Plain language summary of the CheckMate 76K study results: nivolumab given after stage 2B/2C melanoma is removed by surgery.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: In this article, we summarize results from the ongoing phase 3 CheckMate 76K clinical study published online in Nature Medicine in October 2023. The study goal was to learn whether nivolumab works as an adjuvant therapy (that is, helps to keep cancer from coming back when it is given after surgery) for stage 2 melanoma (skin cancer) that has not spread to other parts of the body. Nivolumab is an immunotherapy that activates a person's immune system so it can destroy cancer cells. In melanoma, staging describes the severity of the cancer. Melanoma staging ranges from 0 (very thin and confined to the upper layer of the skin) to 4 (spread to distant parts of the body), with earlier stages removed by surgery. The people in this study had stage 2 melanoma that had not spread to the lymph nodes or other organs in the body. HOW WAS THE STUDY DESIGNED?: People 12 years and older with stage 2 melanoma that had not spread and had been removed by surgery were included in CheckMate 76K. People were randomly assigned to receive either nivolumab (526 patients) or placebo (264 patients). A placebo resembles the test medicine but does not contain any active medicines. The researchers assessed whether people who received nivolumab lived longer without their cancer returning and/or spreading to other parts of their bodies (compared with placebo) and if nivolumab was well tolerated. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: Researchers found that people who received nivolumab were 58% less likely to have their cancer return and 53% less likely of having their cancer spread to distant parts of their body, compared with placebo. These reductions in risk with nivolumab were seen in different subgroups of people with a range of characteristics, and regardless of how deep the melanoma had gone into the skin. People taking nivolumab had more side effects than those taking placebo, but most were mild to moderate and manageable. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: Results from CheckMate 76K support the benefit of using nivolumab as a treatment option for people with stage 2 melanoma post-surgery.

Incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of venous and arterial thromboembolism in immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

The risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and arterial thromboembolism (ATE) associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors is currently unclear. Our aim was to quantify the risk of VTE/ATE in patients with cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors, explore clinical impact, and investigate potential clinical risk factors. Patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors at the Medical University of Vienna from 2015 to 2018 were identified using in-house pharmacy records (n = 672; most frequent entities: 30.4% melanoma, 24.1% non-small cell lung cancer; 86% stage IV disease). A retrospective chart review was performed to screen for VTE and/or ATE. Cumulative incidences and between-group differences were estimated in competing-risk analysis. The impact of VTE/ATE on mortality was studied by multistate modelling. Over a median follow-up of 8.5 months, 47 VTEs and 9 ATEs were observed. Cumulative incidences of VTE and ATE were 12.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.2-18.5) and 1.8% (95% CI, 0.7-3.6). Occurrence of VTE was associated with increased mortality (transition hazard ratio, 3.09; 95% CI, 2.07-4.60). History of VTE predicted VTE occurrence (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR], 3.69; 95% CI, 2.00-6.81), and distant metastasis was nonsignificantly associated with VTE risk (SHR, 1.71; 95% CI, 0.62-4.73). No association of VTE with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, Charlson comorbidity index, or Khorana score was observed, and rates of VTE were comparable between tumor types and checkpoint-inhibitory agents. In conclusion, patients with cancer under immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy are at high risk of thromboembolism, especially VTE. Furthermore, VTE occurrence was associated with increased mortality.

Myofibroblast stroma differentiation in infiltrative basal cell carcinoma is accompanied by regulatory T-cells.

