Neoadjuvant relatlimab and nivolumab in resectable melanoma.

Relatlimab and nivolumab combination immunotherapy improves progression-free survival over nivolumab monotherapy in patients with unresectable advanced melanoma1. We investigated this regimen in patients with resectable clinical stage III or oligometastatic stage IV melanoma (NCT02519322). Patients received two neoadjuvant doses (nivolumab 480 mg and relatlimab 160 mg intravenously every 4 weeks) followed by surgery, and then ten doses of adjuvant combination therapy. The primary end point was pathologic complete response (pCR) rate2. The combination resulted in 57% pCR rate and 70% overall pathologic response rate among 30 patients treated. The radiographic response rate using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 was 57%. No grade 3-4 immune-related adverse events were observed in the neoadjuvant setting. The 1- and 2-year recurrence-free survival rate was 100% and 92% for patients with any pathologic response, compared to 88% and 55% for patients who did not have a pathologic response (P = 0.005). Increased immune cell infiltration at baseline, and decrease in M2 macrophages during treatment, were associated with pathologic response. Our results indicate that neoadjuvant relatlimab and nivolumab induces a high pCR rate. Safety during neoadjuvant therapy is favourable compared to other combination immunotherapy regimens. These data, in combination with the results of the RELATIVITY-047 trial1, provide further confirmation of the efficacy and safety of this new immunotherapy regimen.

B cells are associated with survival and immunotherapy response in sarcoma.

Soft-tissue sarcomas represent a heterogeneous group of cancer, with more than 50 histological subtypes1,2. The clinical presentation of patients with different subtypes is often atypical, and responses to therapies such as immune checkpoint blockade vary widely3,4. To explain this clinical variability, here we study gene expression profiles in 608 tumours across subtypes of soft-tissue sarcoma. We establish an immune-based classification on the basis of the composition of the tumour microenvironment and identify five distinct phenotypes: immune-low (A and B), immune-high (D and E), and highly vascularized (C) groups. In situ analysis of an independent validation cohort shows that class E was characterized by the presence of tertiary lymphoid structures that contain T cells and follicular dendritic cells and are particularly rich in B cells. B cells are the strongest prognostic factor even in the context of high or low CD8+ T cells and cytotoxic contents. The class-E group demonstrated improved survival and a high response rate to PD1 blockade with pembrolizumab in a phase 2 clinical trial. Together, this work confirms the immune subtypes in patients with soft-tissue sarcoma, and unravels the potential of B-cell-rich tertiary lymphoid structures to guide clinical decision-making and treatments, which could have broader applications in other diseases.

B cells and tertiary lymphoid structures promote immunotherapy response.

Treatment with immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) has revolutionized cancer therapy. Until now, predictive biomarkers1-10 and strategies to augment clinical response have largely focused on the T cell compartment. However, other immune subsets may also contribute to anti-tumour immunity11-15, although these have been less well-studied in ICB treatment16. A previously conducted neoadjuvant ICB trial in patients with melanoma showed via targeted expression profiling17 that B cell signatures were enriched in the tumours of patients who respond to treatment versus non-responding patients. To build on this, here we performed bulk RNA sequencing and found that B cell markers were the most differentially expressed genes in the tumours of responders versus non-responders. Our findings were corroborated using a computational method (MCP-counter18) to estimate the immune and stromal composition in this and two other ICB-treated cohorts (patients with melanoma and renal cell carcinoma). Histological evaluation highlighted the localization of B cells within tertiary lymphoid structures. We assessed the potential functional contributions of B cells via bulk and single-cell RNA sequencing, which demonstrate clonal expansion and unique functional states of B cells in responders. Mass cytometry showed that switched memory B cells were enriched in the tumours of responders. Together, these data provide insights into the potential role of B cells and tertiary lymphoid structures in the response to ICB treatment, with implications for the development of biomarkers and therapeutic targets.

