Another benefit of dietary fiber The gut microbiome can modulate the immune system and influence the therapeutic response of cancer patients, yet the mechanisms underlying the effects of microbiota are presently unclear. Spencer et al . add to our understanding of how dietary habits affect microbiota and clinical outcomes to immunotherapy. In an observational study, the researchers found that melanoma patients reporting high fiber (prebiotic) consumption had a better response to checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy compared with those patients reporting a low-fiber diet. The most marked benefit was observed for those patients reporting a combination of high fiber consumption and no use of over-the-counter probiotic supplements. These findings provide early insights as to how diet-related factors may influence the immune response. —PNK

No abstract

Background: There is a growing appreciation for the GM in response to melanoma therapy. Recent work identified a favorable (T1) GM signature associated with checkpoint benefit. However, little is known about how lifestyle factors may influence features of the GM or about the influence of the GM on therapeutic outcomes to other common melanoma therapies. Methods: We prospectively collected fecal samples melanoma patients at MD Anderson Cancer Center and characterized the GM via 16S rRNA sequencing (n=146). In a subset initiating systemic therapy (n= 113), we also collected baseline diet information via the NCI dietary screener questionnaire, and probiotic and antibiotic use and followed for response (RECISTv1.1). We compared GM beta diversity (BD)(Bray-Curtis) with ANOSIM and descriptive statistics and Wilcoxon tests were applied to alpha diversity (AD)(Chao1) among treatment response groups. Spearman correlation was used to test relationships of dietary groups and GM composition. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to determine the individual and joint effects of lifestyle factors on response. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed for area under the curve (AUC) quantification. Results: Considering all treatment groups, baseline AD was highest in patients with complete/partial response (mean=355), compared to patients with stable (mean=330) and progressive disease (mean=318). The GM did not significantly differ by age, sex or BMI. Report of probiotic (42%) and antibiotic (29%) use at baseline was associated with lower AD (p=0.02). Whole grains and overall diet quality correlated positively with pro-response bacteria, added sugars and processed meat negatively correlated. GM community structure (BD) differed by high and low fiber intake (p<0.05). Patients with high vs. low fiber diet had higher odds of response to aPD1 (OR=5.3, 95% CI: 1.02-26.3) and AUC for fiber in predicting response was 0.65. Joint effects analysis showed greatest odds of response among patients with a T1 signature and high fiber diet (OR=3.6, 95% CI: 0.7-17.8) vs. low fiber diet (OR=1.9, 95%CI 0.6-6.4), compared to patients without a T1 signature. Similar results were seen for overall diet score; and for both fiber and diet score, results reached statistical significance excluding patients on antibiotics. Conclusion: AD of the GM varies by response regardless of treatment type. While preliminary, this data points to the idea that the GM in melanoma patients may be negatively influenced by probiotics and could be targeted by dietary manipulation. Larger prospective and interventional studies are needed to assess the relationships between host lifestyle factors, the GM and response to melanoma therapies. Citation Format: Christine N. Spencer, Vancheswaran Gopalakrishnan, Jennifer McQuade, Miles C. Andrews, Beth Helmink, M.A. Wadud Khan, Elizabeth Sirmans, Lauren Haydu, Alexandria Cogdill, Elizabeth Burton, Rodabe Amaria, Sapna Patel, Isabella Glitza, MIchael Davies, Eliza Posada, Wen-Jen Hwu, Adi Diab, Kelly Nelson, Hussein Tawbi, Michael Wong, Robert R. Jenq, Lorenzo Cohen, Carrie Daniel-MacDougall, Jennifer A. Wargo. The gut microbiome (GM) and immunotherapy response are influenced by host lifestyle factors [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 2838.

BACKGROUD Treatment options for patients with melanoma brain metastasis (MBM) have changed significantly in the last decade. Few studies have evaluated changes in outcomes and factors associated with survival in MBM patients over time. The aim of this study is to evaluate changes in clinical features and overall survival (OS) for MBM patients. METHODS Patients diagnosed with MBMs from 1/1/2009-12/31/2013 (Prior Era; PE) and 1/1/2014-12/31/2018 (Current Era; CE) at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center were included in this retrospective analysis. The primary outcome measure was OS. Log-rank test assessed differences between groups; multivariable analyses were performed with Cox proportional hazards models and recursive partitioning analysis (RPA). RESULTS 791 MBM patients (PE, n=332; CE, n=459) were included in analysis. Median OS from MBM diagnosis was 10.3 months (95% CI, 8.9 – 12.4) and improved in the CE versus PE (14.4 vs. 10.3 months, P < .001). Elevated serum LDH was the only factor associated with worse OS in both PE and CE patients. Factors associated with survival in CE MBM patients included patient age, primary tumor Breslow thickness, prior immunotherapy, leptomeningeal disease (LMD), symptomatic MBMs, and whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT). Several factors associated with OS in the PE were not significant in the CE. RPA demonstrated that elevated serum LDH and prior immunotherapy treatment are the most important determinants of survival in CE MBM patients. CONCLUSIONS OS and factors associated with OS have changed for MBM patients. This information can inform contemporary patient management and clinical investigations.

To our knowledge, there is no available standardized educational curriculum designed to promote the incorporation of skin cancer examinations and procedures into general practice. To explore the contemporary training landscape, we conducted a systematic review of educational interventions designed to support skin cancer diagnostic examinations by primary care providers (PCPs). Our review uniquely encompasses all PCPs, including practicing physicians, residents, and advanced practice practitioners (APPs). The objective of this study is to review and synthesize worldwide data on educational interventions addressing PCP performance of skin cancer diagnostic examinations. A systematic review was performed in MEDLINE , Cochrane , EMBASE, and Scopus for English language articles worldwide published from 2000 onwards. Articles were screened for eligibility, and possibly overlapping datasets were resolved. Data extracted included curriculum content, delivery format, and educational outcomes. This review followed the PRISMA guidelines. A total of 63 studies were selected for data inclusion with one addressing training for resident physicians, 4 for APPs, and the remainder for practicing physicians. Educational interventions included in this review reflect the pre-SARS-CoV-2 pandemic educational environment: half provided live/synchronous instruction of about 5-h duration on average, and a quarter featured interactive components. Less than a quarter of interventions included practice change as a specific reported outcome. Without sustainable practice change, the anticipated long-term benefits of early cancer detection in patients remain limited. Previous and existing educational interventions designed to support skin cancer detection by PCPs demonstrate heterogeneous curriculum content, delivery methods, and educational outcomes. An ideal intervention would teach consensus-derived clinical competencies, provide meaningful learner feedback, and measure outcomes, such as knowledge/competency, confidence/attitudes, and practice change, using validated instruments. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13187-021-02118-8.