INTRODUCTION: The implications of infiltrative compared to non-infiltrative growth of cutaneous basal cell carcinoma (BCC) on the tumor stroma and immune cell landscape are unknown. This is of clinical importance, because infiltrative BCCs, in contrast to other BCC subtypes, are more likely to relapse after surgery and radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This descriptive cross-sectional study analyzed 38 BCCs collected from 2018 to 2021. In the first cohort (n = 28), immune cells were characterized by immunohistochemistry and multiplex immunofluorescence staining for CD3, CD8, CD68, Foxp3, and α-SMA protein expression. In the second cohort (n = 10) with matched characteristics (age, sex, location, and BCC subtype), inflammatory parameters, including TGF-ß1, TGF-ß2, ACTA2, IL-10, IL-12A, and Foxp3, were quantified via RT-qPCR after isolating mRNA from BCC tissue samples and perilesional skin. RESULTS: Infiltrative BCCs showed significantly increased levels of α-SMA expression in fibroblasts (p = 0.0001) and higher levels of Foxp3+ (p = 0.0023) and CD3+ (p = 0.0443) T-cells compared to non-infiltrative BCCs. CD3+ (p = 0.0171) and regulatory T-cells (p = 0.0026) were significantly increased in α-SMA-positive tumor stroma, whereas CD8+ T-cells (p = 0.1329) and CD68+ myeloid cells (p = 0.2337) were not affected. TGF-ß1 and TGF-ß2 correlated significantly with ACTA2/α-SMA mRNA expression (p = 0.020, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Infiltrative growth of BCCs shows a myofibroblastic stroma differentiation and is accompanied by an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment.

Intratumoural immunotherapies for unresectable and metastatic melanoma: current status and future perspectives.

The emergence of human intratumoural immunotherapy (HIT-IT) is a major step forward in the management of unresectable melanoma. The direct injection of treatments into melanoma lesions can cause cell lysis and induce a local immune response, and might be associated with a systemic immune response. Directly injecting immunotherapies into tumours achieves a high local concentration of immunostimulatory agent while minimising systemic exposure and, as such, HIT-IT agents are associated with lower toxicity than systemic immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs), enabling their potential use in combination with other therapies. Consequently, multiple HIT-IT agents, including oncolytic viruses, pattern-recognition receptor agonists, injected CPIs, cytokines and immune glycolipids, are under investigation. This review considers the current clinical development status of HIT-IT agents as monotherapy and in combination with systemic CPIs, and the practical aspects of administering and assessing the response to these agents. The future of HIT-IT probably lies in its use in combination with systemic CPIs; data from Phase 2 trials indicate a synergy between HIT-IT and CPIs. Data also suggest that the addition of HIT-IT to a CPI might generate responses in CPI-refractory tumours, thereby overcoming resistance and addressing a current unmet need in unresectable and metastatic melanoma for treatment options following progression after CPI treatment.

PET/MRI versus PET/CT in oncology: a prospective single-center study of 330 examinations focusing on implications for patient management and cost considerations.

PURPOSE: PET/MRI has recently been introduced into clinical practice. We prospectively investigated the clinical impact of PET/MRI compared with PET/CT, in a mixed population of cancer patients, and performed an economic evaluation of PET/MRI. METHODS: Cancer patients referred for routine staging or follow-up by PET/CT underwent consecutive PET/CT and PET/MRI, using single applications of [18F]FDG, [68Ga]Ga-DOTANOC, or [18F]FDOPA, depending on tumor histology. PET/MRI and PET/CT were rated separately, and lesions were assessed per anatomic region; based on regions, per-examination and per-patient accuracies were determined. A simulated, multidisciplinary team meeting served as reference standard and determined whether differences between PET/CT and PET/MRI affected patient management. The McNemar tests were used to compare accuracies, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for PET/MRI were calculated. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-three patients (330 same-day PET/CT and PET/MRI examinations) were included. PET/MRI was accurate in 319/330 examinations and PET/CT in 277/330 examinations; the respective accuracies of 97.3% and 83.9% differed significantly (P < 0.001). The additional findings on PET/MRI-mainly liver and brain metastases-had implications for patient management in 21/263 patients (8.0%). The per-examination cost was 596.97 EUR for PET/MRI and 405.95 EUR for PET/CT. ICERs for PET/MRI were 14.26 EUR per percent of diagnostic accuracy and 23.88 EUR per percent of correctly managed patients. CONCLUSIONS: PET/MRI enables more appropriate management than PET/CT in a nonnegligible fraction of cancer patients. Since the per-examination cost is about 50% higher for PET/MRI than for PET/CT, a histology-based triage of patients to either PET/MRI or PET/CT may be meaningful.

Knowledge and Influence of Predatory Journals in Dermatology: A Pan-Austrian Survey.

