April Salama

Positions:

Associate Professor of Medicine

Medicine, Medical Oncology
School of Medicine

Member of the Duke Cancer Institute

Duke Cancer Institute
School of Medicine

Education:

M.D. 2004

University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill

Internal Medicine

The University of Chicago

Hematology/Oncology

The University of Chicago

Grants:

Collaborative Success: Expanding Options for Patients with Melanoma

Administered By
Duke Cancer Institute
Awarded By
National Institutes of Health
Role
Project Lead
Start Date
End Date

A Multicenter, Open label, Phase III Extension Trial to Study the Long-term Safety and Efficacy in Participants with Advanced Tumors Who Are Currently on Treatment or in Follow-up in a Pembrolizumab Trial.

Administered By
Duke Cancer Institute
Awarded By
Merck Sharp & Dohme
Role
Principal Investigator
Start Date
End Date

INCB 24360-208 A Phase 1/2, Open-Label, Dose-Escalation, Safety, Tolerability, and Efficacy Study of Epacadostat and Nivolumab in Combination With Immune Therapies in Subjects With Advanced or Metastatic Malignancies (ECHO-208)

Administered By
Duke Cancer Institute
Awarded By
Incyte Corporation
Role
Principal Investigator
Start Date
End Date

A Phase 3, Randomized Study of Adjuvant Immunotherapy with Nivolumab Combined with Ipilimumab versus Nivolumab Monotherapy after Complete Resection of Stage IIIb/c/d or Stage IV Melanoma

Administered By
Duke Cancer Institute
Awarded By
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Role
Principal Investigator
Start Date
End Date

A Phase II Randomized, Open-label, Multi-center Study of the Safety and Efficacy of IMCgp100 Compared with Investigator's Choice in HLA-A*0201 Positive Patients with Previously Untreated Advanced Uveal Melanoma

Administered By
Duke Cancer Institute
Awarded By
Immunocore Limited
Role
Principal Investigator
Start Date
End Date

Publications:

Predictive factors of neoadjuvant immune checkpoint blockade in melanoma.

This review describes the current body of literature and ongoing clinical trials examining neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) for patients with resectable stage III and IV melanoma. Based on prior success in treating metastatic melanoma and as adjuvant therapy, ICIs are being explored in the neoadjuvant setting. There have been initial trials and there are many ongoing trials examining neoadjuvant ICI. Herein, we will review the clinical feasibility and efficacy of various neoadjuvant ICI regimens, explore pathologic and cellular responses, and present factors associated with predictive tumor response.
Authors
Sarver, M; Brown, MC; Rhodin, KE; Salama, AKS; Beasley, GM
MLA Citation
Sarver, Melissa, et al. “Predictive factors of neoadjuvant immune checkpoint blockade in melanoma.Hum Vaccin Immunother, July 2021, pp. 1–9. Pubmed, doi:10.1080/21645515.2021.1943987.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1489122
PMID
34254900
Source
pubmed
Published In
Hum Vaccin Immunother
Published Date
Start Page
1
End Page
9
DOI
10.1080/21645515.2021.1943987

Cutaneous melanoma: Management of melanoma brain metastases and molecular testing

Several advances in diagnosis and treatment of cutaneous melanoma were discussed at the NCCN 2021 Virtual Annual Conference. First, advances in immunotherapies and targeted agents have enhanced the role of systemic therapies in the up-front management of brain metastases in melanoma while improving survival. With dual-agent immune checkpoint inhibitors, more than half of patients with asymptomatic brain metastases that are not in high-risk anatomic areas of the brain respond to treatment, and these responses appear to be durable, sparing many patients from neurosurgery and/or stereotactic radiosurgery. In addition, molecular tests increasingly have implications for clinical decision-making in later-stage disease. The most important genetic mutation in melanoma is the BRAF V600 mutation, which can be found in approximately 40% to 50% of cutaneous melanomas.
Authors
Johnson, DB; Swetter, SM; Salama, AKS; Wuthrick, E
MLA Citation
Johnson, D. B., et al. “Cutaneous melanoma: Management of melanoma brain metastases and molecular testing.” Jnccn Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, vol. 19, 2021, pp. 644–47. Scopus, doi:10.6004/jnccn.2021.5021.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1488059
Source
scopus
Published In
Jnccn Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network
Volume
19
Published Date
Start Page
644
End Page
647
DOI
10.6004/jnccn.2021.5021

