Sequencing of Immunotherapy and Outcomes in Operable Clinical Stage III Melanoma: A National Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The impact of neoadjuvant immunotherapy (NIT) on overall survival (OS) in patients with resectable stage III melanoma remains unknown. We sought to identify factors associated with receipt of NIT and survival outcomes in patients with clinical stage III melanoma undergoing surgery. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (2016-2020) was used to identify patients with clinical stage III melanoma who underwent surgery and received either NIT or adjuvant immunotherapy (AIT) only. Multivariable regression, Kaplan-Meier, and Cox proportional hazard methods were used to analyze variables of interest. RESULTS: Patients with clinical N3 disease had 2.5 times the odds of NIT compared to those with N1 disease (95% CI 1.74-3.49). There was no difference in 3-year OS between the two cohorts: 79% (95% CI 73%-85%) for NIT patients and 75% (95% CI 73%-76%) for AIT patients (p = 0.078). Patients with N2/N3 disease had improved 3-year OS of 79% with NIT versus 71% for AIT-only (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.38-0.97, p = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: NIT is given more selectively to clinical stage III patients with more advanced N category disease. Despite significant differences in N category between groups, there was no difference in OS observed at 3 years, and NIT was associated with a survival advantage among N2/N3 patients.

Treatment Patterns and Outcomes of Stage III Melanoma Patients with Positive Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy: A Real-Life Experience.

Background: Advancements in managing stage III melanoma have involved the implementation of adjuvant therapies alongside a simultaneous decrease in the utilization of completion lymph node dissection (CLND) following positive sentinel node biopsy (SLNB). Methods: This retrospective study from the University of Turin's Dermatology Clinic analyzed relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) among stage III melanoma patients (n = 157) who underwent CLND after positive SLNB versus those who did not receive such procedure. Results: Patients without CLND had a median RFS of 49 months (95% CI 42-NA), while CLND recipients showed 51 months (95% CI 31-NA) (p = 0.139). The 48-month OS for non-CLND patients was 79.8% (95% CI 58.2-91.0) versus 79.2% (95% CI 67.5-87.0) for CLND recipients (p = 0.463). Adjusted Hazard Ratios through inverse probability treatment weighting revealed the impact of CLND to be insignificant on RFS (aHR 0.90, 95% CI 0.37-2.22) and marginal on OS (aHR 0.41, 95% CI 0.13-1.21). Conversely, adjuvant therapy significantly reduced the risk of relapse (aHR 0.46, 95% CI 0.25-0.84), irrespective of CLND. Conclusions: This study corroborates the growing evidence that CLND after positive SLNB does not enhance RFS or OS, while emphasizing the crucial role of adjuvant therapy, be it immunotherapy or targeted therapy, in reducing the risk of relapse in melanoma patients with positive SLNB.

Evidence for Radiation Therapy in Stage III Locoregionally Advanced Cutaneous Melanoma in the Post-Immunotherapy Era: A Literature Review.

In the landscape of Stage III locoregionally advanced cutaneous melanoma treatment, the post-immunotherapy era has sparked a number of questions on the management of the nodal basin. However, much of the available literature is not focused on radiation therapy as an adjuvant therapy. This literature review aims to illuminate the evidence surrounding radiation therapy's potential to mitigate regional recurrences in the adjuvant setting for melanoma. Additionally, it seeks to identify adjunct systemic therapy options and explore the synergy between systemic therapy and radiation. Despite strides in surgical techniques and systemic therapies, controlling regional Stage III melanoma remains a formidable clinical hurdle. While historical data strongly suggest the efficacy of adjuvant radiation therapy in reducing regional recurrence risk, its evaluation predates the advent of MAPK pathway inhibitors and robust immunotherapy options. Notably, clinical trials have yet to definitively demonstrate a survival advantage with adjuvant radiation therapy. Additional research should focus on refining the definition of high risk for regional recurrence through gene expression profiling or tumor immune profiling scores and elucidate the optimal role of adjuvant radiation therapy in patients treated with neoadjuvant systemic therapy.