The aim of this study was to assess the knowledge and influence of predatory journals in the field of dermatology in Austria. A total of 286 physicians (50.5% men) completed a questionnaire. The vast majority of subjects read scientific articles (n = 281, 98.3%) and took them into consideration in their clinical decision-making (n = 271, 98.5% of participants that regularly read scientific literature). Open access was known by 161 (56.3%), predatory journals by 84 (29.4%), and the Beall's list by 19 physicians (6.7%). A total of 117 participants (40.9%) had been challenged by patients with results from the scientific literature, including 9 predatory papers. Participants who knew of predatory journals had a higher level of education as well as scientific experience, and were more familiar with the open-access system (p < 0.001). These results indicate that the majority of dermatologists are not familiar with predatory journals. This is particularly the case for physicians in training and in the early stages of their career.

Antitumour activity of pembrolizumab in advanced mucosal melanoma: a post-hoc analysis of KEYNOTE-001, 002, 006.

BACKGROUND: Mucosal melanoma is an aggressive melanoma with poor prognosis. We assessed efficacy of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced mucosal melanoma in KEYNOTE-001 (NCT01295827), -002 (NCT01704287), and -006 (NCT01866319). METHODS: Patients received pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks (Q3W) or 10 mg/kg Q2W or Q3W. Response was assessed by independent central review per RECIST v1.1. RESULTS: 1567 patients were treated and 84 (5%) had mucosal melanoma. Fifty-one of 84 were ipilimumab-naive. In patients with mucosal melanoma, the objective response rate (ORR) was 19% (95% CI 11-29%), with median duration of response (DOR) of 27.6 months (range 1.1 + to 27.6). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.8 months (95% CI 2.7-2.8), with median overall survival (OS) of 11.3 months (7.7-16.6). ORR was 22% (95% CI 11-35%) and 15% (95% CI 5-32%) in ipilimumab-naive and ipilimumab-treated patients. CONCLUSION: Pembrolizumab provides durable antitumour activity in patients with advanced mucosal melanoma regardless of prior ipilimumab.

Ipilimumab 10 mg/kg versus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma: a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: A phase 2 trial suggested increased overall survival and increased incidence of treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events with ipilimumab 10 mg/kg compared with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg in patients with advanced melanoma. We report a phase 3 trial comparing the benefit-risk profile of ipilimumab 10 mg/kg versus 3 mg/kg. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial was done in 87 centres in 21 countries worldwide. Patients with untreated or previously treated unresectable stage III or IV melanoma, without previous treatment with BRAF inhibitors or immune checkpoint inhibitors, were randomly assigned (1:1) with an interactive voice response system by the permuted block method using block size 4 to ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or 3 mg/kg, administered by intravenous infusion for 90 min every 3 weeks for four doses. Patients were stratified by metastasis stage, previous treatment for metastatic melanoma, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. The patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population and safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is completed and was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01515189. FINDINGS: Between Feb 29, and July 9, 2012, 727 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to ipilimumab 10 mg/kg (365 patients; 364 treated) or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (362 patients; all treated). Median follow-up was 14·5 months (IQR 4·6-42·3) for the ipilimumab 10 mg/kg group and 11·2 months (4·9-29·4) for the ipilimumab 3 mg/kg group. Median overall survival was 15·7 months (95% CI 11·6-17·8) for ipilimumab 10 mg/kg compared with 11·5 months (9·9-13·3) for ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (hazard ratio 0·84, 95% CI 0·70-0·99; p=0·04). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea (37 [10%] of 364 patients in the 10 mg/kg group vs 21 [6%] of 362 patients in the 3 mg/kg group), colitis (19 [5%] vs nine [2%]), increased alanine aminotransferase (12 [3%] vs two [1%]), and hypophysitis (ten [3%] vs seven [2%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 133 (37%) patients in the 10 mg/kg group and 66 (18%) patients in the 3 mg/kg group; four (1%) versus two (<1%) patients died from treatment-related adverse events. INTERPRETATION: In patients with advanced melanoma, ipilimumab 10 mg/kg resulted in significantly longer overall survival than did ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, but with increased treatment-related adverse events. Although the treatment landscape for advanced melanoma has changed since this study was initiated, the clinical use of ipilimumab in refractory patients with unmet medical needs could warrant further assessment. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Combining talimogene laherparepvec with immunotherapies in melanoma and other solid tumors.

