Neo-Adjuvant Therapy for Metastatic Melanoma.

Melanoma treatment is leading the neo-adjuvant systemic (NAS) therapy field. It is hypothesized that having the entire tumor in situ, with all of the heterogeneous tumor antigens, allows the patient's immune system to have a broader response to the tumor in all its shapes and forms. This translates into a higher clinical efficacy. Another benefit of NAS therapy potentially includes identifying patients who have a favorable response, which could offer an opportunity for the de-escalation of the extent of surgery and the need for adjuvant radiotherapy and/or adjuvant systemic therapy, as well as tailoring the follow-up in terms of the frequency of visits and cross-sectional imaging. In this paper, we will review the rationale for NAS therapy in resectable metastatic melanoma and the results obtained so far, both for immunotherapy and for BRAF/MEKi therapy, and discuss the response assessment and interpretation, toxicity and surgical considerations. All the trials that have been reported up to now have been investigator-initiated phase I/II trials with either single-agent anti-PD-1, combination anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 or BRAF/MEK inhibition. The results have been good but are especially encouraging for immunotherapies, showing high durable recurrence-free survival rates. Combination immunotherapy seems superior, with a higher rate of pathologic responses, particularly in patients with a major pathologic response (MPR = pathologic complete response [pCR] + near-pCR [max 10% viable tumor cells]) of 60% vs. 25-30%. The SWOG S1801 trial has recently shown a 23% improvement in event-free survival (EFS) after 2 years for pembrolizumab when giving 3 doses as NAS therapy and 15 as adjuvant versus 18 as adjuvant only. The community is keen to see the first results (expected in 2024) of the phase 3 NADINA trial (NCT04949113), which randomized patients between surgery + adjuvant anti-PD-1 and two NAS therapy courses of a combination of ipilimumab + nivolumab, followed by surgery and a response-driven adjuvant regimen or follow-up. We are on the eve of neo-adjuvant systemic (NAS) therapy, particularly immunotherapy, becoming the novel standard of care for macroscopic stage III melanoma.

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.

The effect of a single dose of nivolumab prior to isolated limb perfusion for patients with in-transit melanoma metastases: An interim analysis of a phase Ib/II randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial (NivoILP trial).

OBJECTIVE: ILP has shown to achieve high response rates in patients with melanoma ITM. Possibly there is a synergistic mechanism of action of ILP and anti-PD1. The aim of this trial was to investigate the safety and efficacy of adding a single dose of systemic anti-PD1 to isolated limb perfusion (ILP) for patients with melanoma in-transit metastases (ITM). METHODS: In this placebo controlled double-blind phase Ib/II trial, patients with melanoma ITM were randomized 1:1 to either a single systemic dose of nivolumab or placebo one day prior to ILP. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) rate at three months, and safety in terms of incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: A total of 20 patients were included. AEs of any grade occurred in 90% of patients in the nivolumab arm and in 80% in the placebo arm within three months after ILP. Grade 3 AEs were reported in 40% and 30% respectively, most commonly related to wound infection, wound dehiscence, or skin necrosis. There were no grade 4 or 5 AEs reported. The CR rate was 75% in the nivolumab arm and 60% in the placebo arm. The 1-year local progression-free rate was 86% in the nivolumab arm and 67% in the placebo arm. The 1-year OS was 100% in both arms. CONCLUSION: For patients with melanoma ITM, the addition of a single systemic dose of nivolumab the day before ILP is considered safe and feasible with promising efficacy. Accrual will continue in a phase 2 trial.