Circulating tumour DNA dynamics predict recurrence in stage III melanoma patients receiving neoadjuvant immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant therapy improves recurrence-free survival (RFS) in resectable stage III cutaneous melanoma. However, accurately predicting individual recurrence risk remains a significant challenge. We investigated circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) as a biomarker for recurrence in measurable stage IIIB/C melanoma patients undergoing neoadjuvant immunotherapy. METHODS: Plasma samples were collected pre-neoadjuvant treatment, pre-surgery and/or six weeks post-surgery from 40 patients enrolled in the OpACIN-neo and PRADO clinical trials. Patients received two cycles of ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4) and nivolumab (anti-PD-1) before surgery. Cell free DNA (cfDNA) underwent unbiased pre-amplification followed by tumour-informed mutation detection using droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) with the Bio-Rad QX600 PCR system. RESULTS: Pre-treatment ctDNA was detectable in 19/40 (48%) patients. Among these, 17/19 (89%) zero-converted within six weeks of surgery and none recurred. Positive ctDNA post-surgery (N = 4), irrespective of pre-treatment ctDNA status, was 100% predictive of recurrence (sensitivity 44%, specificity 100%). Furthermore, ctDNA cleared prior to surgery in 7/9 (78%) patients who did not recur, warranting further investigation into ctDNA-guided surgical management. CONCLUSION: Post-surgery ctDNA positivity and zero-conversion are highly predictive of recurrence, offering a window for personalised modification of adjuvant therapy.

Real-world outcomes of patients with resected stage III melanoma treated with adjuvant therapies.

BACKGROUND: Both immunotherapy (IO) and targeted therapy (TT) are used as adjuvant (adj) treatment for stage III melanoma, however, data describing real-world outcomes are limited. In addition, a significant proportion of patients relapse, for whom best management is unclear. The aim of our study was to assess the efficacy, and safety of adj anti-PD1 IO and TT in a real-world cohort of patients with resected stage III melanoma, and further delineate patterns of recurrence and treatment strategies. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 130 patients who received adj therapy (100 anti-PD1 IO and 30 TT). RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 30 months, median relapse-free survival (RFS) was 24.6 (95% CI, 17-not reached [NR]) versus 64 (95% CI, 29.5-NR) months for the TT and IO groups, respectively (p = 0.26). Median overall survival (OS) was NR for either subgroup. At data cutoff, 77% and 82% of patients in TT and IO arms were alive. A higher number of grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were noted in the IO group (11% vs. 3%), however, a higher proportion of patients permanently discontinued adj therapy in the TT group (43% vs. 11%) due to toxicity. Strategies at relapse and outcomes were variable based on location and timing of recurrence. A significant number of patients who relapsed after adj IO received a second round of IO. Among them, patients who were off adj IO at relapse had superior second median RFS (mRFS2), compared to those who relapsed while on adj IO; mRFS2 was NR versus 5.1 months (95% CI, 2.5-NR), respectively, p = 0.02. CONCLUSION: In summary, both TT and IO yielded prolonged RFS in a real-world setting, however, longer follow-up is needed to determine any potential OS benefit. Adj therapy, particularly TT, may not be as well tolerated as suggested in clinical trials, with lower completion rates (59% vs. 74%) in a real-life setting. Overall, patients who relapse during adj therapy have poor outcomes, while patients who relapse after discontinuation of adj IO therapy appear to benefit from IO re-treatment.

