Neoadjuvant Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Resectable Stage III Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Phase 1-2 trials involving patients with resectable, macroscopic stage III melanoma have shown that neoadjuvant immunotherapy is more efficacious than adjuvant immunotherapy. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with resectable, macroscopic stage III melanoma, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive two cycles of neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab and then undergo surgery or to undergo surgery and then receive 12 cycles of adjuvant nivolumab. Only the patients in the neoadjuvant group who had a partial response or nonresponse received subsequent adjuvant treatment. The primary end point was event-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 423 patients underwent randomization. At a median follow-up of 9.9 months, the estimated 12-month event-free survival was 83.7% (99.9% confidence interval [CI], 73.8 to 94.8) in the neoadjuvant group and 57.2% (99.9% CI, 45.1 to 72.7) in the adjuvant group. The difference in restricted mean survival time was 8.00 months (99.9% CI, 4.94 to 11.05; P<0.001; hazard ratio for progression, recurrence, or death, 0.32; 99.9% CI, 0.15 to 0.66). In the neoadjuvant group, 59.0% of the patients had a major pathological response, 8.0% had a partial response, 26.4% had a nonresponse (>50% residual viable tumor), and 2.4% had progression; in 4.2%, surgery had not yet been performed or was omitted. The estimated 12-month recurrence-free survival was 95.1% among patients in the neoadjuvant group who had a major pathological response, 76.1% among those who had a partial response, and 57.0% among those who had a nonresponse. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher that were related to systemic treatment occurred in 29.7% of the patients in the neoadjuvant group and in 14.7% in the adjuvant group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with resectable, macroscopic stage III melanoma, neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab followed by surgery and response-driven adjuvant therapy resulted in longer event-free survival than surgery followed by adjuvant nivolumab. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and others; NADINA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04949113.).

The Effect of Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy on Surgical Outcomes After Lymph Node Dissections for Stage III Melanoma; An Australian Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) for patients with stage III melanoma achieves high major pathologic response rates and high recurrence-free survival rates. This study aimed to determine how NAST with targeted therapies (TTs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) influences surgical outcomes after lymph node dissection in terms of complications, morbidity, and textbook outcomes. METHODS: Patients who underwent a lymph node dissection after either NAST in a clinical trial or upfront surgery for stage III melanoma between 2014 and 2022 were identified from an institutional research database. RESULTS: The study included 89 NAST-treated patients and 79 upfront surgery-treated patients. The rate of postoperative complications did not differ between the NAST- and upfront surgery-treated patients (55% vs. 51%; p = 0.643), and steroid treatment for drug toxicity did not influence the complication rate (odds ratio [OR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4-3; p = 0.826). No significant differences in postoperative morbidity were observed in terms of seroma (23% vs. 11%; p = 0.570) or lymphedema (36% vs. 51%; p = 0.550). The rate of achieving a textbook outcome was comparable for the two groups (61% vs. 57%; p = 0.641). CONCLUSIONS: The surgical outcomes after lymph node dissections were comparable between the patients who received NAST and those who had upfront surgery, indicating that surgery can be safely performed after NAST with TT or ICI for stage III melanoma.

Impact of an Online Risk Calculator for Sentinel Node Positivity on Management of Patients with T1 and T2 Melanomas.

