Solitary fibrous tumor (SFT) is a mesenchymal neoplasm of fibrous origin. The 2013 WHO classification of soft tissue tumors defines malignant forms as hypercellular, mitotically active (>4 mitosis/10 ...high-power fields), with cytological atypia, tumor necrosis, and/or infiltrative margins. With an IRB-approved protocol, we investigated patient records and clinicopathologic data from our Sarcoma Database to describe the clinical characteristics of both benign and malignant SFT. All pathology specimens were reviewed by two pathologists. Descriptive statistics and univariate/multivariate survival analysis were performed. Patient records and Social Security Death Index were used to evaluate vital status. Of 82 patients, 47 (57%) were women and 73 (89%) were Caucasian. Median age was 62 years (range, 20 to 89). Thirty-two (39%) patients succumbed to the disease. Primary tumor site was lung/pleura in 28 (34%), abdomen/pelvis in 23 (28%), extremity in 13 (16%), and head/neck in 9 (11%) patients. Pathology was described as benign in 42 (51%) and malignant in 40 (49%) patients. Compared to benign SFT, malignant histology is associated with larger tumor size, higher mitotic counts, metastatic disease at diagnosis, and greater use of chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Gender, age, and tumor site were not significantly different between benign and malignant subtypes. By univariate analysis, only benign vs. malignant variant and complete resection positively impacted overall survival (P = 0.02 and P<0.0001, respectively). In the multivariable analysis of overall survival, receiving chemotherapy or not receiving surgery were two variables significantly associated with higher failure rate in overall survival: patients with chemotherapy vs. no chemotherapy (P = 0.003, HR = 4.55, with 95% CI: 1.68-12.34) and patients without surgery vs. with surgery (P = 0.005, HR = 25.49, with 95% CI: 2.62-247.57). Clear survival differences exist between benign and malignant SFT. While surgery appears to be the best treatment option for benign and malignant SFT, better systemic therapies are needed to improve outcomes of patients with metastatic, malignant SFT.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Purpose To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)-Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) guideline for sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy in melanoma. Methods An ASCO-SSO panel was formed, ...and a systematic review of the literature was conducted regarding SLN biopsy and completion lymph node dissection (CLND) after a positive sentinel node in patients with melanoma. Results Nine new observational studies, two systematic reviews, and an updated randomized controlled trial of SLN biopsy, as well as two randomized controlled trials of CLND after positive SLN biopsy, were included. Recommendations Routine SLN biopsy is not recommended for patients with thin melanomas that are T1a (nonulcerated lesions < 0.8 mm in Breslow thickness). SLN biopsy may be considered for thin melanomas that are T1b (0.8 to 1.0 mm Breslow thickness or < 0.8 mm Breslow thickness with ulceration) after a thorough discussion with the patient of the potential benefits and risk of harms associated with the procedure. SLN biopsy is recommended for patients with intermediate-thickness melanomas (T2 or T3; Breslow thickness of > 1.0 to 4.0 mm). SLN biopsy may be recommended for patients with thick melanomas (T4; > 4.0 mm in Breslow thickness), after a discussion of the potential benefits and risks of harm. In the case of a positive SLN biopsy, CLND or careful observation are options for patients with low-risk micrometastatic disease, with due consideration of clinicopathological factors. For higher-risk patients, careful observation may be considered only after a thorough discussion with patients about the potential risks and benefits of foregoing CLND. Important qualifying statements outlining relevant clinicopathological factors and details of the reference patient populations are included within the guideline. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/melanoma-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .
Introduction: Selective inhibition of the MAPK pathway with BRAF and MEK
inhibitors has emerged as a key component of the treatment of BRAF-mutant unresectable/locally
advanced metastatic melanoma.
...Areas covered: Current data are presented on the efficacy and safety of BRAFi +
MEKi combination therapy (dabrafenib/trametinib, vemurafenib/cobimetinib, and
encorafenib/binimetinib) from phase I, II, and III trials in the unresectable/locally advanced
metastatic setting, as well as neoadjuvant and adjuvant applications. The theoretical basis,
pre-clinical findings, clinical trial results and current ongoing clinical studies of combined
BRAF/MEK inhibition with immunotherapy, also known as 'triplet therapy,' are also
explored.
Expert opinion: Combination therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors dramatically
improves response rates, progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with
BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma compared to historical treatments such as chemotherapy. Some
serious adverse effects, including cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, are attenuated with
combination therapy, while less severe and reversible effects including pyrexia, left
ventricular dysfunction, and ocular events can be more common with combination therapy.
Existing data are insufficient to recommend triplet therapy, or a particular treatment
sequence, with respect to BRAF and MEK inhibitors and immune therapies, though results from
multiple ongoing trials are anticipated.
Trial registration:
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02231775.
Trial registration:
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01940809.
Trial registration:
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02902042.
Trial registration:
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02967692.
Trial registration:
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02858921.
Trial registration:
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02130466.
Trial registration:
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02902029.
Trial registration:
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02631447.
Trial registration:
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02968303.
Trial registration:
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02910700.
Trial registration:
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02908672.
Trial registration:
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT3149029.
Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) is a herpes simplex virus type 1-derived oncolytic immunotherapy designed to selectively replicate within tumors and produce granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating ...factor (GM-CSF) to enhance systemic antitumor immune responses. T-VEC was compared with GM-CSF in patients with unresected stage IIIB to IV melanoma in a randomized open-label phase III trial.
Patients with injectable melanoma that was not surgically resectable were randomly assigned at a two-to-one ratio to intralesional T-VEC or subcutaneous GM-CSF. The primary end point was durable response rate (DRR; objective response lasting continuously ≥ 6 months) per independent assessment. Key secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and overall response rate.
Among 436 patients randomly assigned, DRR was significantly higher with T-VEC (16.3%; 95% CI, 12.1% to 20.5%) than GM-CSF (2.1%; 95% CI, 0% to 4.5%; odds ratio, 8.9; P < .001). Overall response rate was also higher in the T-VEC arm (26.4%; 95% CI, 21.4% to 31.5% v 5.7%; 95% CI, 1.9% to 9.5%). Median OS was 23.3 months (95% CI, 19.5 to 29.6 months) with T-VEC and 18.9 months (95% CI, 16.0 to 23.7 months) with GM-CSF (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.00; P = .051). T-VEC efficacy was most pronounced in patients with stage IIIB, IIIC, or IVM1a disease and in patients with treatment-naive disease. The most common adverse events (AEs) with T-VEC were fatigue, chills, and pyrexia. The only grade 3 or 4 AE occurring in ≥ 2% of T-VEC-treated patients was cellulitis (2.1%). No fatal treatment-related AEs occurred.
T-VEC is the first oncolytic immunotherapy to demonstrate therapeutic benefit against melanoma in a phase III clinical trial. T-VEC was well tolerated and resulted in a higher DRR (P < .001) and longer median OS (P = .051), particularly in untreated patients or those with stage IIIB, IIIC, or IVM1a disease. T-VEC represents a novel potential therapy for patients with metastatic melanoma.
Acral melanoma is a rare subtype of melanoma that arises on the non-hair-bearing skin of the palms, soles, and nail beds. In this study, we used single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) to map the ...transcriptional landscape of acral melanoma and identify novel immunotherapeutic targets.
We performed scRNA-seq on nine clinical specimens (five primary, four metastases) of acral melanoma. Detailed cell type curation was performed, the immune landscapes were mapped, and key results were validated by analysis of The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and single-cell datasets. Cell-cell interactions were inferred and compared with those in nonacral cutaneous melanoma.
Multiple phenotypic subsets of T cells, natural killer (NK) cells, B cells, macrophages, and dendritic cells with varying levels of activation/exhaustion were identified. A comparison between primary and metastatic acral melanoma identified gene signatures associated with changes in immune responses and metabolism. Acral melanoma was characterized by a lower overall immune infiltrate, fewer effector CD8 T cells and NK cells, and a near-complete absence of γδ T cells compared with nonacral cutaneous melanomas. Immune cells associated with acral melanoma exhibited expression of multiple checkpoints including PD-1, LAG-3, CTLA-4, V-domain immunoglobin suppressor of T cell activation (VISTA), TIGIT, and the Adenosine A2A receptor (ADORA2). VISTA was expressed in 58.3% of myeloid cells and TIGIT was expressed in 22.3% of T/NK cells.
Acral melanoma has a suppressed immune environment compared with that of cutaneous melanoma from nonacral skin. Expression of multiple, therapeutically tractable immune checkpoints were observed, offering new options for clinical translation.
Purpose
Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) is an oncolytic immunotherapy designed to induce tumor regression of injected lesions through direct lytic effects, and of uninjected lesions through ...induction of systemic antitumor immunity. In this study, we describe the patterns and time course of response to T-VEC from the phase III OPTiM trial of 436 patients with unresected stages IIIB–IV melanoma.
Methods
Lesion-level response analyses were performed based on the type of lesion (injected or uninjected cutaneous, subcutaneous, or nodal lesions; or visceral lesions uninjected), and the best percentage change from baseline of the sum of products of the longest diameters was calculated. Patients randomized to T-VEC (
n
= 295) who experienced a durable response (continuous partial or complete response for ≥6 months) were evaluated for progression prior to response (PPR), defined as the appearance of a new lesion or >25 % increase in total baseline tumor area.
Results
T-VEC resulted in a decrease in size by ≥50 % in 64 % of injected lesions (
N
= 2116), 34 % of uninjected non-visceral lesions (
N
= 981), and 15 % of visceral lesions (
N
= 177). Complete resolution of lesions occurred in 47 % of injected lesions, 22 % of uninjected non-visceral lesions, and 9 % of visceral lesions. Of 48 patients with durable responses, 23 (48 %) experienced PPR, including 14 who developed new lesions only. No difference in overall survival was observed, and median duration of response was not reached in patients with PPR versus those without PPR.
Conclusions
Responses in uninjected lesions provide validation of T-VEC-induced systemic immunotherapeutic effects against melanoma. PPR did not negatively impact the clinical effectiveness of T-VEC.
PDF