Assessing the use of anti-PD1 monotherapy as adjuvant therapy and determinants of treatment choice in stage III cutaneous melanoma in the US.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to describe real-world adjuvant therapy (AT) use by disease substage and assess determinants of treatment choice among patients with stage III melanoma. METHODS: This non-interventional retrospective study included survey responses and data from patient records provided by US medical oncologists. Survey responses, patient demographic/clinical characteristics, treatment utilization, and reasons for treatment were reported descriptively. The association between patient and disease characteristics and AT selection was assessed using logistic and multinomial regression models, overall and stratified by AJCC8 substage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C/D) and type of AT received (anti-PD1 monotherapy, BRAF/MEK, no AT), respectively. RESULTS: In total 152 medical oncologists completed the survey and reviewed the charts of 507 patients (168 stage IIIA; 339 stages IIIB/IIIC/IIID); 405 (79.9%) patients received AT (360/405 (88.9%) received anti-PD1 therapy; 45/405 (11.1%) received BRAF/MEK therapy). Physicians reported clinical guidelines (61.2%), treatment efficacy (37.5%), and ECOG performance status (31.6%) as drivers of AT prescription. Patient-level data confirmed that improving patient outcomes (79%) was the main reason for anti-PD1 prescription; expected limited treatment benefit (37%), patient refusal (36%), and toxicity concerns (30%) were reasons for not prescribing AT. In multivariable analyses stage IIIB/IIIC/IIID disease significantly increased the probability of receiving AT (odds ratio [OR] 1.74) and anti-PD1 therapy (OR 1.82); ECOG 2/3 and Medicaid/no insurance decreased the probability of AT receipt (OR 0.37 and 0.42, respectively) and anti-PD1 therapy (OR 0.41 and 0.42, respectively) among all patients and patients with stage IIIA disease. CONCLUSION: Most patients were given AT with a vast majority treated with an anti-PD1 therapy. Physician- and patient-level evidence confirmed the impact of disease substage on AT use, with stage IIIA patients, patients without adequate insurance coverage, and worse ECOG status having a lower probability of receiving AT.

Adjuvant Systemic Therapies for Resected Stages III and IV Melanoma: A Multi-Center Retrospective Clinical Study.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant therapies have been approved for resected melanoma based on improved recurrence-free survival. We present early findings from a real-world study on adjuvant treatments for melanoma. METHODS: A comprehensive chart review was conducted for patients receiving adjuvant systemic therapy for resected high-risk stages III and IV melanoma. Statistical analysis was performed to assess recurrence-free survival and subgroup differences. RESULTS: A total of 149 patients (median age = 58.0 years, 61.1% men, 49.7% with BRAF V600E/K genotypes) were included, with 94.6% having resected stage III melanoma. Anti-PD-1 immunotherapy was received by 86.5% of patients, while 13.4% received BRAF-targeted therapy. At a median follow-up of 22.4 months, the recurrence rate was 31.5%, with 1-year and 2-year recurrence-free survival rates of 79% and 62%, respectively. Similar recurrence rates were observed between anti-PD-1 immunotherapy and BRAF-targeted therapy. Long-term toxicity affected 27.4% of patients, with endocrinopathies and late-emergent immune-related adverse events being common. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world adjuvant systemic therapy aligns with clinical trial practice. Recurrence rates remain high despite treatment, and long-term toxicities, including endocrinopathies and chronic inflammatory conditions, are not uncommon.

Patient Preferences and Satisfaction With Decisions in Stage-III Melanoma: A Mixed Methods Study.

INTRODUCTION: Rapid accumulation of data in surgical and medical oncology has changed the treatment landscape for patients with stage-III melanoma, introducing options for active surveillance and adjuvant systemic therapy; however, these options have increased the complexity of decision making. METHODS: We conducted an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study consisting of surveys and semistructured interviews among patients diagnosed with stage-III melanoma at a single institution from August 2019 to December 2021. The survey included the validated 30-point satisfaction with decision scale (SWD). The interview guide was developed using a shared decision-making framework. RESULTS: Twenty-six participants completed the survey (response rate 40%) and 17 were interviewed. In the survey, 69% of participants reported receiving a recommendation for active surveillance and 23% received a recommendation for adjuvant systemic therapy. Overall SWD for treatment of the lymph node basin and adjuvant systemic therapy was high at 27.94 and 26.21 out of 30, respectively. In the interviews, participants stressed the importance of the physician's recommendation as well as the desire to minimize intervention and avoid potential side effects in their decisions. However, they demonstrated persistent knowledge gaps in their understanding of the treatment options. CONCLUSIONS: Like other cancer types where the option for active surveillance exists, the physician's recommendation is influential in shaping decisions for patients with stage-III melanoma. Physicians can improve shared decision making in this complex treatment landscape through improved multidisciplinary collaboration and mechanisms for ensuring patients' understanding of the treatment options.