BACKGROUND: Predicting which patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) T1-T2 melanomas will have a positive sentinel lymph node (SLN) is challenging. Melanoma Institute Australia (MIA) developed an internationally validated SLN metastatic risk calculator. This study evaluated the nomogram's impact on T1-T2 melanoma patient management at MIA. METHODS: SLN biopsy (SLNB) rates were compared for the pre- and post-nomogram periods of 1 July 2018-30 June 2019 and 1 August 2020-31 July 2021, respectively. RESULTS: Overall, 850 patients were identified (pre-nomogram, 383; post-nomogram, 467). SLNB was performed in 29.0% of patients in the pre-nomogram group and 34.5% in the post-nomogram group (p = 0.091). The overall positivity rate was 16.2% in the pre-nomogram group and 14.9% in the post-nomogram group (p = 0.223). SLNB was performed less frequently in T1a melanoma patients in the pre-nomogram group (1.1%, n = 2/177) than in the post-nomogram group (8.6%, n = 17/198) [p ≤ 0.001]. This increase was particularly for melanomas with a risk score ≥ 5%, with an SLN positivity rate of 11.8% in the post-nomogram group (p = 0.004) compared with zero. For T1b melanomas with a risk score of > 10%, the SLNB rate was 40.0% (8/20) pre-nomogram and 75.0% (12/16) post-nomogram (p = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: In this specialized center, the SLN risk calculator appears to influence practice for melanomas previously considered low risk for metastasis, with increased use of SLNB for T1a and higher-risk T1b melanomas. Further evaluation is required across broader practice settings. Melanoma management guidelines could be updated to incorporate the availability of nomograms to better select patients for SLNB than previous criteria.

Role of Concurrent Ultrasound Surveillance of Sentinel Node-Positive Node Fields in Melanoma Patients Having Routine Cross-Sectional Imaging.

PURPOSE: In sentinel node-positive (SN+ve) melanoma patients, active surveillance with regular ultrasound examination of the node field has become standard, rather than completion lymph node dissection (CLND). A proportion of these patients now receive adjuvant systemic therapy and have routine cross-sectional imaging (computed tomography [CT] or positron emission tomography [PET]/CT). The role of concurrent ultrasound (US) surveillance in these patients is unclear. The purpose of our study was to describe the modality of detection of nodal recurrence in SN+ve node fields. METHODS: SN+ve melanoma patients who did not undergo CLND treated at a single institution from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2020 were included. RESULTS: A total of 225 SN+ve patients with a median follow-up of 23 months were included. Of these, 119 (53%) received adjuvant systemic therapy. Eighty (36%) developed a recurrence at any site; 24 (11%) recurred first in the SN+ve field, of which 12 (5%) were confirmed node field recurrence only at 2 months follow-up. The nodal recurrences were first detected by ultrasound in seven (3%), CT in seven (3%), and PET/CT in seven (3%) patients. All nodal recurrences evident on US were also evident on PET/CT and vice versa. CONCLUSIONS: The high rate of recurrences outside the node field and the identification of all US-detected nodal recurrences on concurrent cross-sectional imaging modalities suggest that routine concurrent ultrasound surveillance of the node-positive field may be unnecessary for SN+ve melanoma patients having routine cross-sectional imaging.

Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy (NAST) in Patients with Melanoma: Surgical Considerations by the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium (INMC).

Exciting advances in melanoma systemic therapies have presented the opportunity for surgical oncologists and their multidisciplinary colleagues to test the neoadjuvant systemic treatment approach in high-risk, resectable metastatic melanomas. Here we describe the state of the science of neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) for melanoma, focusing on the surgical aspects and the key role of the surgical oncologist in this treatment paradigm. This paper summarizes the past decade of developments in melanoma treatment and the current evidence for NAST in stage III melanoma specifically. Issues of surgical relevance are discussed, including the risk of progression on NAST prior to surgery. Technical aspects, such as the definition of resectability for melanoma and the extent and scope of routine surgery are presented. Other important issues, such as the utility of radiographic response evaluation and method of pathologic response evaluation, are addressed. Surgical complications and perioperative management of NAST related adverse events are considered. The International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium has the goal of harmonizing NAST trials in melanoma to facilitate rapid advances with new approaches, and facilitating the comparison of results across trials evaluating different treatment regimens. Our ultimate goals are to provide definitive proof of the safety and efficacy of NAST in melanoma, sufficient for NAST to become an acceptable standard of care, and to leverage this platform to allow more personalized, biomarker-driven, tailored approaches to subsequent treatment and surveillance.

