Powers, Jennifer G.

Recent progress in the treatment of advanced melanoma has led to unprecedented improvements in overall survival and, as these new melanoma treatments have been developed and deployed in the clinic, much has been learned about the natural history of the disease. Now is the time to apply that knowledge toward the design and clinical evaluation of new chemoprevention agents. Melanoma chemoprevention has the potential to reduce dramatically both the morbidity and the high costs associated with treating patients who have metastatic disease. In this work, scientific and clinical melanoma experts from the national Melanoma Prevention Working Group, composed of National Cancer Trials Network investigators, discuss research aimed at discovering and developing (or repurposing) drugs and natural products for the prevention of melanoma and propose an updated pipeline for translating the most promising agents into the clinic. The mechanism of action, preclinical data, epidemiological evidence, and results from available clinical trials are discussed for each class of compounds. Selected keratinocyte carcinoma chemoprevention studies also are considered, and a rationale for their inclusion is presented. These data are summarized in a table that lists the type and level of evidence available for each class of agents. Also included in the discussion is an assessment of additional research necessary and the likelihood that a given compound may be a suitable candidate for a phase 3 clinical trial within the next 5 years.

Abstract Immune checkpoint inhibitors such as ipilimumab and targeted BRAF inhibitors have dramatically altered the landscape of melanoma therapeutics over the past few years. Agents targeting the programmed cell death-1/ligand (PD-1/PD-L1) axis are now being developed and seem to be highly active clinically with favorable toxicity profiles. We report on two patients with BRAF V600E–mutant melanoma who were treated with anti-PD-1 agents as first-line therapy without significant toxicity, followed by vemurafenib at disease progression. Both patients developed severe hypersensitivity drug eruptions with multiorgan injury early in their BRAF inhibitor treatment course. One patient subsequently developed acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, and the other developed anaphylaxis upon low-dose vemurafenib rechallenge. Further investigation of the immune response during combination or sequences of melanoma therapeutics is warranted. Furthermore, clinicians should maintain a high index of suspicion for these toxicities when vemurafenib is administered following an anti-PD-1 agent. Cancer Immunol Res; 1(6); 373–7. ©2013 AACR.