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were observed in 7/38 (18.4%) QD and 2/17 (11.8%) BID patients. Hypotension was the most common DLT, occurring at doses ≥500 mg/day, and manageable with LXS196 interruption and dose reduction. Median duration of exposure to LXS196 was 3.71 months (range: 1.81–15.28) for QD and 4.6 months (range: 0.33–58.32) for BID dosing. Clinical activity was observed in 6/66 (9.1%) evaluable patients achieving response (CR/PR), with a median duration of response of 10.15 months (range: 2.99–41.95); 45/66 had stable disease (SD) per RECIST v1.1. At 300 mg BID, the recommended dose for expansion, 2/18 (11.1%) evaluable patients achieved PR and 12/18 (66.7%) had SD. Conclusion: These results suggest manageable toxicity and encouraging clinical activity of single-agent LXS196 in patients with MUM.