PURPOSE Limited prospective data are available on sequential immunotherapy and BRAF/MEK inhibition for BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma. METHODS SECOMBIT is a randomized, three-arm, noncomparative phase II trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02631447 ). Patients with untreated, metastatic BRAFV600-mutant melanoma from 37 sites in nine countries were randomly assigned to arm A (encorafenib [450 mg orally once daily] plus binimetinib [45 mg orally twice daily] until progressive disease [PD] -> ipilimumab plus nivolumab [ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks and nivolumab 1 mg/kg once every 3 weeks × four cycles -> nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks]), arm B [ipilimumab plus nivolumab until PD -> encorafenib plus binimetinib], or arm C (encorafenib plus binimetinib for 8 weeks -> ipilimumab plus nivolumab until PD -> encorafenib plus binimetinib). The primary end point was overall survival (OS) at 2 years. Secondary end points included total progression-free survival, 3-year OS, best overall response rate, duration of response, and biomarkers in the intent-to-treat population. Safety was analyzed throughout sequential treatment in all participants who received at least one dose of study medication. RESULTS A total of 209 patients were randomly assigned (69 in arm A, 71 in arm B, and 69 in arm C). At a median follow-up of 32.2 (interquartile range, 27.9-41.6) months, median OS was not reached in any arm and more than 30 patients were alive in all arms. Assuming a null hypothesis of median OS of ≤ 15 months, the OS end point was met for all arms. The 2-year and 3-year OS rates were 65% (95% CI, 54 to 76) and 54% (95% CI, 41 to 67) in arm A, 73% (95% CI, 62 to 84) and 62% (95% CI, 48 to 76) in arm B, and 69% (95% CI, 59 to 80) and 60% (95% CI, 58 to 72) in arm C. No new safety signals emerged. CONCLUSION Sequential immunotherapy and targeted therapy provide clinically meaningful survival benefits for patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma.

All melanoma suspected patients must be confirmed histologically and resected. Sentinel node biopsy must be done when tumor is over 1 mm or if less with high-risk factors. Adjuvant therapy with interferon could be offered for patients with high-risk melanoma and in selected cases radiotherapy can be added. Metastatic melanoma treatment is guided by mutational BRAF status. BRAF wild type patients must receive anti-PD1 containing therapy and BRAF mutated patients BRAF/MEK inhibitors or anti-PD1 containing therapy. Up to 10 years follow up is reasonable for melanoma patients with dermatologic examinations and physical exams.

All melanoma patients must be confirmed histologically and resected according to Breslow. Sentinel node biopsy must be done when tumor is over 1 mm or if less with high-risk factors. Adjuvant therapy with interferon must be offered for patients with high-risk melanoma and in selected cases radiotherapy can be added. Metastatic melanoma treatment is guided by mutational BRAF status. BRAF wild type patients must receive anti-PD1 therapy and BRAF mutated patients BRAF/MEK inhibitors or anti-PD1 therapy. Up to 10 years follow up is recommended for melanoma patients with dermatologic examinations and physical exams.

In part one of this two-part paper, we present eight principles that we believe must be considered for more effective treatment of the currently incurable cancers. These are addressed by multidrug adjunctive cancer treatment (MDACT), which uses multiple repurposed non-oncology drugs, not primarily to kill malignant cells, but rather to reduce the malignant cells’ growth drives. Previous multidrug regimens have used MDACT principles, e.g., the CUSP9v3 glioblastoma treatment. MDACT is an amalgam of (1) the principle that to be effective in stopping a chain of events leading to an undesired outcome, one must break more than one link; (2) the principle of Palmer et al. of achieving fractional cancer cell killing via multiple drugs with independent mechanisms of action; (3) the principle of shaping versus decisive operations, both being required for successful cancer treatment; (4) an idea adapted from Chow et al., of using multiple cytotoxic medicines at low doses; (5) the idea behind CUSP9v3, using many non-oncology CNS-penetrant drugs from general medical practice, repurposed to block tumor survival paths; (6) the concept from chess that every move creates weaknesses and strengths; (7) the principle of mass—by adding force to a given effort, the chances of achieving the goal increase; and (8) the principle of blocking parallel signaling pathways. Part two gives an example MDACT regimen, gMDACT, which uses six repurposed drugs—celecoxib, dapsone, disulfiram, itraconazole, pyrimethamine, and telmisartan—to interfere with growth-driving elements common to cholangiocarcinoma, colon adenocarcinoma, glioblastoma, and non-small-cell lung cancer. gMDACT is another example of—not a replacement for—previous multidrug regimens already in clinical use, such as CUSP9v3. MDACT regimens are designed as adjuvants to be used with cytotoxic drugs.

BackgroundThe Food and Drug Administration recommends that people living with HIV (PWH) with a CD4+ T cell count (CD4) ≥350 cells/µL may be eligible for any cancer clinical trial, but there is reluctance to enter patients with lower CD4 counts into cancer studies, including immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) studies. Patients with relapsed or refractory cancers may have low CD4 due to prior cancer therapies, irrespective of HIV status. It is unclear how baseline CD4 prior to ICI impacts the proportion of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) and whether it differs by HIV status in ICI treated patients.MethodsWe conducted a pilot retrospective cohort study of participants eligible for ICI for advanced cancers from three phase 1/2 trials in the USA and Spain. We determined whether baseline CD4 counts differed by HIV status and whether the effect of CD4 counts on incidence of TEAE was modified by HIV status using a multivariable logistic regression model.ResultsOf 122 participants, 66 (54%) were PWH who received either pembrolizumab or durvalumab and 56 (46%) were HIV-negative who received bintrafusp alfa. Median CD4 at baseline was 320 cells/µL (IQR 210–495) among PWH and 356 cells/µL (IQR 260–470) among HIV-negative participants (p=0.5). Grade 3 or worse TEAE were recorded among 7/66 (11%) PWH compared with 7/56 (13%) among HIV-negative participants. When adjusted for prior therapies, age, sex, and race, the effect of baseline CD4 on incidence of TEAE was not modified by HIV status for any TEAE (interaction term p=0.7), or any grade ≥3 TEAE (interaction term p=0.1).ConclusionsThere was no significant difference in baseline CD4 or the proportions of any TEAE and grade ≥3 TEAE by HIV status. CD4 count thresholds for cancer clinical trials should be carefully reviewed to avoid unnecessarily excluding patients with HIV and cancer.