Clinicopathological characteristics of new primary melanomas in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for metastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors have improved survival in advanced stage melanoma patients. Rates of new primary melanomas (NPM) in patients with prior melanoma have been reported to be as high as 12%. Little is currently known regarding the frequency or characteristics of NPMs occurring in melanoma patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. AIM: To determine the frequency and describe clinicopathologic characteristics of NPMs diagnosed in patients during or after treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors for metastatic melanoma. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the Melanoma Institute Australia and Westmead Hospital Dermatology databases. Clinicopathological data for the initial primary melanoma (IPM) and NPM were compared. RESULTS: Between 2013-2017, 14 NPMs in 13 patients (out of a total of 1047) treated with checkpoint inhibitors were identified. NPMs were significantly thinner than the IPM (median Breslow thickness 0.35 mm vs 2.0 mm, P = 0.0003), less likely to be ulcerated (0/14 vs 6/13, P = 0.004) and less likely to have nodal metastases (0/14 vs 6/13, P = 0.004). NPMs were significantly more likely to be detected in the in-situ stage (6/14 vs 0/13, P = 0.0016). CONCLUSION: NPMs are infrequent in patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors. When they occur, they are usually detected at an early stage and have features associated with a favourable prognosis, most likely reflecting close surveillance. Further study is required to determine long-term risk in patients achieving a durable response to immune checkpoint inhibitors, and to determine whether the immunotherapy itself influences both their development and biology.

Survival Outcomes of Salvage Metastasectomy After Failure of Modern-Era Systemic Therapy for Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Metastasectomy for selected patients with melanoma was associated with improved survival in the era before effective systemic therapy. Emerging evidence shows that these benefits persist even in this era of BRAF-targeted therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of salvage metastasectomy after failure of systemic therapy. METHODS: Stage 3 or 4 melanoma patients with extracranial disease progression after at least 4 weeks of systemic treatment between 2009 and 2020 were identified and categorized as resected to no evidence of disease (NED), non-progressive residual disease (NPRD), or progressive residual disease (PRD). Systemic therapy was stratified into BRAF-targeted therapy, immune checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy, or both. The end points of overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and locoregional disease control (LRC) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves. Uni- and multivariable Cox regression procedures were used to examine factors associated with OS, PFS and LRC. RESULTS: The study enrolled 190 patients. Among all the patients, the 5-year OS from metastatectomy was 52%, the 3-year PFS was 21%, and the 5-year LRC was 61%. After resection to NED, NPRD, and PRD, the 5-year OS values were 69%, 62% and 8%, respectively. Fewer lines of preoperative therapy, use of preoperative immunotherapy, and resection to NED were predictors of improved OS. After resection to NED, NPRD, and PRD, the 3-year PFS values were 23%, 24% and 10%, and the 5-year LRC values were 61%, 72% and 34%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Salvage metastasectomy was associated with durable survival and disease control, particularly after resection to NED, preoperative immunotherapy, and fewer lines of preoperative systemic therapy.

