Anti-PD-1 alone or in combination with anti-CTLA-4 for advanced melanoma patients with liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: The combination of anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 has been associated with improvement in response and survival over anti-PD-1 monotherapy in unselected patients with advanced melanoma. Whether patients with liver metastases also benefit from the combination of anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 over anti-PD-1, is unclear. In this study, we sought to assess whether the combination of anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 leads to better response, progression-free survival and overall survival, compared with anti-PD-1 monotherapy for patients with liver metastases. METHODS: We have conducted an international multicentre retrospective study. Patients with advanced melanoma with liver metastases treated with 1st line anti-PD1 monotherapy or with anti-CTLA-4 were included. The endpoints of this study were: objective response rate, progression-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: With a median follow-up from commencement of anti-PD-1 monotherapy or in combination with anti-CTLA-4 of 47 months (95% CI, 42-51), objective response rate was higher with combination therapy (47%) versus anti-PD-1 monotherapy (35%) (p = 0.0027), while progression-free survival and overall survival were not statistically different between both treatment groups. However, on multivariable analysis with multiple imputation for missing values and adjusting for predefined variables, combination of anti-PD1 and anti-CTLA-4 was associated with higher objective response (OR 2.21, 1.46 - 3.36; p < 0.001), progression-free survival (HR 0.73, 0.57 - 0.92; p = 0.009) and overall survival (HR 0.71, 0.54 - 0.94; p = 0.018) compared to anti-PD1 monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study will help guide treatment selection for patients who present with liver metastases, suggesting that combination therapy should be considered for this group of patients.

Impact of Biologic Therapy on Key Cardiovascular Risk Parameters in a Psoriatic Cohort-a Retrospective Review.

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Biologic agents have revolutionised psoriatic skin control. This study aims to assess the change in cardiovascular risk factors in a cohort of patients treated with 1 year of continuous biologic treatment. METHODS: A retrospective medical record review was conducted of consecutive patients receiving biologic therapy for chronic plaque psoriasis in a single dermatology centre at a major tertiary hospital in Australia. The effect of biologic therapy on psoriasis was assessed using a psoriasis area severity index (PASI). Cardiovascular risk factors included systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic BP (DBP), heart rate (HR) and body mass index (BMI). Measurements at baseline and 1-year follow-up were compared using paired t-tests. RESULTS: A total of 106 patients were reviewed with a median age of 44 years, and 63% of the patients were male. At baseline, mean BMI was 30 (SD 7), mean SBP was 129 (SD 17), mean DBP was 81 (SD 9) and mean HR was 82 (SD 14). Over 12 months, the PASI was reduced from 17.4 (SD 8.5) to 1.4 (SD 1.7, p < 0.001) indicating skin improvement. There was no significant difference from baseline in SBP (difference 2.3 mmHg, 95% CI - 1.4-5.9), DBP (0.6 mmHg, 95% CI - 1.2-2.5), BMI (difference - 0.1 kg/m2, 95% CI - 0.9-0.7) or HR (difference 1.3, 95% CI - 3.9-6.4). CONCLUSION: In patients with psoriasis, markers of cardiovascular disease risk did not improve after 1 year of biologic therapy despite significant improvements in psoriasis skin severity.