Relatlimab and Nivolumab versus Nivolumab in Untreated Advanced Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3) and programmed death 1 (PD-1) are distinct inhibitory immune checkpoints that contribute to T-cell exhaustion. The combination of relatlimab, a LAG-3-blocking antibody, and nivolumab, a PD-1-blocking antibody, has been shown to be safe and to have antitumor activity in patients with previously treated melanoma, but the safety and activity in patients with previously untreated melanoma need investigation. METHODS: In this phase 2-3, global, double-blind, randomized trial, we evaluated relatlimab and nivolumab as a fixed-dose combination as compared with nivolumab alone when administered intravenously every 4 weeks to patients with previously untreated metastatic or unresectable melanoma. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was 10.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.4 to 15.7) with relatlimab-nivolumab as compared with 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.4 to 5.6) with nivolumab (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.62 to 0.92]; P = 0.006 by the log-rank test). Progression-free survival at 12 months was 47.7% (95% CI, 41.8 to 53.2) with relatlimab-nivolumab as compared with 36.0% (95% CI, 30.5 to 41.6) with nivolumab. Progression-free survival across key subgroups favored relatlimab-nivolumab over nivolumab. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 18.9% of patients in the relatlimab-nivolumab group and in 9.7% of patients in the nivolumab group. CONCLUSIONS: The inhibition of two immune checkpoints, LAG-3 and PD-1, provided a greater benefit with regard to progression-free survival than inhibition of PD-1 alone in patients with previously untreated metastatic or unresectable melanoma. Relatlimab and nivolumab in combination showed no new safety signals. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb; RELATIVITY-047 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03470922.).

Current drug development and trial designs in neuro-oncology: report from the first American Society of Clinical Oncology and Society for Neuro-Oncology Clinical Trials Conference.

Successful drug development for people with cancers of the CNS has been challenging. There are multiple barriers to successful drug development including biological factors, rarity of the disease, and ineffective use of clinical trials. Based upon a series of presentations at the First Central Nervous System Clinical Trials Conference hosted by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the Society for Neuro-Oncology, we provide an overview on drug development and novel trial designs in neuro-oncology. This Review discusses the challenges of therapeutic development in neuro-oncology and proposes strategies to improve the drug discovery process by enriching the pipeline of promising therapies, optimising trial design, incorporating biomarkers, using external data, and maximising efficacy and reproducibility of clinical trials.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Suppress Hepatitis C Virus Replication in Infected Patients With Solid Tumors.

INTRODUCTION: Data are scarce regarding the virologic impact and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. We examined the virologic impact of ICI in HCV-infected patients with solid tumors and their safety. METHODS: HCV-infected patients with solid tumor treated with ICI at our institution between April 26, 2016, and January 5, 2022, were enrolled in a prospective observational study. The primary outcomes were ICI-induced changes in HCV viremia (HCV inhibition and HCV reactivation) and safety of ICI. RESULTS: We enrolled 52 consecutive patients with solid tumors treated with ICI. Most were men (41; 79%), White (31; 59%), without cirrhosis (34; 65%), and with HCV genotype 1 (40; 77%). Four patients (7.7%) experienced HCV inhibition while receiving ICI including 1 patient who developed undetectable viremia for 6 months in the absence of direct-acting antivirals (DAA). Two patients (4%) developed HCV reactivation, both while receiving immunosuppressive therapy for ICI-related toxic effects. Adverse events occurred in 36 patients (69%), and 39 of the 47 adverse events (83%) were grade 1-2. Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 8 patients (15%), and in all cases, they were related to ICI, not to HCV. No HCV-associated liver failure or death occurred. DISCUSSION: Inhibition of HCV replication with virologic cure can develop in patients receiving ICI without DAA. HCV reactivation occurs primarily in patients receiving immunosuppressants for ICI-related toxic effects. ICI are safe in HCV-infected patients with solid tumors. Chronic HCV infection should not be considered a contraindication for ICI therapy.

A phase 1 study of veliparib (ABT-888) plus weekly carboplatin and paclitaxel in advanced solid malignancies, with an expansion cohort in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) (ETCTN 8620).

