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.).

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.

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.

Bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw: tip of the iceberg.

The World Health Organization predicts that people aged older than 65 years will comprise 20% of the world's population by 2030. One of the most commonly prescribed medications for the elderly are the bisphosphonates, which have been shown to significantly reduce debilitating and fatal fractures by preserving bone density and consequently saving governments billions of dollars annually. Despite rigorous testing, 190 million prescriptions worldwide and US$8000 million in revenue, there is a serious adverse effect called bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw, which is poorly described and difficult to treat. The difficulty is compounded by the inability of medical personnel to recognize and adequately refer these patients or take adequate precautions before instituting bisphosphonate therapy. A myriad of differentials and a lack of consensus on how to definitively treat these patients have made this new presentation a worrying precursor for millions of other consumers who will reach the 5-year oral half life of bisphosphonates, which is when they generally start to present. In this paper, we explore historical parallels and provide the most comprehensive review to date in the literature about the presentation, diagnosis, treatment, pathophysiology, oncogenic associations, and best practice guidelines. Legal action pursuant to bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw is underway on 3 continents, and we believe that every health care professional should become au fait with this condition for which our growing case series represents merely the tip of the iceberg.