Talimogene laherparepvec is a first-in-class intralesional oncolytic immunotherapy. In a recent Phase III trial (OPTiM), talimogene laherparepvec significantly improved durable response rate compared with subcutaneous granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF). Overall response rate was also higher in the talimogene laherparepvec arm, and the greatest efficacy was demonstrated in patients with earlier-stage (IIIB, IIIC, or IVM1a) melanoma. Talimogene laherparepvec was well tolerated, with the majority (89%) of adverse events being grade 1 or 2. Preclinical studies have shown that talimogene laherparepvec exerts antitumor activity by selectively replicating within and destroying cancer cells, and through the release of tumor-associated antigens and expression of GM-CSF, which facilitates a wider antitumor immune response. It is hypothesized that combining talimogene laherparepvec with a systemic immunotherapy may, by bringing together complementary mechanisms of action, further enhance the efficacy of both agents. Indeed, talimogene laherparepvec is currently being assessed in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors, including ipilimumab and pembrolizumab, in trials for melanoma and other solid tumors. Early results in melanoma indicate that the combination of talimogene laherparepvec with ipilimumab or pembrolizumab has greater efficacy than either therapy alone, without additional safety concerns above those expected for each monotherapy. In this review, we discuss the latest results from trials assessing talimogene laherparepvec in combination with other immunotherapies, provide an overview of ongoing and upcoming combination trials, and suggest future directions for talimogene laherparepvec in combination therapy for solid tumors.

Systematic review of the use of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor in patients with advanced melanoma.

Several immunomodulatory checkpoint inhibitors have been approved for the treatment of patients with advanced melanoma, including ipilimumab, nivolumab and pembrolizumab. Talimogene laherparepvec is the first oncolytic virus to gain regulatory approval in the USA; it is also approved in Europe. Talimogene laherparepvec expresses granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), and with other GM-CSF-expressing oncolytic viruses in development, understanding the clinical relevance of this cytokine in treating advanced melanoma is important. Results of trials of GM-CSF in melanoma have been mixed, and while GM-CSF has the potential to promote anti-tumor responses, some preclinical data suggest that GM-CSF may sometimes promote tumor growth. GM-CSF has not been approved as a melanoma treatment. We undertook a systematic literature review of studies of GM-CSF in patients with advanced melanoma (stage IIIB-IV). Of the 503 articles identified, 26 studies met the eligibility criteria. Most studies investigated the use of GM-CSF in combination with another treatment, such as peptide vaccines or chemotherapy, or as an adjuvant to surgery. Some clinical benefit was reported in patients who received GM-CSF as an adjuvant to surgery, or in combination with other treatments. In general, outcomes for patients receiving peptide vaccines were not improved with the addition of GM-CSF. GM-CSF may be a valuable therapeutic adjuvant; however, further studies are needed, particularly head-to-head comparisons, to confirm the optimal dosing regimen and clinical effectiveness in patients with advanced melanoma.