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.

Survival of patients with stage IIIC and IIID melanomas with nodal metastases in the light of new therapies.

Introduction: Within stage III melanoma prognosis and outcomes significantly vary. Advances in systemic therapy improved prognosis in metastatic melanoma. Adjuvant therapy in stage III significantly lowered relapses, although the effect on survival is less evident. Analysis of treatment results in stage IIIC and IIID before introduction of the modern adjuvant therapy, but after introduction of the effective systemic therapy in metastatic relapse, is needed. Aim: To analyse the clinical outcomes in patients with stage IIIC and IIID melanoma before the introduction of the novel adjuvant therapy. Material and methods: Consecutive stage IIIC and IIID melanoma patients treated in 2015-2018 in 4 reference centres in Poland were enrolled in the analysis of RFS and OS (in-transit metastases excluded). Median follow-up was 26.6 months (1.7-67.2). Results: There were 224 stage IIIC and 49 stage IIID patients. Recurrence was observed in 170 (62.2%); 102 (45.5%) deaths in stage IIIC and 28 (57.1%) in stage IIID were reported. RFS and OS were better in stage IIIC compared to stage IIID. RFS and OS in the IIIC group were 19.7 and 36.2 months, respectively, and in IIID - 8.9 and 27.8 months, respectively. Conclusions: The survival of patients with high-risk melanomas has improved in recent years, however, it is still unsatisfactory. The major changes in melanoma management related to the introduction of the adjuvant therapy require further careful observation.

Current Landscape and Open Questions on Adjuvant Therapies in Melanoma.

Melanoma is a form of skin cancer that is frequently diagnosed at early stages. In most cases, surgical resection is curative. In case of thicker melanomas (> pT1b) without clinical or instrumental evidence of metastasis, a sentinel lymph node biopsy is recommended for staging purposes. If the lymph nodes are the only site of disease (macroscopic or microscopic> 1mm), configuring stage III, the international guidelines recommend the use of adjuvant therapy with checkpoint inhibitors (nivolumab or pembrolizumab) or targeted therapies (dabrafenib plus trametinib). These drugs have shown a significant increase in recurrence-free survival, although some doubts and open questions remain. Specifically, none of the available treatments has shown a clear benefit in the overall survival rates, the advantages they give in stage IIIA are not well known, and finally there are still no prospective clinical studies identifying the best approach to continue the therapeutic process in case of relapse. Furthermore, there are new opportunities opening up with the upcoming results of the neoadjuvant trials that could revolutionize the treatment of clinically evident stage III melanoma.

Adjuvant therapy versus watch-and-wait post surgery for stage III melanoma: a multicountry retrospective chart review.

AIM: To describe treatment patterns among patients with stage III melanoma who underwent surgical excision in years 2011-2016, and assess outcomes among patients who subsequently received systemic adjuvant therapy versus watch-and-wait. METHODS: Chart review of 380 patients from 17 melanoma centers in North America, South America and Europe. RESULTS: Of 129 (34%) patients treated with adjuvant therapy, 85% received interferon α-2b and 56% discontinued treatment (mostly due to adverse events). Relapse-free survival was significantly longer for patients treated with adjuvant therapy versus watch-and-wait (hazard ratio = 0.63; p < 0.05). There was considerable heterogeneity in adjuvant treatment schedules and doses. Similar results were found in patients who received interferon-based adjuvant therapy. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant therapies with better safety/efficacy profiles will improve clinical outcomes in patients with stage III melanoma.

[Reprint of: New guidelines for stage III melanoma (the French Cutaneous Oncology Group)]. / Republication de : Actualisation des données concernant le mélanome stade III : nouvelles recommandations du groupe français de cancérologie cutanée.