BACKGROUND: Veliparib is a poly-ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, and it has clinical activity with every 3 weeks carboplatin and paclitaxel. In breast cancer, weekly paclitaxel is associated with improved overall survival. We aimed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of veliparib with weekly carboplatin and paclitaxel as well as safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary clinical activity in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). METHODS: Patients with locally advanced/metastatic solid tumors and adequate organ function were eligible. A standard 3 + 3 dose-escalation design was followed by a TNBC expansion cohort. Veliparib doses ranging from 50 to 200 mg orally bid were tested with carboplatin (AUC 2) and paclitaxel (80 mg/m2) given weekly in a 21-day cycle. Adverse events (AE) were evaluated by CTCAE v4.0, and objective response rate (ORR) was determined by RECIST 1.1. RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled, of whom 22 had TNBC. Two dose-limiting toxicities were observed. The RP2D was determined to be 150 mg PO bid veliparib with weekly carboplatin and paclitaxel 2 weeks on, 1 week off, based on hematologic toxicity requiring dose reduction in the first 5 cycles of treatment. The most common grade 3/4 AEs included neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia. PK parameters of veliparib were comparable to single-agent veliparib. In 23 patients with evaluable disease, the ORR was 65%. In 19 patients with TNBC with evaluable disease, the ORR was 63%. CONCLUSION: Veliparib can be safely combined with weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin, and this triplet combination has promising clinical activity.

The "Great Debate" at Melanoma Bridge 2022, Naples, December 1st-3rd, 2022.

The Great Debate session at the 2022 Melanoma Bridge congress (December 1-3) featured counterpoint views from leading experts on five contemporary topics of debate in the management of melanoma. The debates considered the choice of anti-lymphocyte-activation gene (LAG)-3 therapy or ipilimumab in combination with anti-programmed death (PD)-1 therapy, whether anti-PD-1 monotherapy is still acceptable as a comparator arm in clinical trials, whether adjuvant treatment of melanoma is still a useful treatment option, the role of adjuvant therapy in stage II melanoma, what role surgery will continue to have in the treatment of melanoma. As is customary in the Melanoma Bridge Great Debates, the speakers are invited by the meeting Chairs to express one side of the assigned debate and the opinions given may not fully reflect personal views. Audiences voted in favour of either side of the argument both before and after each debate.

Cutaneous adverse events in 155 patients with metastatic melanoma consecutively treated with anti-CTLA4 and anti-PD1 combination immunotherapy: Incidence, management, and clinical benefit.

BACKGROUND: In response to the increased use of combination checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) and the resulting increased cutaneous adverse events (CAEs), this study reviewed patients with melanoma treated with combination CPIs to characterize CAE features and their clinical impact, correlation to adverse events in other organs, and correlation to tumor response. METHODS: Patients from the authors' institutional database who received at least 1 dose of ipilimumab in combination with either nivolumab or pembrolizumab between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2017, for stage IV or unresectable stage III melanoma were identified. The time to next treatment (TTNT) was calculated from the start of CPI therapy to the start of the next treatment or death, and the development of CAEs was tested in a time-dependent Cox regression to identify associations with TTNT. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients (52.3%) experienced a total of 92 CAEs, including eczematous dermatitis (25.0%), morbilliform eruption (22.8%), vitiligo (12.0%), and pruritus without rash (8.7%). The median times to the onset and resolution of CAEs were 21 days (range, 0-341 days) and 50 days (range, 1-352 days), respectively. Most CAEs resolved after patients entered the CPI maintenance phase and treatment with oral antihistamines with or without topical steroids. CPI discontinuation occurred in 4 patients (2.6%) because of CAEs, in 49 (31.6%) because of other immune-related adverse events, and in 20 (12.9%) because of melanoma progression or death. For patients definitively treated with CPIs (n = 134; 86.5%), TTNT was significantly longer with CAEs than without CAEs (hazard ratio, 0.567; 95% CI, 0.331-0.972; P = .039). CONCLUSIONS: CAEs were mostly reversible and rarely required therapy discontinuation. The development of CAEs was associated with a longer TTNT, and this suggested a possible clinical benefit.