Development and validation of a novel model to predict recurrence-free survival and melanoma-specific survival after sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with melanoma: an international, retrospective, multicentre analysis.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of adjuvant systemic treatment for patients with high-risk melanomas necessitates accurate staging of disease. However, inconsistencies in outcomes exist between disease stages as defined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer (8th edition). We aimed to develop a tool to predict patient-specific outcomes in people with melanoma rather than grouping patients according to disease stage. METHODS: Patients older than 13 years with confirmed primary melanoma who underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) between Oct 29, 1997, and Nov 11, 2013, at four European melanoma centres (based in Berlin, Germany; Amsterdam and Rotterdam, the Netherlands; and Warsaw, Poland) were included in the development cohort. Potential predictors of recurrence-free and melanoma-specific survival assessed were sex, age, presence of ulceration, primary tumour location, histological subtype, Breslow thickness, sentinel node status, number of sentinel nodes removed, maximum diameter of the largest sentinel node metastasis, and Dewar classification. A prognostic model and nomogram were developed to predict 5-year recurrence-free survival on a continuous scale in patients with stage pT1b or higher melanomas. This model was also calibrated to predict melanoma-specific survival. Model performance was assessed by discrimination (area under the time-dependent receiver operating characteristics curve [AUC]) and calibration. External validation was done in a cohort of patients with primary melanomas who underwent SLNB between Jan 30, 1997, and Dec 12, 2013, at the Melanoma Institute Australia (Sydney, NSW, Australia). FINDINGS: The development cohort consisted of 4071 patients, of whom 2075 (51%) were female and 1996 (49%) were male. 889 (22%) had sentinel node-positive disease and 3182 (78%) had sentinel node-negative disease. The validation cohort comprised 4822 patients, of whom 1965 (41%) were female and 2857 (59%) were male. 891 (18%) had sentinel node-positive disease and 3931 (82%) had sentinel node-negative disease. Median follow-up was 4·8 years (IQR 2·3-7·8) in the development cohort and 5·0 years (2·2-8·9) in the validation cohort. In the development cohort, 5-year recurrence-free survival was 73·5% (95% CI 72·0-75·1) and 5-year melanoma-specific survival was 86·5% (85·3-87·8). In the validation cohort, the corresponding estimates were 66·1% (64·6-67·7) and 83·3% (82·0-84·6), respectively. The final model contained six prognostic factors: sentinel node status, Breslow thickness, presence of ulceration, age at SLNB, primary tumour location, and maximum diameter of the largest sentinel node metastasis. In the development cohort, for the model's prediction of recurrence-free survival, the AUC was 0·80 (95% CI 0·78-0·81); for prediction of melanoma-specific survival, the AUC was 0·81 (0·79-0·84). External validation showed good calibration for both outcomes, with AUCs of 0·73 (0·71-0·75) and 0·76 (0·74-0·78), respectively. INTERPRETATION: Our prediction model and nomogram accurately predicted patient-specific risk probabilities for 5-year recurrence-free and melanoma-specific survival. These tools could have important implications for clinical decision making when considering adjuvant treatments in patients with high-risk melanomas. FUNDING: Erasmus Medical Centre Cancer Institute.

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).

Population-Based Validation of the MIA and MSKCC Tools for Predicting Sentinel Lymph Node Status.

Importance: Patients with melanoma are selected for sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) based on their risk of a positive SLN. To improve selection, the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and Melanoma Institute Australia (MIA) developed predictive models, but the utility of these models remains to be tested. Objective: To determine the clinical utility of the MIA and MSKCC models. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a population-based comparative effectiveness research study including 10 089 consecutive patients with cutaneous melanoma undergoing SLNB from the Swedish Melanoma Registry from January 2007 to December 2021. Data were analyzed from May to August 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures,: The predicted probability of SLN positivity was calculated using the MSKCC model and a limited MIA model (using mitotic rate as absent/present instead of count/mm2 and excluding the optional variable lymphovascular invasion) for each patient. The operating characteristics of the models were assessed and compared. The clinical utility of each model was assessed using decision curve analysis and compared with a strategy of performing SLNB on all patients. Results: Among 10 089 included patients, the median (IQR) age was 64.0 (52.0-73.0) years, and 5340 (52.9%) were male. The median Breslow thickness was 1.8 mm, and 1802 patients (17.9%) had a positive SLN. Both models were well calibrated across the full range of predicted probabilities and had similar external area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC; MSKCC: 70.8%; 95% CI, 69.5-72.1 and limited MIA: 69.7%; 95% CI, 68.4-71.1). At a risk threshold of 5%, decision curve analysis indicated no added net benefit for either model compared to performing SLNB for all patients. At risk thresholds of 10% or higher, both models added net benefit compared to SLNB for all patients. The greatest benefit was observed in patients with T2 melanomas using a threshold of 10%; in that setting, the use of the nomograms led to a net reduction of 8 avoidable SLNBs per 100 patients for the MSKCC nomogram and 7 per 100 patients for the limited MIA nomogram compared to a strategy of SLNB for all. Conclusions and Relevance: This study confirmed the statistical performance of both the MSKCC and limited MIA models in a large, nationally representative data set. However, decision curve analysis demonstrated that using the models only improved selection for SLNB compared to biopsy in all patients when a risk threshold of at least 7% was used, with the greatest benefit seen for T2 melanomas at a threshold of 10%. Care should be taken when using these nomograms to guide selection for SLNB at the lowest thresholds.