Neoadjuvant pembrolizumab, dabrafenib and trametinib in BRAFV600-mutant resectable melanoma: the randomized phase 2 NeoTrio trial.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors and BRAF-targeted therapy each improve survival in melanoma. Immune changes early during targeted therapy suggest the mechanisms of each drug class could work synergistically. In the non-comparative, randomized, phase 2 NeoTrio trial, we investigated whether targeted therapy could boost the proportion of patients achieving long-term recurrence-free survival with neoadjuvant immunotherapy in resectable stage III BRAFV600-mutant melanoma. Sixty patients (42% females) were randomized to pembrolizumab alone (n = 20), sequential therapy (dabrafenib plus trametinib followed by pembrolizumab; n = 20) or concurrent (triple) therapy (n = 20), followed by surgery and adjuvant therapy. The primary outcome was pathological response; secondary outcomes included radiographic response, recurrence-free survival, overall survival, surgical outcomes, peripheral blood and tumor analyses and safety. The pathological response rate was 55% (11/20; including six pathological complete responses (pCRs)) with pembrolizumab, 50% (10/20; three pCRs) with sequential therapy and 80% (16/20; ten pCRs) with concurrent therapy, which met the primary outcome in each arm. Treatment-related adverse events affected 75-100% of patients during neoadjuvant treatment, with seven early discontinuations (all in the concurrent arm). At 2 years, event-free survival was 60% with pembrolizumab, 80% with sequential therapy and 71% with concurrent therapy. Recurrences after major pathological response were more common in the targeted therapy arms, suggesting a reduction in response 'quality' when targeted therapy is added to neoadjuvant immunotherapy. Risking the curative potential of immunotherapy in melanoma cannot be justified. Pending longer follow-up, we suggest that immunotherapy and targeted therapy should not be combined in the neoadjuvant setting for melanoma. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT02858921 .

Predicting Recurrence-Free and Overall Survival for Patients With Stage II Melanoma: The MIA Calculator.

PURPOSE: Improvements in recurrence-free survival (RFS) were demonstrated in two recent randomized trials for patients with sentinel node (SN)-negative stage IIB or IIC melanoma receiving adjuvant systemic therapy (pembrolizumab/nivolumab). However, adverse events also occurred. Accurate individualized prognostic estimates of RFS and overall survival (OS) would allow patients to more accurately weigh the risks and benefits of adjuvant therapy. Since the current American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition (AJCC-8) melanoma staging system focuses on melanoma-specific survival, we developed a multivariable risk prediction calculator that provides estimates of 5- and 10-year RFS and OS for these patients. METHODS: Data were extracted from the Melanoma Institute Australia (MIA) database for patients diagnosed with stage II (clinical or pathological) melanoma (n = 3,220). Survival prediction models were developed using multivariable Cox regression analyses (MIA models) and externally validated twice using data sets from the United States and the Netherlands. Each model's performance was assessed using C-statistics and calibration plots and compared with Cox models on the basis of AJCC-8 staging (stage models). RESULTS: The 5-year and 10-year RFS C-statistics were 0.70 and 0.73 (MIA-model) versus 0.61 and 0.60 (stage-model), respectively. For OS, the 5-year and 10-year C-statistics were 0.71 and 0.75 (MIA-model) compared with 0.62 and 0.61 (stage-model), respectively. The MIA models were well calibrated and externally validated. CONCLUSION: The MIA models offer accurate and personalized estimates of both RFS and OS in patients with stage II melanoma even in the absence of pathological staging with SN biopsy. These models were robust on external validations and may be used in everyday practice both with (ideally) and without performing SN biopsy to identify high-risk patients for further management strategies. An online tool will be available at the MIA website (Risk Prediction Tools).

Unicentric Castleman's disease imitating metastatic melanoma: A case report.

INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE: This case report shows a unique case of Castleman's disease in the context of histopathological diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma where clinical and radiological features of Castleman's disease were masked by presumptive diagnosis of metastatic melanoma. The disease is part of a group of lymphoproliferative disorders with characteristic histopathological features that can occur in any lymph node in the body, characterised by slow growing painless masses which are asymptomatic until mass effect occurs. This case highlights the need for caution when considering management of lymphadenopathy with clinically/radiologically suspicious nodes. PRESENTATION OF CASE: A 65 year old man with metastatic melanoma of the left elbow presented for axillary sentinel node mapping and was found to have a hypoechoic enlarged node on ultrasound. This was further investigated and found to be a lymphoproliferative growth pathognomonic for Castlemans disease. DISCUSSION: Whilst clinically detected lymphadenopathy in the draining node basin of a primary cutaneous melanoma is highly suspicious for nodal metastasis, it is sometimes not possible to confirm or exclude this diagnosis without complete histological examination of the node. Multidisciplinary input from the surgeon, histopathologist and radiologist is a key step in confirming diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Alternative diagnoses must be considered in the context of lymphadenopathy, even in the context of malignant melanoma.