Nivolumab versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma who progressed after anti-CTLA-4 treatment (CheckMate 037): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor antibody, can result in durable responses in patients with melanoma who have progressed after ipilimumab and BRAF inhibitors. We assessed the efficacy and safety of nivolumab compared with investigator's choice of chemotherapy (ICC) as a second-line or later-line treatment in patients with advanced melanoma. METHODS: In this randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients at 90 sites in 14 countries. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, had unresectable or metastatic melanoma, and progressed after ipilimumab, or ipilimumab and a BRAF inhibitor if they were BRAF(V 600) mutation-positive. Participating investigators randomly assigned (with an interactive voice response system) patients 2:1 to receive an intravenous infusion of nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or ICC (dacarbazine 1000 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks or paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) combined with carboplatin area under the curve 6 every 3 weeks) until progression or unacceptable toxic effects. We stratified randomisation by BRAF mutation status, tumour expression of PD-L1, and previous best overall response to ipilimumab. We used permuted blocks (block size of six) within each stratum. Primary endpoints were the proportion of patients who had an objective response and overall survival. Treatment was given open-label, but those doing tumour assessments were masked to treatment assignment. We assessed objective responses per-protocol after 120 patients had been treated with nivolumab and had a minimum follow-up of 24 weeks, and safety in all patients who had had at least one dose of treatment. The trial is closed and this is the first interim analysis, reporting the objective response primary endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01721746. FINDINGS: Between Dec 21, 2012, and Jan 10, 2014, we screened 631 patients, randomly allocating 272 patients to nivolumab and 133 to ICC. Confirmed objective responses were reported in 38 (31·7%, 95% CI 23·5-40·8) of the first 120 patients in the nivolumab group versus five (10·6%, 3·5-23·1) of 47 patients in the ICC group. Grade 3-4 adverse events related to nivolumab included increased lipase (three [1%] of 268 patients), increased alanine aminotransferase, anaemia, and fatigue (two [1%] each); for ICC, these included neutropenia (14 [14%] of 102), thrombocytopenia (six [6%]), and anaemia (five [5%]). We noted grade 3-4 drug-related serious adverse events in 12 (5%) nivolumab-treated patients and nine (9%) patients in the ICC group. No treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Nivolumab led to a greater proportion of patients achieving an objective response and fewer toxic effects than with alternative available chemotherapy regimens for patients with advanced melanoma that has progressed after ipilimumab or ipilimumab and a BRAF inhibitor. Nivolumab represents a new treatment option with clinically meaningful durable objective responses in a population of high unmet need. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

DNA Methylation Signatures Correlate with Response to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Metastatic Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: DNA methylation profiles have emerged as potential predictors of therapeutic response in various solid tumors. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze the DNA methylation profiles of patients with stage IV metastatic melanoma undergoing first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment and evaluate their correlation with a radiological response according to immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (iRECIST). METHODS: A total of 81 tissue samples from 71 patients with metastatic melanoma (27 female, 44 male) were included in this study. We utilized Illumina Methylation EPIC Beadchips to retrieve their genome-wide methylation profile by interrogating >850,000 CpG sites. Clustering based on the 500 most differentially methylated genes was conducted to identify distinct methylation patterns associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor response. Results were further aligned with an independent, previously published data set. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was 8.5 months (range: 0-104.1 months), and the median overall survival was 30.6 months (range: 0-104.1 months). Objective responses were observed in 29 patients (40.8%). DNA methylation profiling revealed specific signatures that correlated with radiological response to immune checkpoint inhibitors. Three distinct clusters were identified based on the methylation patterns of the 500 most differentially methylated genes. Cluster 1 (12/12) and cluster 2 (12/24) exhibited a higher proportion of responders, while cluster 3 (39/45) predominantly consisted of non-responders. In the validation data set, responders also showed more frequent hypomethylation although differences in the data sets limit the interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that DNA methylation profiling of tumor tissues might serve as a predictive biomarker for immune checkpoint inhibitor response in patients with metastatic melanoma. Further validation studies are warranted to confirm the efficiency of DNA methylation profiling as a predictive tool in the context of immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma.

Dabrafenib plus trametinib in unselected advanced BRAF V600-mut melanoma: a non-interventional, multicenter, prospective trial.