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.

Management of infliximab refractory immune checkpoint inhibitor gastrointestinal toxicity: a multicenter case series.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) gastrointestinal toxicity (gastritis, enteritis, colitis) is a major cause of morbidity and treatment-related death. Guidelines agree steroid-refractory cases warrant infliximab, however best management of infliximab-refractory ICI gastrointestinal toxicity (IRIGItox) is unknown. METHODS: We conducted an international multicenter retrospective case series. IRIGItox was defined as failure of symptom resolution ≤grade 1 (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events V.5.0) following ≥2 infliximab doses or failure of symptom resolution ≤grade 2 after one dose. Data were extracted regarding demographics, steroid use, response to treatment, and survival outcomes. Toxicity was graded at symptom onset and time of infliximab failure. Efficacy of infliximab refractory therapy was assessed by symptom resolution, time to resolution and steroid wean duration. Survival outcomes were examined based on immunosuppressive therapy received. RESULTS: 78 patients were identified: median age 60 years; 56% men; majority melanoma (N=70, 90%); 60 (77%) received anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 alone or in combination with anti-programmed cell death protein-1 and most had colitis (N=74, 95%). 106 post-infliximab treatments were given: 31 calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs); 27 antimetabolites (mycophenolate, azathioprine); 16 non-systemic immunomodulatory agents (eg, mesalazine or budesonide); 15 vedolizumab; 5 other biologics (anti-interleukin-12/23, 16, Janus kinase inhibitors) and 7 interventional procedures (including colectomy); 5 did not receive post-infliximab therapy. Symptom resolution was achieved in most (N=23/31, 74%) patients treated with CNIs; 12/27 (44%) with antimetabolites; 7/16 (44%) with non-systemic immunomodulation, 8/15 (53%) with vedolizumab and 5/7 (71%) with interventional procedures. No non-vedolizumab biologics resulted in toxicity resolution. CNIs had the shortest time to symptom resolution (12 days) and steroid wean (43 days); however, were associated with poorer event-free survival (6.3 months) and overall survival (26.8 months) than other agents. Conversely, vedolizumab had the longest time to toxicity resolution and steroid wean, 66 and 124 days, but most favorable survival data: EFS 24.5 months; median OS not reached. Six death occurred (three due to IRIGItox or management of toxicity; three with persisting IRIGItox and progressive disease). CONCLUSIONS: IRIGItox causes major morbidity and mortality. Management is heterogeneous. CNIs appear most likely to result in toxicity resolution in the shortest time period, however, are associated with poorer oncological outcomes in contrast to vedolizumab.

