Outcomes of patients with resected stage III/IV acral or mucosal melanoma, treated with adjuvant anti-PD-1 based therapy.

IMPORTANCE: Acral (AM) and mucosal melanomas (MM) are rare subtypes with a poor prognosis. In those with advanced disease, anti-PD-1 (PD1) therapy has reduced activity compared to that seen in non-acral cutaneous melanoma. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of adjuvant PD1 in resected AM or MM. DESIGN: An international, retrospective cohort study SETTING: Data up to November 2021 collected from 20 centres across 10 countries. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and ninety four patients with resected stage III or IV1 AM or MM who received adjuvant PD1 were included and compared to matched patients from the Melanoma Institute Australia (MIA) database using a propensity score matching analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Recurrence-free survival (RFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS) were investigated. RESULTS: Forty five of 139 (32%) AM and 9 of 55 (16%) MM patients completed adjuvant therapy. The main reason for early treatment cessation in both groups was disease recurrence: 51 (37%) and 30 (55%) in the AM and MM groups, respectively. In the AM group adjuvant PD1 was associated with a longer RFS [HR-0.69 (0.52-0.92, p = 0.0127)], DMFS [HR0.58 (0.38-0.89, p = 0.0134)] and OS [HR of 0.59 (0.38-0.92, p-value 0.0196)] when compared to the historical cohort. In the MM group there was no statistical difference in RFS [HR1.36 (0.69-2.68,p-value 0.3799], DMFS or OS. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: After adjuvant PD1, both AM and MM have a high risk of recurrence. Our data suggests a benefit to using adjuvant PD1 therapy in resected AM but not in resected MM. Additional studies to investigate the efficacy of adjuvant PD1 for MM are needed.

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.

Characteristics and outcomes of oncology unit patients requiring admission to an Australian intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced malignancies have historically been considered poor candidates for admission to the intensive care unit (ICU); however, prognosis is continually improving, and requirements for ICU access are increasing. AIM: To understand the characteristics and outcomes of oncology unit patients admitted to an Australian ICU and identify potential prognostic factors. METHODS: A single-centre, retrospective, cohort study conducted at a tertiary public hospital with a quaternary ICU in Sydney, Australia. All patients admitted under the medical oncology team requiring ICU admission between June 2014 and June 2016 were evaluated. Clinical outcomes were determined including mortality, ICU requirements (ventilation, dialysis, vasopressors, infection) and prognostic scores (Acute Physiologic and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score). RESULTS: There were 96 patients with mean age 61 years, 58% were male and 76% had metastatic disease. Most were receiving palliative treatment (89%), with recent chemotherapy (43%), immunotherapy (10%) and other therapies (5%). Of the 10 patients with recent immunotherapy, three (all with melanoma) required ICU admission due to immunotoxicity; 13% were admitted due to an oncological emergency. Mean APACHE II score was 17 (standard deviation (SD) 5.33), mean SOFA score was 3.99 (SD 2.70), ICU mortality was 5% and hospital mortality was 22%. Using multivariate logistic regression analysis, cancer stage, infection during ICU admission, intracranial mass effect on ICU admission and SOFA score were associated with 30-day mortality. CONCLUSION: Our patient population had good short-term survival outcomes despite most receiving palliative treatment. Cancer patients can achieve positive outcomes after ICU admission, and appropriate selection of patients is crucial.