OBJECTIVE: The efficacy of combined BRAF and MEK inhibition for BRAF V600-mutant melanoma in a broad patient population, including subgroups excluded from phase 3 trials, remains unanswered. This noninterventional study (DATUM-NIS) assessed the real-world efficacy, safety and tolerability of dabrafenib plus trametinib in Austrian patients with unresectable/metastatic melanoma. METHODS: This multicenter, open-label, non-interventional, post-approval, observational study investigated the effectiveness of dabrafenib plus trametinib prescribed in day-to-day clinical practice to patients ( N  = 79) with BRAF V600-mutant unresectable/metastatic melanoma with M1c disease (American Joint Committee on Cancer staging manual version 7), ECOG > 1, and elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). The primary endpoint was 6-, 12- and 18-month progression-free survival (PFS) rates. Secondary endpoints were median PFS, disease control rate and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The 6-, 12- and 18-month PFS rates were 76%, 30.6% and 16.2%, respectively. Subgroup analysis showed a significant PFS benefit in the absence of lung metastasis. The median PFS and OS were 9.1 (95% CI, 7.1-10.3) months and 17.9 (95% CI, 12.7-27.8) months, respectively. The 12- and 24-month OS rates were 62.7% and 26.8%, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed significant OS benefits in the absence of bone or lung metastasis and the presence of other metastases (excluding bone, lung, brain, liver and lymph nodes). Furthermore, S100 and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) showed a significant impact on survival. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION: Despite an unselected population of melanoma patients with higher M1c disease, ECOG PS > 1 and elevated LDH, this real-world study demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety with the pivotal phase 3 clinical trials for dabrafenib-trametinib.

Efficacy and safety of 'Second Adjuvant' therapy with BRAF/MEK inhibitors after local therapy for recurrent melanoma following adjuvant PD-1 based immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Anti-PD-1 antibodies and BRAK/MEK inhibitors (BRAF/MEKi) reduce the risk of recurrence for patients with resected stage III melanoma. BRAFV600-mutated (BRAFmut) melanoma patients who recur with isolated disease following adjuvant therapy may be suitable for 'second adjuvant' treatment after local therapy. We sought to examine the efficacy and safety of 'second adjuvant' BRAF/MEKi. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with BRAFmut melanoma treated with adjuvant PD-1 based immunotherapy who recurred, underwent definitive local therapy and were then treated with adjuvant BRAF/MEKi were identified retrospectively from 13 centres (second adjuvant group). Demographics, disease and treatment characteristics and outcome data were examined. Outcomes were compared to BRAFmut patients who did not receive 'second adjuvant' therapy (no second adjuvant group). RESULTS: 73 patients were included; 61 who received 'second adjuvant' therapy and 12 who did not. Most initially recurred on PD-1 therapy (66%). There were no differences in characteristics between groups. 92% of second adjuvant group received dabrafenib and trametinib and median duration of therapy was 11.8 months (0.4, 34.5). 72% required dose adjustments, 23% had grade 3 + toxicity and 38% permanently discontinued drug due to toxicity. After median 26.1 months (1.9, 56.3) follow-up, recurrence-free survival (RFS) was improved in second adjuvant group versus no second adjuvant group (median 30.8 vs 4 months, HR 0.35; p = 0.014), largely driven by a delay in early recurrence, with no difference in overall survival (p = 0.59). CONCLUSION: This is the first study examining outcomes of 'second adjuvant' targeted therapy for melanoma, after failure of adjuvant PD-1 based immunotherapy. Data suggest a short-term improvement in RFS, but at the cost of toxicity. Alternative strategies and more data on sequencing adjuvant therapies are required to improve outcomes.

Proteomic Profiling of Advanced Melanoma Patients to Predict Therapeutic Response to Anti-PD-1 Therapy.

PURPOSE: Despite high clinical need, there are no biomarkers that accurately predict the response of patients with metastatic melanoma to anti-PD-1 therapy. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In this multicenter study, we applied protein depletion and enrichment methods prior to various proteomic techniques to analyze a serum discovery cohort (n = 56) and three independent serum validation cohorts (n = 80, n = 12, n = 17). Further validation analyses by literature and survival analysis followed. RESULTS: We identified several significantly regulated proteins as well as biological processes such as neutrophil degranulation, cell-substrate adhesion, and extracellular matrix organization. Analysis of the three independent serum validation cohorts confirmed the significant differences between responders (R) and nonresponders (NR) observed in the initial discovery cohort. In addition, literature-based validation highlighted 30 markers overlapping with previously published signatures. Survival analysis using the TCGA database showed that overexpression of 17 of the markers we identified correlated with lower overall survival in patients with melanoma. CONCLUSIONS: Ultimately, this multilayered serum analysis led to a potential marker signature with 10 key markers significantly altered in at least two independent serum cohorts: CRP, LYVE1, SAA2, C1RL, CFHR3, LBP, LDHB, S100A8, S100A9, and SAA1, which will serve as the basis for further investigation. In addition to patient serum, we analyzed primary melanoma tumor cells from NR and found a potential marker signature with four key markers: LAMC1, PXDN, SERPINE1, and VCAN.