Seasonal patterns of toxicity in melanoma patients treated with combination anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors are frequently associated with the development of immunotherapy-related adverse events (irAEs). The exact etiology, including the role of environmental factors, remains incompletely understood. METHODS: We analyzed the records of 394 melanoma patients from three centers (northern and southern hemisphere). Patients had received at least one cycle of anti-PD-1/anti-CTLA-4 with a minimum follow-up of 3 months. We study the distribution and time to irAEs onset throughout the calendar year. RESULTS: 764 irAEs were recorded; the most frequent were skin rash (35%), hepatitis (32%) and colitis (30%). The irAEs incidence was the highest in autumn and winter, and the ratio for the 'number of irAEs' per 'therapies commenced' was the highest in winter and lowest in summer (2.4 and 1.7, respectively). Season-specific patterns in the time of irAEs onset were observed for pneumonitis (shorter time to onset in autumn, p = 0.025), hepatitis (shorter time to onset in spring, p = 0.016) and sarcoid-like immune reaction (shorter time to onset in autumn, p = 0.041). Season-specific patterns for early-onset irAEs were observed for hepatitis (spring, p = 0.023) and nephritis (summer, p = 0.017). Early-onset pneumonitis was more frequent in autumn-winter (p = 0.008) and early-onset nephritis in spring-summer (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Environmental factors that are associated with particular seasons may contribute to the development of certain irAEs and suggest the potential effect of environmental triggers. The identification of these factors may enhance preventive and therapeutic strategies to reduce the morbidity of irAEs.

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.

Risk factors for subsequent primary melanoma in patients with previous melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Compared with the general population, people with a previous melanoma are at increased risk of developing another primary melanoma. Understanding the risk factors associated with multiple primary melanomas can inform patient education and tailored surveillance. OBJECTIVES: To examine the risk factors for subsequent primary melanoma in people with a previous melanoma, by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available data. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase and MEDLINE. Studies that reported a risk estimate or raw frequencies and conducted between 1982 and August 2022 were included. Adjusted risk estimates were prioritized over univariable risk estimates. PRISMA reporting guidelines were followed. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted to derive pooled estimates. Quality assessment was conducted by two researchers using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. GRADE was used to rate the certainty and quality of the evidence. RESULTS: Data from 27 studies involving 413 181 participants were pooled and analysed. Risk factors assessed included age and sex, environmental, lifestyle, phenotypic, genetic and histopathological factors, and there was wide variation in how they were categorized and analysed. Independent risk factors identified from pooled analyses included male sex [hazard ratio (HR) 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40-1.53], increasing age per 10 years (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.14-1.24), light skin colour (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.23-1.70), family history [odds ratio (OR) 1.79, 95% CI 1.25-2.56], CDKN2A mutation (OR 5.29, 95% CI 2.70-10.37), a high or moderate naevus count [OR 2.63 (95% CI 1.61-4.30) and OR 1.64 (95% CI 1.07-2.51), respectively], one or more atypical naevi (OR 3.01, 95% CI 1.52-5.97), first lesions occurring on the head or neck, lentigo maligna subtype (HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.15-1.17), other subtype (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03-1.27) and inadequate sun protection (HR 1.85, 95% CI 0.98-3.50). Based on the GRADE criteria, there was high to very low confidence in the pooled effect estimates. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis identified several consistent, independent risk factors for the development of subsequent primary melanoma. These findings will help stratify the risk of subsequent melanoma, tailor skin-check schedules and inform patient education.

Dermoscopy of Lentiginous Melanomas and Equivocal Benign Pigmented Macules of the Scalp: A Case-Control Multicentric Study.