Improved knowledge of sentinel node procedures coupled with the results of adjuvant clinical trials in stage III melanoma have prompted the French Cutaneous Oncology Group to propose new guidelines for the management of stage III melanoma. These guidelines comply with the principles of the evidence-based medicine.

[New guidelines for stage III melanoma (the French Cutaneous Oncology Group)]. / Actualisation des données concernant le mélanome stade III : nouvelles recommandations du groupe français de cancérologie cutanée.

Improved knowledge of sentinel node procedures coupled with the results of adjuvant clinical trials in stage III melanoma have prompted the French Cutaneous Oncology Group to propose new guidelines for the management of stage III melanoma. These guidelines comply with the principles of the evidence-based medicine.

Current management of regional lymph nodes in patients with melanoma.

The publication of recent randomized trials has prompted a significant shift in both our understanding and the management of patients with melanoma. Here, the current management of the regional lymph nodes in patients with melanoma is discussed. This review focuses on selection for sentinel lymph node biopsy, management of the positive sentinel node, management of the clinically positive node, and the controversy over the therapeutic value of early nodal intervention.

Health-related quality of life analysis in stage III melanoma patients treated with adjuvant dendritic cell therapy.

BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important issue in the rapidly evolving field of adjuvant treatment for stage III melanoma. Dendritic cell vaccination is one of the adjuvant forms of therapy currently investigated. METHODS: We enrolled adults with stage III melanoma to receive adjuvant dendritic cell vaccination after a complete radical lymph node dissection. HRQoL assessment was one of the secondary endpoints of this trial and investigated with the EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaire at baseline and week 26. RESULTS: Fifteen patients with a median age of 50 years were included in the study, with twelve evaluable patients on study at time of the second questionnaire. Global health status and role functioning improved clinically relevant with a mean difference of 15 (p = 0.010) and 26 points (p = 0.005), respectively. DISCUSSION: Despite the small number of patients, we found a clinically relevant improved global health status. Besides, compared to the other investigated therapies, toxicity of dendritic cell vaccination is low, which supports our finding. CONCLUSION: This is the first description of HRQoL in melanoma patients receiving dendritic cell vaccination. We show the expected improvement in global health status after surgical treatment of stage III melanoma. Thus, adjuvant dendritic cell vaccination does not seem to hamper this improvement, as shown in our small explorative study.

Presence of immune cells, low tumor proliferation and wild type BRAF mutation status is associated with a favourable clinical outcome in stage III cutaneous melanoma.

BACKGROUND: The variable prognosis in stage III cutaneous melanoma is partially due to unknown prognostic factors. Improved prognostic tools are required to define patients with an increased risk of developing metastatic disease who might benefit from adjuvant therapies. The aim was to examine if cellular immune markers in association with tumor proliferation rate and BRAF mutation status have an impact on prognosis in stage III melanoma. METHODS: We have used two sets of case series with stage III disease: 23 patients with short survival (≤ 13 months) and 19 patients with long survival (≥ 60 months). Lymph node metastases were analyzed for Ki67, CD8 and FOXP3 protein expression using immunohistochemistry. BRAF mutation status was analyzed in a previous study on the same samples. RESULTS: Low tumor proliferation rate was significantly associated with a better prognosis (p = 0.013). Presence of FOXP3+ T cells was not correlated to adverse clinical outcome. A highly significant trend for a longer survival was found in the presence of an increasing number of markers; CD8+ and FOXP3+ T cells, low tumor proliferation and BRAF wildtype status (p = 0.003). Presence of at least three of these four markers was found to be an independent favorable prognostic factor (OR 19.4, 95% CI 1.9-197, p = 0.012), when adjusting for ulceration and number of lymph node metastases. Proliferation alone remained significant in multivariate analyses (OR 26.1, 95% CI 2.0-344, p = 0.013) but with a wider confidence interval. This panel still remained independent when also adjusting for a previously identified prognostic glycolytic-pigment panel. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated that presence of immune cells in association with tumor proliferation and BRAF mutation status may further contribute to identify stage III melanoma patients with high risk of relapse.

