Surveillance of Sentinel Node-Positive Melanoma Patients with Reasons for Exclusion from MSLT-II: Multi-Institutional Propensity Score Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In sentinel lymph node (SLN)-positive melanoma, two randomized trials demonstrated equivalent melanoma-specific survival with nodal surveillance vs completion lymph node dissection (CLND). Patients with microsatellites, extranodal extension (ENE) in the SLN, or >3 positive SLNs constitute a high-risk group largely excluded from the randomized trials, for whom appropriate management remains unknown. STUDY DESIGN: SLN-positive patients with any of the three high-risk features were identified from an international cohort. CLND patients were matched 1:1 with surveillance patients using propensity scores. Risk of any-site recurrence, SLN-basin-only recurrence, and melanoma-specific mortality were compared. RESULTS: Among 1,154 SLN-positive patients, 166 had ENE, microsatellites, and/or >3 positive SLN. At 18.5 months median follow-up, 49% had recurrence (vs 26% in patients without high-risk features, p < 0.01). Among high-risk patients, 52 (31%) underwent CLND and 114 (69%) received surveillance. Fifty-one CLND patients were matched to 51 surveillance patients. The matched cohort was balanced on tumor, nodal, and adjuvant treatment factors. There were no significant differences in any-site recurrence (CLND 49%, surveillance 45%, p = 0.99), SLN-basin-only recurrence (CLND 6%, surveillance 14%, p = 0.20), or melanoma-specific mortality (CLND 14%, surveillance 12%, p = 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: SLN-positive patients with microsatellites, ENE, or >3 positive SLN constitute a high-risk group with a 2-fold greater recurrence risk. For those managed with nodal surveillance, SLN-basin recurrences were more frequent, but all-site recurrence and melanoma-specific mortality were comparable to patients treated with CLND. Most recurrences were outside the SLN-basin, supporting use of nodal surveillance for SLN-positive patients with microsatellites, ENE, and/or >3 positive SLN.

Oncologic Outcomes After Isolated Limb Infusion for Advanced Melanoma: An International Comparison of the Procedure and Outcomes Between the United States and Australia.

BACKGROUND: Isolated limb infusion (ILI) is a minimally invasive procedure for delivering high-dose chemotherapy to extremities affected by locally advanced or in-transit melanoma. This study compared the outcomes of melanoma patients treated with ILI in the United States of America (USA) and Australia (AUS). METHODS: Patients with locally recurrent in-transit melanoma treated with ILI at USA or AUS centers between 1992 and 2018 were identified. Demographic and clinicopathologic characteristics were collected. Primary outcomes of treatment response, in-field progression-free survival (IPFS), distant progression-free survival (DPFS), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariable analysis evaluated whether availability of new systemic therapies affected outcomes. RESULTS: More ILIs were performed in AUS (n = 411, 60 %) than in the USA (n = 276, 40 %). In AUS, more ILIs were performed for stage 3B disease than in the USA (62 % vs 46 %; p < 0.001). The reported complete response rates were similar (AUS 30 % vs USA 29 %). Among the stage 3B patients, AUS patients had better IPFS (p = 0.001), whereas DPFS and OS were similar between the two countries. Among the stage 3C patients, the USA patients had better OS (p < 0.001), whereas IPFS and DPFS were similar. Availability of new systemic therapies did not affect IPFS or DPFS in either country. However, the USA patients who received ILI after ipilimumab approval in 2011 had significantly improved OS (hazard ratio, 0.62; p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: AUS patients were treated at an earlier disease stage than the USA patients with better IPFS for stage 3B disease. The USA patients treated after the availability of new systemic therapies had a better OS.

Perioperative Outcomes of Melanoma Patients Undergoing Surgery After Receiving Immunotherapy or Targeted Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Traditional chemotherapy agents adversely affect wound healing and need to be held prior to or after surgery. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and targeted agents are now standard of care for the several treatment cancers. We hypothesize that ICI and targeted therapy do not have similar adverse effects on perioperative outcomes. METHODS: We performed a review of melanoma patients undergoing surgery at an academic hospital between 2011 and 2019. All patients received ICI or targeted therapy ≤ 60 days prior to surgery, including palliative procedures. Preoperative performance status was assessed using Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score and American Society of Anesthesiologists Classification System. Thirty-day complications were classified by Clavien-Dindo grade. No statistical comparisons were performed. RESULTS: Of 63 patients included in the analysis, 29 (46%) patients received ICI and 34 (54%) received targeted therapy with median of 14 days (IQR 5-27 days) between the last preoperative dose and day of surgery (ICI, median 18 days [IQR 13-34.5]; targeted therapy, median 7 days [IQR 3-22.25]). There were no perioperative mortalities. Among patients treated with ICI, 22 patients (76%) had no complications. Four patients had wound infections (2 readmitted), 1 had reoperation (hematoma) and 2 readmitted for other reasons (fever; volvulus). Among patients treated with targeted therapy, 25 patients (74%) had no complications. Seven patients had wound infections (none readmitted), 1 had reoperation (flap failure) and 1 had dehiscence (not treated). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing treatment with ICI or targeted therapies can safely undergo surgery without substantially increased risk of serious intraoperative and postoperative complications.

The emergence of neoadjuvant therapy in advanced melanoma.

The discovery of immunotherapy and targeted therapy has introduced new and effective treatment options for advanced melanoma, providing therapeutic options where none existed before. The natural extension of these novel therapies is to identify their role in the neoadjuvant setting. Neoadjuvant therapy for advanced melanoma is still in its infancy, with a wealth of clinical trials underway. Early results are promising, allowing for management of a disease that previously had few options. We review the current literature and interim results from several ongoing investigations to understand the current state of neoadjuvant treatment options and what is to come. These studies pave the way for further advancements in melanoma therapy.