Overall Survival Benefit with Tebentafusp in Metastatic Uveal Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Uveal melanoma is a disease that is distinct from cutaneous melanoma, with a low tumor mutational burden and a 1-year overall survival of approximately 50% in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma. Data showing a proven overall survival benefit with a systemic treatment are lacking. Tebentafusp is a bispecific protein consisting of an affinity-enhanced T-cell receptor fused to an anti-CD3 effector that can redirect T cells to target glycoprotein 100-positive cells. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned previously untreated HLA-A*02:01-positive patients with metastatic uveal melanoma in a 2:1 ratio to receive tebentafusp (tebentafusp group) or the investigator's choice of therapy with single-agent pembrolizumab, ipilimumab, or dacarbazine (control group), stratified according to the lactate dehydrogenase level. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 378 patients were randomly assigned to either the tebentafusp group (252 patients) or the control group (126 patients). Overall survival at 1 year was 73% in the tebentafusp group and 59% in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37 to 0.71; P<0.001) in the intention-to-treat population. Progression-free survival was also significantly higher in the tebentafusp group than in the control group (31% vs. 19% at 6 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.94; P = 0.01). The most common treatment-related adverse events in the tebentafusp group were cytokine-mediated events (due to T-cell activation) and skin-related events (due to glycoprotein 100-positive melanocytes), including rash (83%), pyrexia (76%), and pruritus (69%). These adverse events decreased in incidence and severity after the first three or four doses and infrequently led to discontinuation of the trial treatment (2%). No treatment-related deaths were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with tebentafusp resulted in longer overall survival than the control therapy among previously untreated patients with metastatic uveal melanoma. (Funded by Immunocore; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03070392; EudraCT number, 2015-003153-18.).
Authors
Nathan, P; Hassel, JC; Rutkowski, P; Baurain, J-F; Butler, MO; Schlaak, M; Sullivan, RJ; Ochsenreither, S; Dummer, R; Kirkwood, JM; Joshua, AM; Sacco, JJ; Shoushtari, AN; Orloff, M; Piulats, JM; Milhem, M; Salama, AKS; Curti, B; Demidov, L; Gastaud, L; Mauch, C; Yushak, M; Carvajal, RD; Hamid, O; Abdullah, SE; Holland, C; Goodall, H; Piperno-Neumann, S; IMCgp100-202 Investigators,
MLA Citation
Nathan, Paul, et al. “Overall Survival Benefit with Tebentafusp in Metastatic Uveal Melanoma.N Engl J Med, vol. 385, no. 13, Sept. 2021, pp. 1196–206. Pubmed, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2103485.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1497313
PMID
34551229
Source
pubmed
Published In
The New England Journal of Medicine
Volume
385
Published Date
Start Page
1196
End Page
1206
DOI
10.1056/NEJMoa2103485

Potential Utility of Synthetic D-Lactate Polymers in Skin Cancer

Authors
Dikshit, A; Lu, J; Ford, AE; Degan, S; Jin, YJ; Sun, H; Nichols, A; Salama, AKS; Beasley, G; Gooden, D; Zhang, JY
MLA Citation
Dikshit, Anushka, et al. “Potential Utility of Synthetic D-Lactate Polymers in Skin Cancer.” Jid Innovations, vol. 1, no. 3, Elsevier BV, Sept. 2021, pp. 100043–100043. Crossref, doi:10.1016/j.xjidi.2021.100043.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1494974
Source
crossref
Published In
Jid Innovations
Volume
1
Published Date
Start Page
100043
End Page
100043
DOI
10.1016/j.xjidi.2021.100043

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Melanoma: Cutaneous, Version 2.2021.

Over the past few years, the NCCN Guidelines for Melanoma: Cutaneous have been expanded to include pathways for treatment of microscopic satellitosis (added in v2.2020), and the following Principles sections: Molecular Testing (added in v2.2019), Systemic Therapy Considerations (added in v2.2020), and Brain Metastases Management (added in v3.2020). The v1.2021 update included additional modifications of these sections and notable revisions to Principles of: Pathology, Surgical Margins for Wide Excision of Primary Melanoma, Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy, Completion/Therapeutic Lymph Node Dissection, and Radiation Therapy. These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss the important changes to pathology and surgery recommendations, as well as additions to systemic therapy options for patients with advanced disease.
Authors
Swetter, SM; Thompson, JA; Albertini, MR; Barker, CA; Baumgartner, J; Boland, G; Chmielowski, B; DiMaio, D; Durham, A; Fields, RC; Fleming, MD; Galan, A; Gastman, B; Grossmann, K; Guild, S; Holder, A; Johnson, D; Joseph, RW; Karakousis, G; Kendra, K; Lange, JR; Lanning, R; Margolin, K; Olszanski, AJ; Ott, PA; Ross, MI; Salama, AK; Sharma, R; Skitzki, J; Sosman, J; Wuthrick, E; McMillian, NR; Engh, AM
MLA Citation
Swetter, Susan M., et al. “NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Melanoma: Cutaneous, Version 2.2021.J Natl Compr Canc Netw, vol. 19, no. 4, Apr. 2021, pp. 364–76. Pubmed, doi:10.6004/jnccn.2021.0018.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1478544
PMID
33845460
Source
pubmed
Published In
J Natl Compr Canc Netw
Volume
19
Published Date
Start Page
364
End Page
376
DOI
10.6004/jnccn.2021.0018