Olaparib has shown significant clinical benefit as maintenance therapy in women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer with a BRCA mutation. The effect of combining maintenance olaparib and bevacizumab in patients regardless of BRCA mutation status is unknown.

Purpose: Uveal melanoma is the most common primary intraocular malignancy in adults with no effective systemic treatment option in the metastatic setting. Selumetinib (AZD6244, ARRY-142886) is an oral, potent, and selective MEK1/2 inhibitor with a short half-life, which demonstrated single-agent activity in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma in a randomized phase II trial. Methods: The Selumetinib (AZD6244: ARRY-142886) (Hyd-Sulfate) in Metastatic Uveal Melanoma (SUMIT) study was a phase III, double-blind trial ( ClinicalTrial.gov identifier: NCT01974752) in which patients with metastatic uveal melanoma and no prior systemic therapy were randomly assigned (3:1) to selumetinib (75 mg twice daily) plus dacarbazine (1,000 mg/m² intravenously on day 1 of every 21-day cycle) or placebo plus dacarbazine. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central radiologic review. Secondary end points included overall survival and objective response rate. Results: A total of 129 patients were randomly assigned to receive selumetinib plus dacarbazine (n = 97) or placebo plus dacarbazine (n = 32). In the selumetinib plus dacarbazine group, 82 patients (85%) experienced a PFS event, compared with 24 (75%) in the placebo plus dacarbazine group (median, 2.8 v 1.8 months); the hazard ratio for PFS was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.48 to 1.27; two-sided P = .32). The objective response rate was 3% with selumetinib plus dacarbazine and 0% with placebo plus dacarbazine (two-sided P = .36). At 37% maturity (n = 48 deaths), analysis of overall survival gave a hazard ratio of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.39 to 1.46; two-sided P = .40). The most frequently reported adverse events (selumetinib plus dacarbazine v placebo plus dacarbazine) were nausea (62% v 19%), rash (57% v 6%), fatigue (44% v 47%), diarrhea (44% v 22%), and peripheral edema (43% v 6%). Conclusion: In patients with metastatic uveal melanoma, the combination of selumetinib plus dacarbazine had a tolerable safety profile but did not significantly improve PFS compared with placebo plus dacarbazine.

Aging is a heterogeneous process. Most newly diagnosed cancers occur in older adults, and it is important to understand a patient’s underlying health status when making treatment decisions. A geriatric assessment provides a detailed evaluation of medical, psychosocial, and functional problems in older patients with cancer. Specifically, it can identify areas of vulnerability, predict survival and toxicity, assist in clinical treatment decisions, and guide interventions in routine oncology practice; however, the uptake is hampered by limitations in both time and resources, as well as by a lack of expert interpretation. In this review, we describe the utility of geriatric assessment by using an illustrative case and provide a practical approach to geriatric assessment in oncology.

Metastatic uveal melanoma is a deadly disease with no proven standard of care. Here we present a metastatic uveal melanoma patient with an exceptional high sensitivity to a PD-1 inhibitor associated with outlier CpG>TpG mutation burden, MBD4 germline deleterious mutation, and somatic MBD4 inactivation in the tumor. We identify additional tumors in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) cohorts with similar hypermutator profiles in patients carrying germline deleterious MBD4 mutations and somatic loss of heterozygosity. This MBD4-related hypermutator phenotype may explain unexpected responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Objective This study investigated the capacity of genetic analysis of uveal melanoma samples to identify high-risk patients and discusses its clinical implications. Methods Patients with posterior uveal melanoma were prospectively enrolled. Tumour samples were derived from enucleated globe, fine-needle aspirates or endoresection. Chromosome 3 and 8 status was determined by array comparative genomic hybridisation (array-CGH). Patients were followed after treatment to detect metastasis. Results Four groups were classified by array-CGH. Patients were divided into disomy 3 and normal chromosome 8 (D3/8nl), disomy 3 and 8q gain (D3/8g), monosomy 3 and normal chromosome 8 (M3/8nl) and monosomy 3 and 8 or 8q gain (M3/8g). Median follow-up was 28 months (range: 1–147 months). At the end of the study, 128 patients (33.7%) had developed metastasis and 96 patients had died. Univariate Cox proportional hazard analysis showed that factors associated with metastasis included basal tumour diameter p=0.0007, tumour thickness p=0.01, mixed/epithelioid cell type p=0.0009 and genomic data p<0.0001. High-risk profile was more strongly associated with metastasis than the other prognostic factors p<0.001. Multivariate Cox modelling analysis showed that the status of chromosomes 3 and 8 were the only two variables that independently contributed to prognosis: monosomy 3 alone p=0.001 and monosomy 3 and 8q gain p<0.0001. Conclusions Array-CGH allowed identification of three prognostic groups with low, intermediate and high risk of developing metastasis. Array-CGH is a reliable and inexpensive method for uveal melanoma prognosis. This method is now currently used in France.