As widely acknowledged, 40–50% of all melanoma patients harbour an activating BRAF mutation (mostly BRAF V600E). The identification of the RAS–RAF–MEK–ERK (MAP kinase) signalling pathway and its targeting has represented a valuable milestone for the advanced and, more recently, for the completely resected stage III and IV melanoma therapy management. However, despite progress in BRAF-mutant melanoma treatment, the two different approaches approved so far for metastatic disease, immunotherapy and BRAF+MEK inhibitors, allow a 5-year survival of no more than 60%, and most patients relapse during treatment due to acquired mechanisms of resistance. Deep insight into BRAF gene biology is fundamental to describe the acquired resistance mechanisms (primary and secondary) and to understand the molecular pathways that are now being investigated in preclinical and clinical studies with the aim of improving outcomes in BRAF-mutant patients.

Cutaneous melanoma is a lethal disease, even when diagnosed in advanced stages. Although recent progress in biology and treatment has dramatically improved survival rates, new therapeutic approaches are still needed. Deregulation of epigenetics, which mainly controls DNA methylation status and chromatin remodeling, is implied not only in cancer initiation and progression, but also in resistance to antitumor drugs. Epigenetics in melanoma has been studied recently in both melanoma preclinical models and patient samples, highlighting its potential role in different phases of melanomagenesis, as well as in resistance to approved drugs such as immune checkpoint inhibitors and MAPK inhibitors. This review summarizes what is currently known about epigenetics in melanoma and dwells on the recognized and potential new targets for testing epigenetic drugs, alone or together with other agents, in advanced melanoma patients.

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has overwhelmed the health systems worldwide. Data regarding the impact of COVID-19 on cancer patients (CPs) undergoing or candidate for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are lacking. We depicted the practice and adaptations in the management of patients with solid tumors eligible or receiving ICIs during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a special focus on Campania region.MethodsThis survey (25 questions), promoted by the young section of SCITO (Società Campana di ImmunoTerapia Oncologica) Group, was circulated among Italian young oncologists practicing in regions variously affected by the pandemic: high (group 1), medium (group 2) and low (group 3) prevalence of SARS-CoV-2–positive patients. For Campania region, the physician responders were split into those working in cancer centers (CC), university hospitals (UH) and general hospitals (GH). Percentages of agreement, among High (H) versus Medium (M) and versus Low (L) group for Italy and among CC, UH and GH for Campania region, were compared by using Fisher’s exact tests for dichotomous answers and χ2 test for trends relative to the questions with 3 or more options.ResultsThis is the first Italian study to investigate the COVID-19 impact on cancer immunotherapy, unique in its type and very clear in the results. The COVID-19 pandemic seemed not to affect the standard practice in the prescription and delivery of ICIs in Italy. Telemedicine was widely used. There was high consensus to interrupt immunotherapy in SARS-CoV-2–positive patients and to adopt ICIs with longer schedule interval. The majority of the responders tended not to delay the start of ICIs; there were no changes in supportive treatments, but some of the physicians opted for delaying surgeries (if part of patients’ planned treatment approach). The results from responders in Campania did not differ significantly from the national ones.ConclusionOur study highlights the efforts of Italian oncologists to maintain high standards of care for CPs treated with ICIs, regardless the regional prevalence of COVID-19, suggesting the adoption of similar solutions. Research on patients treated with ICIs and experiencing COVID-19 will clarify the safety profile to continue the treatments, thus informing on the most appropriate clinical conducts.

Background The current standard first-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive (+) metastatic breast cancer is the combination of pertuzumab, trastuzumab and a taxane (P + T + taxane), while standard second-line is ado-trastuzumab-emtansine (T-DM1). The registration trial of pertuzumab, however, did not include early-relapsing patients, defined as patients experiencing tumor relapse ≤12 months from the end of (neo)adjuvant anti-HER2 therapy. Conversely, the pivotal trial of T-DM1 included some patients relapsing ≤6 months after the end of (neo)adjuvant trastuzumab. Thus, a proportion of early-relapsing patients are currently eligible to receive T-DM1 as first-line treatment. Nevertheless, no direct comparison exists between the two regimens in this clinical setting. Patients and methods We retrospectively compared T-DM1 versus P + T + taxane as first-line treatment in two cohorts of early-relapsing patients in an Italian ‘real-world’ setting, involving 14 public health care institutions. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints included patients' characterization, overall survival and post-progression survival. Univariate and multivariate analyses were carried out. All tests were two-sided and a P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results Among 1252 screened patients, 75 met the inclusion criteria. Forty-four (58.7%) received P + T + taxane and 31 (41.3%) received T-DM1. The two cohorts showed similar characteristics of aggressiveness and no significant differences in treatment history. T-DM1, compared with P + T + taxane was associated with worse progression-free survival (adjusted hazard ratio: 2.26, 95% confidence interval: 1.13-4.52, P = 0.021) and overall survival (adjusted hazard ratio: 3.95, 95% confidence interval: 1.38-11.32, P = 0.010), irrespective of previous (neo)adjuvant treatment, age, hormone receptors status, time-to-relapse (≤6 months or within 6-12 months) and presence of visceral/brain metastases. No differences were observed in post-progression survival ( P = 0.095). Conclusions Our study suggests superiority for P + T + taxane over T-DM1 as up-front treatment of early-relapsing HER2+ metastatic breast cancer, which merits further assessment in larger and prospective trials.

No abstract