The "Great Debate" at Melanoma Bridge 2021, December 2nd-4th, 2021.

The Great Debate session at the 2021 Melanoma Bridge virtual congress (December 2-4) featured counterpoint views from experts on seven important issues in melanoma. The debates considered the use of adoptive cell therapy versus use of bispecific antibodies, mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) inhibitors versus immunotherapy in the adjuvant setting, whether the use of corticosteroids for the management of side effects have an impact on outcomes, the choice of programmed death (PD)-1 combination therapy with cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen (CTLA)-4 or lymphocyte-activation gene (LAG)-3, whether radiation is needed for brain metastases, when lymphadenectomy should be integrated into the treatment plan and then the last debate, telemedicine versus face-to-face. As with previous Bridge congresses, the debates were assigned by meeting Chairs and positions taken by experts during the debates may not have necessarily reflected their respective personal view. Audiences voted both before and after each debate.

Current and emerging options for patients with melanoma brain metastases.

Melanoma is the most aggressive skin cancer, with a high incidence of metastatic spread and a predilection for metastases to the brain. It represents the third most common origin of brain metastases after breast and lung cancer. With the advent of targeted therapy and immunotherapy in melanoma, along with improved local therapy options such as stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), the treatment of melanoma brain metastases (MBM) has led to significant improvements in outcome. In this review, we provide an overview of management options for patients with MBM while highlighting emerging treatment options. Surgery may be considered for patients with symptomatic MBM, whereas SRS is considered standard for patients with 1 to 4 brain lesions. Combination immunotherapy has led to durable intracranial responses and improved long-term outcomes for patients with asymptomatic MBM. The data available to date have shown that patients with MBM can have a durable response and overall response that are similar to those of patients without brain metastases, and additional trials are ongoing. Mounting evidence suggests that patients with MBM should be considered for inclusion in clinical trials, which range from early-phase trials to phase 3 studies, to accelerate much-needed drug development in this population.

Long-term outcomes of patients with active melanoma brain metastases treated with combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab (CheckMate 204): final results of an open-label, multicentre, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab was efficacious in patients with asymptomatic melanoma brain metastases (MBM) in CheckMate 204, but showed low efficacy in patients with symptomatic MBM. Here, we provide final 3-year follow-up data from the trial. METHODS: This open-label, multicentre, phase 2 study (CheckMate 204) included adults (aged ≥18 years) with measurable MBM (0·5-3·0 cm in diameter). Asymptomatic patients (cohort A) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1 and no neurological symptoms or baseline corticosteroid use; symptomatic patients (cohort B) had an ECOG performance status of 0-2 with stable neurological symptoms and could be receiving low-dose dexamethasone. Nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg was given intravenously every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks for up to 2 years, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was intracranial clinical benefit rate (complete responses, partial responses, or stable disease lasting ≥6 months) assessed in all treated patients. Intracranial progression-free survival and overall survival were key secondary endpoints. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02320058. FINDINGS: Between Feb 19, 2015, and Nov 1, 2017, 119 (72%) of 165 screened patients were enrolled and treated: 101 patients were asymptomatic (cohort A; median follow-up 34·3 months [IQR 14·7-36·4]) and 18 were symptomatic (cohort B; median follow-up 7·5 months [1·2-35·2]). Investigator-assessed intracranial clinical benefit was observed in 58 (57·4% [95% CI 47·2-67·2]) of 101 patients in cohort A and three (16·7% [3·6-41·4]) of 18 patients in cohort B; investigator-assessed objective response was observed in 54 (53·5% [43·3-63·5]) patients in cohort A and three (16·7% [3·6-41·4]) patients in cohort B. 33 (33%) patients in cohort A and three (17%) patients in cohort B had an investigator-assessed intracranial complete response. For patients in cohort A, 36-month intracranial progression-free survival was 54·1% (95% CI 42·7-64·1) and overall survival was 71·9% (61·8-79·8). For patients in cohort B, 36-month intracranial progression-free survival was 18·9% (95% CI 4·6-40·5) and overall survival was 36·6% (14·0-59·8). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were increased alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase (15 [15%] of 101 patients each) in cohort A; no grade 3 TRAEs occurred in more than one patient each in cohort B, and no grade 4 events occurred. The most common serious TRAEs were colitis, diarrhoea, hypophysitis, and increased alanine aminotransferase (five [5%] of each among the 101 patients in cohort A); no serious TRAE occurred in more than one patient each in cohort B. There was one treatment-related death (myocarditis in cohort A). INTERPRETATION: The durable 3-year response, overall survival, and progression-free survival rates for asymptomatic patients support first-line use of nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Symptomatic disease in patients with MBM remains difficult to treat, but some patients achieve a long-term response with the combination. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb.

Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Melanoma Metastatic to the Brain.

BACKGROUND: Brain metastases are a common cause of disabling neurologic complications and death in patients with metastatic melanoma. Previous studies of nivolumab combined with ipilimumab in metastatic melanoma have excluded patients with untreated brain metastases. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with melanoma who had untreated brain metastases. METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter, phase 2 study, patients with metastatic melanoma and at least one measurable, nonirradiated brain metastasis (tumor diameter, 0.5 to 3 cm) and no neurologic symptoms received nivolumab (1 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 3 weeks for up to four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The primary end point was the rate of intracranial clinical benefit, defined as the percentage of patients who had stable disease for at least 6 months, complete response, or partial response. RESULTS: Among 94 patients with a median follow-up of 14.0 months, the rate of intracranial clinical benefit was 57% (95% confidence interval [CI], 47 to 68); the rate of complete response was 26%, the rate of partial response was 30%, and the rate of stable disease for at least 6 months was 2%. The rate of extracranial clinical benefit was 56% (95% CI, 46 to 67). Treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported in 55% of patients, including events involving the central nervous system in 7%. One patient died from immune-related myocarditis. The safety profile of the regimen was similar to that reported in patients with melanoma who do not have brain metastases. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab combined with ipilimumab had clinically meaningful intracranial efficacy, concordant with extracranial activity, in patients with melanoma who had untreated brain metastases. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and the National Cancer Institute; CheckMate 204 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02320058 .).

The "Great Debate" at Melanoma Bridge 2020: December, 5th, 2020.

The Great Debate session at the 2020 Melanoma Bridge virtual congress (December 3rd-5th, Italy) featured counterpoint views from experts on five specific controversial issues in melanoma. The debates considered whether or not innate immunity is important in the response to cancer and immunotherapy, how useful are the revised American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) classification for the staging of patients, the use of sentinel node biopsy for staging patients, the use of triplet combination of targeted therapy plus immunotherapy versus combined immunotherapy, and the respective benefits of neoadjuvant versus adjuvant therapy. As is usual with Bridge congresses, the debates were assigned by meeting Chairs and positions taken by experts during the debates may not have necessarily reflected their own personal opinion.

Neoadjuvant systemic therapy in melanoma: recommendations of the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium.

Advances in the treatment of metastatic melanoma have improved responses and survival. However, many patients continue to experience resistance or toxicity to treatment, highlighting a crucial need to identify biomarkers and understand mechanisms of response and toxicity. Neoadjuvant therapy for regional metastases might improve operability and clinical outcomes over upfront surgery and adjuvant therapy, and has become an established role for drug development and biomarker discovery in other cancers (including locally advanced breast cancer, head and neck squamous cell carcinomas, gastroesophageal cancer, and anal cancer). Patients with clinically detectable stage III melanoma are ideal candidates for neoadjuvant therapy, because they represent a high-risk patient population with poor outcomes when treated with upfront surgery alone. Neoadjuvant therapy is now an active area of research for melanoma with numerous completed and ongoing trials (since 2014) with disparate designs, endpoints, and analyses under investigation. We have, therefore, established the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium with experts in medical oncology, surgical oncology, pathology, radiation oncology, radiology, and translational research to develop recommendations for investigating neoadjuvant therapy in melanoma to align future trial designs and correlative analyses. Alignment and consistency of neoadjuvant trials will facilitate optimal data organisation for future regulatory review and strengthen translational research across the melanoma disease continuum.