Time interval between diagnostic excision-biopsy of a primary melanoma and sentinel node biopsy: effects on the sentinel node positivity rate and survival outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: The optimal time interval between diagnostic excision of a primary cutaneous melanoma and sentinel node (SN) biopsy is unknown. The current study sought to determine whether this interval influenced the SN-positivity rate, recurrence or survival. METHODS: Data collected from 2004 to 2014 for a Dutch population-based cohort of patients with melanoma who underwent SN biopsy (SNB) within 100 days of initial diagnosis (n = 7660) and for a similarly specified cohort from a large Australian melanoma treatment centre (n = 3478) were analysed. Time to SNB was analysed continuously (in weeks) and categorically (per month). The effects of SNB timing on SN-positivity were assessed using multivariable logistic regression, and its effects on recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Cox proportional hazard regression analyses. Advanced modelling using a multivariable Cox model with penalised splines for modelling the continuous effects of time to SNB on RFS and OS was also performed. RESULTS: In neither the Dutch nor the Australian cohort was there a significant association between time to SNB and SN-positivity in either cohort, nor was there an impact of time to SNB on RFS or OS in either cohort. The spline-based HR curves for RFS and OS confirmed these findings. CONCLUSIONS: The time interval between diagnostic excision of a primary melanoma and SNB did not influence the SN-positivity rate or survival outcomes. This provides reassurance that neither early nor delayed definitive wide excision and SNB will adversely affect prognosis.

Effect of the time interval between melanoma diagnosis and sentinel node biopsy on the size of metastatic tumour deposits in node-positive patients.

INTRODUCTION: This study sought to assess whether the interval between diagnostic excision-biopsy of a primary melanoma and definitive wide excision with sentinel node biopsy (SNB) influenced the size of SN metastatic deposits, which might have implications for management and prognosis. METHODS: Data were collected for (i) a Dutch population-based cohort of patients treated between 2004 and 2014 who underwent SNB within 100 days of complete excision of their primary melanoma and who were SN-positive with known SN metastasis diameter (n = 1027) and (ii) a cohort from a large Australian melanoma treatment centre (n = 541) who presented in the same time period. The effects of SNB timing on the size of SN metastatic deposits were analysed. RESULTS: Dutch patients whose SNB was performed in the second or third months after diagnosis had significantly larger SN metastasis diameters than patients who had their SNB in the first month (median increases of 17% (95%CI -14, 60%, p = 0.211) and 71% (95%CI 15, 119%, p = 0.004), respectively). No significant difference in tumour diameter for early and late SNB was found in the Australian cohort. CONCLUSIONS: SN metastasis diameter became progressively greater with SN biopsy in the second and third months after primary melanoma diagnosis in the larger, population-based patient cohort. An increase in metastasis diameter was not observed in the smaller, institutional cohort, possibly due to detection of larger SN metastases by routine pre-operative ultrasound, with fine-needle biopsy confirmation. These patients did not proceed to SNB and were therefore not included in the study.

BRAF mutation testing for patients diagnosed with stage III or stage IV melanoma: practical guidance for the Australian setting.