INTRODUCTION: Although the dermoscopic features of facial lentiginous melanomas (LM), including lentigo maligna and lentigo maligna melanoma, have been extensively studied, the literature about those located on the scalp is scarce. This study aims to describe the dermoscopic features of scalp LM and assess the diagnostic accuracy of dermoscopy to discriminate them from equivocal benign pigmented macules. METHODS: Consecutive cases of scalp LM and histopathology-proven benign but clinically equivocal pigmented macules (actinic keratoses, solar lentigos, seborrhoeic keratoses, and lichen planus-like keratoses) from four referral centres were included. Dermoscopic features were analysed by two blinded experts. The diagnostic performance of a predictive model was assessed. RESULTS: 56 LM and 44 controls were included. Multiple features previously described for facial and extrafacial LM were frequently identified in both groups. Expert's sensitivity to diagnose scalp LM was 76.8% (63.6-87.0) and 78.6% (65.6-88.4), with specificity of 54.5% (38.9-69.6) and 56.8% (41.0-71.7), and fair agreement (kappa coefficient 0.248). The strongest independent predictors of malignancy were (OR, 95% CI) chaos of colour (15.43, 1.48-160.3), pigmented reticular lines (14.96, 1.68-132.9), increased density of vascular network (3.45, 1.09-10.92), and perifollicular grey circles (2.89, 0.96-8.67). The predictive model achieved 85.7% (73.8-93.6) sensitivity, 61.4% (45.5-75.6) specificity, and 81.5 (73.0-90.0) area under curve to discriminate benign and malignant lesions. A diagnostic flowchart was proposed, which should improve the diagnostic performance of dermoscopy. CONCLUSION: Both facial and extrafacial dermoscopic patterns can be identified in scalp LM, with considerable overlap with benign pigmented macules, leading to low specificity and interobserver agreement on dermoscopy.

The features and management of acquired resistance to PD1-based therapy in metastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Anti-PD-1 therapy (PD1) either alone or with anti-CTLA-4 (CTLA4), has high initial response rates, however 20% of patients (pts) with complete response (CR) and 30% with partial response (PR) within 12 months of treatment experience subsequent disease progression by 6 years. The nature and optimal management of this acquired resistance (AR) remains unknown. METHODS: Pts from 16 centres who responded to PD1-based therapy and who later progressed were examined. Demographics, disease characteristics and subsequent treatments were evaluated. RESULTS: 299 melanoma pts were identified, median age 64y, 44% BRAFV600m. 172 (58%) received PD1 alone, 114 (38%) PD1/CTLA4 and 13 (4%) PD1 and an investigational drug. 90 (30%) pts had CR, 209 (70%) PR. Median time to AR was 12.6 mo (95% CI, 11.3, 14.2). Most (N = 193, 65%) progressed in a single organ site, and in a solitary lesion (N = 151, 51%). The most frequent sites were lymph nodes (38%) and brain (25%). Management at AR included systemic therapy (ST, 45%), local therapy (LT) +ST (31%), LT alone (21%), or observation (3%). There was no statistical difference in PFS2 or OS based on management, however, PFS2 was numerically superior for pts treated with ST alone who progressed off PD1 therapy than those who progressed on PD1 (2-year PFS2 42% versus 25%, p = 0.249). mOS from AR was 38.0 months (95% CI, 29.5-NR); longer in single-site versus multi-site progression (2-year OS 70% vs 54%, p < 0·001). CONCLUSIONS: Acquired resistance to PD1 therapy in melanoma is largely oligometastatic, and pts may have a favorable survival outcome following salvage treatment.

Prognostic Significance of Incipient Ulceration in Primary Cutaneous Melanoma.