Adjuvant nivolumab in resected stage IIB/C melanoma: primary results from the randomized, phase 3 CheckMate 76K trial.

Patients with resected stage IIB/C melanoma have high recurrence risk, similar to those with resected stage IIIA/B disease. The phase 3, double-blind CheckMate 76K trial assessed 790 patients with resected stage IIB/C melanoma randomized 2:1 (stratified by tumor category) to nivolumab 480 mg or placebo every 4 weeks for 12 months. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed recurrence-free survival (RFS). Secondary endpoints included distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and safety. At 7.8 months of minimum follow-up, nivolumab significantly improved RFS versus placebo (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.42; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.30-0.59; P < 0.0001), with 12-month RFS of 89.0% versus 79.4% and benefit observed across subgroups; DMFS was also improved (HR = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.30-0.72). Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 10.3% (nivolumab) and 2.3% (placebo) of patients. One treatment-related death (0.2%) occurred with nivolumab. Nivolumab is an effective and generally well-tolerated adjuvant treatment in patients with resected stage IIB/C melanoma. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04099251 .

European consensus-based interdisciplinary guideline for invasive cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Part 1: Diagnostics and prevention-Update 2023.

Invasive cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) is one of the most common cancers in white populations, accounting for 20% of all cutaneous malignancies. Overall, cSCC mostly has very good prognosis after treatment, with 5-year cure rates greater than 90%. Despite the overall favourable prognosis and the proportionally rare deaths, cSCC is associated with a high total number of deaths due to its high incidence. A collaboration of multidisciplinary experts from the European Association of Dermato-Oncology (EADO), the European Dermatology Forum (EDF), the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS), the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) and the European Organization of Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), was formed to update recommendations on cSCC, based on current literature and expert consensus. Part 1 of the guidelines addresses the updates on classification, epidemiology, diagnosis, risk stratification, staging and prevention in immunocompetent as well as immunosuppressed patients.

European consensus-based interdisciplinary guideline for invasive cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: Part 2. Treatment-Update 2023.

In order to update recommendations on treatment, supportive care, education, and follow-up of patients with invasive cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), a multidisciplinary panel of experts from the European Association of Dermato-Oncology (EADO), the European Dermatology Forum (EDF), the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS), the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV), and the European Organisation of Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) was formed. Recommendations were based on an evidence-based literature review, guidelines, and expert consensus. Treatment recommendations are presented for common primary cSCC (low risk, high risk), locally advanced cSCC, regional metastatic cSCC (operable or inoperable), and distant metastatic cSCC. For common primary cSCC, the first-line treatment is surgical excision with postoperative margin assessment or micrographically controlled surgery. Achieving clear surgical margins is the most important treatment consideration for patients with cSCCs amenable to surgery. Regarding adjuvant radiotherapy for patients with high-risk localised cSCC with clear surgical margins, current evidence has not shown significant benefit for those with at least one high-risk factor. Radiotherapy should be considered as the primary treatment for non-surgical candidates/tumours. For cSCC with cytologically or histologically confirmed regional nodal metastasis, lymph node dissection is recommended. For patients with metastatic or locally advanced cSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or radiotherapy, anti-PD-1 agents are the first-line systemic treatment, with cemiplimab being the first approved systemic agent for advanced cSCC by the Food and Drugs Administration/European Medicines Agency. Second-line systemic treatments for advanced cSCC, include epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (cetuximab) combined with chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Multidisciplinary board decisions are mandatory for all patients with advanced cSCC, considering the risks of toxicity, the age and frailty of patients, and co-morbidities, including immunosuppression. Patients should be engaged in informed, shared decision-making on management and be provided with the best supportive care to improve symptom management and quality of life. The frequency of follow-up visits and investigations for subsequent new cSCC depends on underlying risk characteristics.