Targeted therapy (BRAF inhibitor plus MEK inhibitor) is now among the possible treatment options for patients with BRAF mutation-positive stage III or stage IV melanoma. This makes prompt BRAF mutation testing an important step in the management of patients diagnosed with stage III or IV melanoma; one that can help better ensure that the optimal choice of systemic treatment is initiated with minimal delay. This article offers guidance about when and how BRAF mutation testing should be conducted when patients are diagnosed with melanoma in Australia. Notably, it recommends that pathologists reflexively order BRAF mutation testing whenever a patient is found to have American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC)/Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) stage III or IV melanoma (i.e., any metastatic spread beyond the primary tumour) and that patient's BRAF mutation status is hitherto unknown, even if BRAF mutation testing has not been specifically requested by the treating clinician (in Australia, Medicare-subsidised BRAFV600 mutation testing does not need to be requested by the treating clinician). When performed in centres with appropriate expertise and experience, immunohistochemistry (IHC) using the anti-BRAF V600E monoclonal antibody (VE1) can be a highly sensitive and specific means of detecting BRAFV600E mutations, and may be used as a rapid and relatively inexpensive initial screening test. However, VE1 immunostaining can be technically challenging and difficult to interpret, particularly in heavily pigmented tumours; melanomas with weak, moderate or focal BRAFV600E immunostaining should be regarded as equivocal. It must also be remembered that other activating BRAFV600 mutations (including BRAFV600K), which account for ∼10-20% of BRAFV600 mutations, are not detected with currently available IHC antibodies. For these reasons, if available and practicable, we recommend that DNA-based BRAF mutation testing always be performed, regardless of whether IHC-based testing is also conducted. Advice about tissue/specimen selection for BRAF mutation testing of patients diagnosed with stage III or IV melanoma is also offered in this article; and potential pitfalls when interpreting BRAF mutation tests are highlighted.

Personalized response-directed surgery and adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant ipilimumab and nivolumab in high-risk stage III melanoma: the PRADO trial.

Neoadjuvant ipilimumab and nivolumab induces high pathologic response rates (pRRs) in clinical stage III nodal melanoma, and pathologic response is strongly associated with prolonged relapse-free survival (RFS). The PRADO extension cohort of the OpACIN-neo trial ( NCT02977052 ) addressed the feasibility and effect on clinical outcome of using pathologic response after neoadjuvant ipilimumab and nivolumab as a criterion for further treatment personalization. In total, 99 patients with clinical stage IIIb-d nodal melanoma were included and treated with 6 weeks of neoadjuvant ipilimumab 1 mg kg-1 and nivolumab 3 mg kg-1. In patients achieving major pathologic response (MPR, ≤10% viable tumor) in their index lymph node (ILN, the largest lymph node metastasis at baseline), therapeutic lymph node dissection (TLND) and adjuvant therapy were omitted. Patients with pathologic partial response (pPR; >10 to ≤50% viable tumor) underwent TLND only, whereas patients with pathologic non-response (pNR; >50% viable tumor) underwent TLND and adjuvant systemic therapy ± synchronous radiotherapy. Primary objectives were confirmation of pRR (ILN, at week 6) of the winner neoadjuvant combination scheme identified in OpACIN-neo; to investigate whether TLND can be safely omitted in patients achieving MPR; and to investigate whether RFS at 24 months can be improved for patients achieving pNR. ILN resection and ILN-response-tailored treatment were feasible. The pRR was 72%, including 61% MPR. Grade 3-4 toxicity within the first 12 weeks was observed in 22 (22%) patients. TLND was omitted in 59 of 60 patients with MPR, resulting in significantly lower surgical morbidity and better quality of life. The 24-month relapse-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival rates were 93% and 98% in patients with MPR, 64% and 64% in patients with pPR, and 71% and 76% in patients with pNR, respectively. These findings provide a strong rationale for randomized clinical trials testing response-directed treatment personalization after neoadjuvant ipilimumab and nivolumab.

Re-defining the role of surgery in the management of patients with oligometastatic stage IV melanoma in the era of effective systemic therapies.

