Uveal melanoma is a rare type of melanoma, with only five to seven cases per one million persons diagnosed each year. Patients with metastatic melanoma of uveal origin tend to have lower response rates on traditional therapies. Herein we report our experience with 10 patients with metastatic uveal melanoma (MUM) who received pembrolizumab. Eligible patients were more than or equal to 18 years old, had unresectable MUM, progressed on prior ipilimumab therapy, had good performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group of 0 or 1), and adequate organ and marrow function. Patients could have central nervous system disease, but needed to be clinically stable. Patients were treated with 2 mg/kg pembrolizumab intravenously over 30 min every 3 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or for up to 2 years. Between April 2014 and October 2014, we treated a total of 10 patients with MUM with pembrolizumab. Median age was 65 years, with 70% being female. As of the data cutoff date of 14 May 2015, median progression-free survival was 18 weeks (range 3.14-49.3 weeks), with four patients still currently receiving therapy. Of eight evaluable patients, there was one complete response, two partial responses, and one patient with stable disease. Four patients had rapidly progressive disease. Toxicities were as expected and were usually grade 1/2 in nature. Although this cohort of patients was small, to our knowledge this is the first such report of outcomes in uveal melanoma patients being treated with anti-PD1 therapy. In the absence of a clinical trial, treatment with pembrolizumab appears to be a viable option for patients with MUM.

No abstract

No abstract

We report the first case of Cremophor EL-induced cutaneous lupus erythematosus-like reaction in a 40-year-old female undergoing treatment for breast cancer. There have been four reported cases of paclitaxel- and four cases of docetaxel-induced cutaneous lupus reactions in the published literature [Dasanu and Alexandrescu: South Med J 2008;101:1161–1162; Adachi and Horikawa: J Dermatol 2007;34:473–476; Lortholary et al: Presse Med 2007;36:1207–1208; Chen et al: J Rheumatol 2004;31:818–820]. Our patient developed findings of a cutaneous lupus-like reaction with administration of paclitaxel which was subsequently discontinued. She was re-challenged with albumin-bound paclitaxel which has no Cremophor EL compound in its formulation. This administration of albumin-bound paclitaxel did not induce further reaction. She did not develop a cutaneous lupus erythematosus-like reaction with three other subsequent administrations of albumin-bound paclitaxel. The diagnosis of lupus-like reaction in our patient was made based on the development of a malar butterfly rash sparing the nasolabial folds, the appearance of this rash in context of recently receiving treatments with paclitaxel, resolution of the rash after discontinuing the paclitaxel, and the presence of autoimmune antibodies in the patient’s serum which resolved with discontinuation of the paclitaxel. This is the first case demonstrating that the cause of the cutaneous lupus erythematosus-like reaction is not likely due to the taxane component of paclitaxel but the chemical composition of Cremophor EL. If the chemotherapeutic agent was causing the reaction then the same reaction should be seen by albumin-bound paclitaxel. We propose that previously reported lupus reactions may actually be due to Cremophor EL, which consists of polyoxyethylated castor oil, and not the chemotherapeutic agent itself.