The great debate at "Melanoma Bridge 2018", Naples, December 1st, 2018.

The great debate session at the 2018 Melanoma Bridge congress (November 29-December 1, Naples, Italy) featured counterpoint views from experts on three topical issues in melanoma. These were whether overall survival should still be the main endpoint for clinical trials in melanoma, whether anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen (CTLA)-4 is still the optimal choice of drug to use in combination with an anti-programmed death (PD)/PD-ligand (L)-1 agent, and the place of adjuvant versus neoadjuvant therapy in patients with melanoma. These three important debates are summarised in this report.

Neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib versus standard of care in patients with high-risk, surgically resectable melanoma: a single-centre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Dual BRAF and MEK inhibition produces a response in a large number of patients with stage IV BRAF-mutant melanoma. The existing standard of care for patients with clinical stage III melanoma is upfront surgery and consideration for adjuvant therapy, which is insufficient to cure most patients. Neoadjuvant targeted therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors (such as dabrafenib and trametinib) might provide clinical benefit in this high-risk p opulation. METHODS: We undertook this single-centre, open-label, randomised phase 2 trial at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX, USA). Eligible participants were adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with histologically or cytologically confirmed surgically resectable clinical stage III or oligometastatic stage IV BRAFV600E or BRAFV600K (ie, Val600Glu or Val600Lys)-mutated melanoma. Eligible patients had to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, a life expectancy of more than 3 years, and no previous exposure to BRAF or MEK inhibitors. Exclusion criteria included metastases to bone, brain, or other sites where complete surgical excision was in doubt. We randomly assigned patients (1:2) to either upfront surgery and consideration for adjuvant therapy (standard of care group) or neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib (8 weeks of neoadjuvant oral dabrafenib 150 mg twice per day and oral trametinib 2 mg per day followed by surgery, then up to 44 weeks of adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib starting 1 week after surgery for a total of 52 weeks of treatment). Randomisation was not masked and was implemented by the clinical trial conduct website maintained by the trial centre. Patients were stratified by disease stage. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed event-free survival (ie, patients who were alive without disease progression) at 12 months in the intent-to-treat population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231775. FINDINGS: Between Oct 23, 2014, and April 13, 2016, we randomly assigned seven patients to standard of care, and 14 to neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib. The trial was stopped early after a prespecified interim safety analysis that occurred after a quarter of the participants had been accrued revealed significantly longer event-free survival with neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib than with standard of care. After a median follow-up of 18·6 months (IQR 14·6-23·1), significantly more patients receiving neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib were alive without disease progression than those receiving standard of care (ten [71%] of 14 patients vs none of seven in the standard of care group; median event-free survival was 19·7 months [16·2-not estimable] vs 2·9 months [95% CI 1·7-not estimable]; hazard ratio 0·016, 95% CI 0·00012-0·14, p<0·0001). Neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib were well tolerated with no occurrence of grade 4 adverse events or treatment-related deaths. The most common adverse events in the neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib group were expected grade 1-2 toxicities including chills (12 patients [92%]), headache (12 [92%]), and pyrexia (ten [77%]). The most common grade 3 adverse event was diarrhoea (two patients [15%]). INTERPRETATION: Neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib significantly improved event-free survival versus standard of care in patients with high-risk, surgically resectable, clinical stage III-IV melanoma. Although the trial finished early, limiting generalisability of the results, the findings provide proof-of-concept and support the rationale for further investigation of neoadjuvant approaches in this disease. This trial is currently continuing accrual as a single-arm study of neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.