Although previously the mainstay of treatment, the role of surgery in the management of patients with oligometastatic stage IV melanoma has changed with the advent of effective systemic therapies (most notably immunotherapy). Contemporary treatment options for patients with asymptomatic solitary or oligo-metastases include upfront surgery followed by adjuvant immunotherapy or upfront immunotherapy with salvage surgery as required. For suspected solitary or oligo-metastases, surgery serves both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Advances in radiological technology allow metastases to be detected earlier and surgery to be less morbid. Surgical morbidities are generally more tolerable than serious immune-related adverse effects, but surgery may be less effective. Upfront immunotherapy ensures that futile surgery is not offered for rapidly progressive disease. It also provides an opportunity to assess response to treatment, which predicts outcome, and may obviate the need for surgery. However, it is important not to miss a window of opportunity for surgical intervention, whereby if disease progresses on immunotherapy it becomes unresectable. In situations where local therapy is recommended but surgery is not desired, stereotactic radiosurgery may be an effective alternative. The decision-making process regarding upfront surgery versus immunotherapy needs to take place within a specialist melanoma multidisciplinary setting and be customised to individual patient and tumour factors. Ultimately, high-level clinical trial evidence is required to resolve uncertainties in the management of patients with oligometastatic stage IV melanoma but the complexity of the varying presentations may make trial design challenging.

Pathological response and survival with neoadjuvant therapy in melanoma: a pooled analysis from the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium (INMC).

The association among pathological response, recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) with neoadjuvant therapy in melanoma remains unclear. In this study, we pooled data from six clinical trials of anti-PD-1-based immunotherapy or BRAF/MEK targeted therapy. In total, 192 patients were included; 141 received immunotherapy (104, combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab; 37, anti-PD-1 monotherapy), and 51 received targeted therapy. A pathological complete response (pCR) occurred in 40% of patients: 47% with targeted therapy and 33% with immunotherapy (43% combination and 20% monotherapy). pCR correlated with improved RFS (pCR 2-year 89% versus no pCR 50%, P < 0.001) and OS (pCR 2-year OS 95% versus no pCR 83%, P = 0.027). In patients with pCR, near pCR or partial pathological response with immunotherapy, very few relapses were seen (2-year RFS 96%), and, at this writing, no patient has died from melanoma, whereas, even with pCR from targeted therapy, the 2-year RFS was only 79%, and OS was only 91%. Pathological response should be an early surrogate endpoint for clinical trials and a new benchmark for development and approval in melanoma.

Sonographic Volumetric Assessment Is a More Accurate Measure Than Maximum Diameter Alone in Papillary Thyroid Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Tumor size is an important prognostic factor in papillary thyroid cancer (PTC). Management guidelines, staging systems, and pathological definitions use maximum diameter (Dmax) as a surrogate marker of tumor size. However, PTC nodules are three-dimensional (3D) structures, with behavior reflective of tumor cell count, which is directly proportional to volume. We explored the relationship between sonographically determined Dmax, volume, and lymph node status (LNS) in a cohort of patients with PTC. METHODS: All patients treated for PTC between 2003 and 2015 in our institution who had sonographic 3D nodule measurements available were evaluated. We examined the relationship between diameter, volume, and LNS. RESULTS: A total of 159 nodules in 153 patients met the inclusion criteria. Mean nodule dimensions were 2.4 × 1.9 × 1.5 cm, giving "ideal" nodule dimensions of y × 0.78y × 0.62y, where y is the Dmax. Observed volumes differed from predicted nodule volumes by an average of 26.2%. For PTC ≤2 cm, the coefficient of variation was 26.7%. Dmax did not correlate with the presence of lymph node metastases (Pearson coefficient 0.08), whereas volume very weakly correlated with LNS (Pearson coefficient 0.22). However, both Dmax and volume correlated very strongly with the number of nodal metastases (Pearson coefficients 0.93 and 0.89, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: PTC nodules demonstrated significant volume heterogeneity, rendering Dmax an inaccurate marker of true tumor size. Although there was little difference between Dmax and volume in predicting nodal status or nodal disease burden, we propose that a prospective, randomized trial might demonstrate a clear clinical advantage of 3D sonographic nodule measurement over Dmax alone.