Importance: Ulceration represents a key feature in cutaneous melanoma, contributing to staging according to the current American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) system. However, cases with incipient ulceration do not quite fulfill the AJCC definition of ulceration and are consequently classified as nonulcerated, presenting interpretive difficulty for pathologists. The prognostic implication of incipient ulceration is uncertain. Objective: To evaluate the prognostic significance of incipient ulceration in cutaneous melanoma. Design, Setting, and Participants: This case-control study consisted of resected primary cutaneous melanomas diagnosed between 2005 and 2015, identified from the Melanoma Institute Australia research database and with slides available for review at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital. Slides were reviewed by pathologists experienced in the diagnosis of melanocytic lesions to identify cases (incipient ulceration) and controls (ulcerated or nonulcerated). Incipient ulceration cases were matched at a 1:2 ratio with nonulcerated and ulcerated controls, respectively. Study analysis was conducted from March to June 2023. Main Outcomes: Clinicopathological factors and clinical outcomes: overall survival (OS), melanoma-specific survival (MSS), and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were compared between cases and controls. Results: Of 2284 patients with melanoma identified, 340 patients (median [IQR] age, 69 [24-94] years; 136 [68%] men; median follow-up, 7.2 years) met the criteria. The matched cohort consisted of 40 cases of incipiently ulcerated melanoma matched 1:2 with 80 nonulcerated controls, and 80 ulcerated controls. The median (IQR) Breslow thickness differed significantly between cases and controls; 2.8 (1.7-4.1) mm for incipient cases compared with 1.0 (0.6-2.1) mm and 5.3 (3.5-8.0) mm for nonulcerated and ulcerated melanomas, respectively. Median (IQR) tumor mitotic rate was 5.0 (3.0-9.0) per mm2 in incipiently ulcerated cases compared with 1 (0-3.0) per mm2 in nonulcerated controls and 9 (5.0-14.0) per mm2 in ulcerated controls. Based on the matched cohorts, patients with nonulcerated tumors had significantly better OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.27-0.88; P = .02) and RFS (HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.22-0.64; P < .001) than patients with incipient ulceration. The RFS was significantly worse in ulcerated tumors compared with incipiently ulcerated cases (HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.07-2.60; P = .03). After adjusting for pathological factors, no statistically significant differences in clinical outcomes were observed between cases and either control group. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this case-control study indicate that incipient ulceration in a primary melanoma represents an adverse prognostic feature that should be noted by pathologists in their reports and considered in future guidelines.

Dabrafenib plus trametinib versus anti-PD-1 monotherapy as adjuvant therapy in BRAF V600-mutant stage III melanoma after definitive surgery: a multicenter, retrospective cohort study.

Background: Both dabrafenib/trametinib (D/T) and anti-PD-1 monotherapy (PD-1) are approved adjuvant therapies for patients with stage III BRAF V600-mutant melanoma. However, there is still a lack of head-to-head comparative data. We aimed to describe efficacy and toxicity outcomes for these two standard therapies across melanoma centers. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective cohort study was conducted in 15 melanoma centers in Australia, China, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK, and US. We included adult patients with resected stage III BRAF V600-mutant melanoma who received either adjuvant D/T or PD-1 between Jul 2015 and Oct 2022. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival (RFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), recurrence pattern and toxicity. Findings: We included 598 patients with stage III BRAF V600-mutant melanoma who received either adjuvant D/T (n = 393 [66%]) or PD-1 (n = 205 [34%]) post definitive surgery between Jul 2015 and Oct 2022. At a median follow-up of 33 months (IQR 21-43), the median RFS was 51.0 months (95% CI 41.0-not reached [NR]) in the D/T group, significantly longer than PD-1 (44.8 months [95% CI 28.5-NR]) (univariate: HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.50-0.87, P = 0.003; multivariate: HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.39-0.86, P = 0.007), with comparable OS with PD-1 (multivariate, HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.48-1.70, P = 0.75). Similar findings were observed using a restricted-mean-survival-time model. Among those who experienced recurrence, the proportion of distant metastases was higher in the D/T cohort. D/T had a higher incidence of treatment modification due to adverse events (AEs) than PD-1, but fewer persistent AEs. Interpretation: In patients with stage III BRAF V600-mutant melanoma post definitive surgery, D/T yielded better RFS than PD-1, with higher transient but lower persistent toxicity, and comparable OS. D/T seems to provide a better outcome compared with PD-1, but a longer follow-up and ideally a large prospective trial are needed. Funding: Dr. Xue Bai was supported by the Beijing Hospitals Authority Youth Programme (QMS20211101) for her efforts devoted to this study. Dr. Keith T. Flaherty was funded by Adelson Medical Research Foundation for the efforts devoted to this study.