Perioperative BRAF inhibitors in locally advanced stage III melanoma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Stage III malignant melanoma is a heterogeneous disease where those cases deemed marginally resectable or irresecatble are frequently incurable by surgery alone. Targeted therapy takes advantage of the high incidence of BRAF mutations in melanomas, most notably the V600E mutation. These agents have rarely been used in a neoadjuvant setting prior to surgery. METHODS: Thirteen consecutive patients with confirmed BRAFV600E regionally advanced melanoma deemed marginally resectable or irrresectable, were treated with BRAF inhibiting agents, prior to undergoing surgery. The primary outcome measures were a successful resection and pathological response. Disease-free survival was a secondary outcome measure. RESULTS: Overall, 12/13 patients showed a marked clinical responsiveness to medical treatment, enabling a macroscopically successful resection in all cases. Four patients had a complete pathological response with no viable tumor evident in the resected specimens and eight patients showed evidence of minimally residual tumor with extensive tumoral necrosis and fibrosis. One patient progressed and died before surgery. At a median follow up of 20 months, 10 patients remain free of disease. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative treatment with BRAF inhibiting agents in BRAFV600E mutated Stage III melanoma patients facilitates surgical resection and affords satisfactory disease free survival.

Surveillance strategies in the follow-up of melanoma patients: too much or not enough?

BACKGROUND: After appropriate initial therapy for patients with stage II-III melanoma, there is no consensus regarding surveillance. Thus, follow-up is highly variable among institutions and individual providers. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends routine clinical examination and consideration of imaging for stage IIB-IIIC every 3-12 mo with no distinction between stages. Detection of recurrence is important as novel systemic therapies and surgical resection of recurrence may provide survival benefits. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 369 patients with stage II and III melanoma treated at Ohio State University from 2009-2015, who underwent surgery as primary therapy. Two hundred forty-seven patients who were followed for a minimum of 6 mo after surgical resection to achieve no evidence of disease status (NED) were included in this analysis. One hundred twenty-two were lost to follow-up after surgery and were excluded. RESULTS: The rate of recurrence for stage IIA/IIB patients was 11% (14/125). Eleven of the 14 (79%) recurrences were detected by clinical symptoms or physical examination. Thirty-nine percent (49/125) of stage IIA or IIB patients were followed by clinical examination only, whereas 61% (76/125) were followed with at least two serial chest x-rays. The median time to first chest x-ray after NED status was 4.7 mo (n = 76), median time to second chest x-ray after NED status was 12.7 mo (n = 76), and 66% (50/76) continued to have additional serial chest x-rays. At median follow-up of 35 mo for the 125 patients with stage IIA/IIB, there was no difference in survival between those followed clinically (95% [95% CI: 0.88-0.99]) versus those followed with at least two serial x-rays (96% [95% CI: 0.89-0.98]). For stage IIC/IIIA-C patients, recurrence was detected in 23% (28/122) at median follow-up 31.2 mo. Fifty percent of recurrences were detected by imaging in asymptomatic patients, whereas 50% (14/28) had recurrence detected on imaging associated clinical findings. Eighty-seven percent (106/122) of stage IIC/IIIA-C patients were followed with at least two serial whole body positron emission tomography/computed tomography (CT) scans or whole body CT scans plus brain magnetic resonance imaging; median time between NED status and second scan was 10.3 mo. Of stage IIC/IIIA-C patients with recurrence, 57% (16/28) went on to surgical resection of the recurrence, whereas 11 (39%) patients received B-RAF inhibitor therapy, immune blockade therapy, or combination therapy. CONCLUSIONS: For stage IIA and IIB melanoma, surveillance chest x-rays did not improve survival compared to physical examination alone. However, for stage IIC and IIIA-C melanoma, where the recurrence rates are higher, routine whole body imaging detected 50% of recurrences leading to additional surgery and/or treatment with novel systemic therapies for the majority of patients. Detection of melanoma recurrence is important and specific substage should be used to stratify risk and define appropriate follow-up.