Prognostic and predictive value of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the EORTC 1325/KEYNOTE-054 phase III trial of pembrolizumab versus placebo in resected high-risk stage III melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Pain is common in patients with cancer. The World Health Organisation recommends paracetamol or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for mild pain and combined with other agents for moderate/severe pain. This study estimated associations of NSAIDs with recurrence-free survival (RFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in high-risk patients with resected melanoma in the EORTC 1325/KEYNOTE-054 phase III clinical trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with AJCC7 stage IIIA, IIIB or IIIC resected melanoma were randomized to receive 200 mg of adjuvant pembrolizumab (N = 514) or placebo (N = 505) 3-weekly for one year or until recurrence. As previously reported, pembrolizumab prolonged RFS and DMFS. NSAID use was defined as administration between 7 days pre-randomization and starting treatment. Multivariable Cox and Fine and Gray models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for associations of NSAIDs with RFS, DMFS and irAEs. RESULTS: Of 1019 patients randomized, 59 and 44 patients in the pembrolizumab and placebo arms, respectively, used NSAIDs. NSAIDs were not associated with RFS (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.58-1.43) or DMFS in the pembrolizumab (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.65-1.66) or placebo arms (for RFS, HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.48-1.20; for DMFS, HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49-1.31). NSAIDs were associated with the incidence of irAEs in the placebo arm (HR 3.06, 95% CI 1.45-6.45) but not in the pembrolizumab arm (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.58-1.53). CONCLUSION: NSAIDs were not associated with efficacy outcomes nor the risk of irAEs in patients with resected high-risk stage III melanoma receiving adjuvant pembrolizumab.

The difficulty with measuring the largest melanoma tumour diameter in sentinel lymph nodes.

Identification of sentinel node (SN) metastases can set the adjuvant systemic therapy indication for stage III melanoma patients. For stage IIIA patients, a 1.0 mm threshold for the largest SN tumour diameter is used. Therefore, uniform reproducible measurement of its size is crucial. At present, the number of deposits or their microanatomical sites are not part of the inclusion criteria for adjuvant treatment. The goal of the current study was to show examples of the difficulty of measuring SN melanoma tumour diameter and teach how it should be measured. Histopathological slides of SN-positive melanoma patients were retrieved using the Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA). Fourteen samples with the largest SN metastasis around 1.0 mm were uploaded via tele-pathology and digitally measured by 12 pathologists to reflect current practice of measurements in challenging cases. Recommendations as educational examples were provided. Microanatomical location of melanoma metastases was 1 subcapsular, 2 parenchymal and 11 combined. The smallest and largest difference in measurements were 0.24 mm and 4.81 mm, respectively. 11/14 cases (78.6%) showed no agreement regarding the 1.0 mm cut-off. The median discrepancy for cases ≤5 deposits was 0.5 mm (range 0.24-0.60, n=3) and 2.51 mm (range 0.71-4.81, n=11) for cases with ≥6 deposits. Disconcordance in measuring SN tumour burden is correlated with the number of deposits. Awareness of this discordance in challenging cases, for example, cases with multiple small deposits, is important for clinical management. Illustrating cases to reduce differences in size measurement are provided.

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.

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.

Avelumab treatment for patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma can be safely stopped after 1 year and a PET/CT-confirmed complete response.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment of patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (mMCC) has shown high response rates, ranging from 33% to 73%. The ideal duration of treatment, however, is currently unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate if avelumab treatment for mMCC can be safely stopped after 1 year of treatment and a complete response (CR) confirmed by fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) imaging. METHODS: Patients who received more than one dose of avelumab treatment for mMCC between November 2017 and February 2022 were included in this study. Treatment was discontinued in case of a FDG-PET/CT confirmed CR after 1 year (26 cycles) of avelumab or a CR and unacceptable toxicity earlier. The primary end point was recurrence-free survival (RFS). RESULTS: Sixty-five patients were included: 25 (38%) had a FDG-PET/CT-confirmed CR at discontinuation of avelumab. In those 25 patients, reasons for discontinuation of treatment were completion of 1 year of treatment in 13 (52%), toxicity in five (20%), and patient preference in seven (28%). Median duration of treatment in this group was 11 months (interquartile range, 6.1-11.7). Median follow-up was 27 months (interquartile range, 15.8-33.8). The 12-month RFS was 88% (95% CI, 0.74-1) and median RFS was not reached. Two patients (8%) had a recurrence at 4 and 7 months after discontinuation of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with mMCC who acquire a CR on PET/CT imaging appear to have durable responses after discontinuation of treatment after 1 year.

Real-world relapse-free survival data on adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy for patients with newly diagnosed and recurrent stage III melanoma.

We aimed to compare the relapse-free survival (RFS) in patients treated with adjuvant anti-programmed cell death-1 (anti-PD-1) therapy for a first diagnosis of stage III melanoma to patients treated after resection of the recurrences. Patients treated with adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy after complete resection of stage III melanoma between September 2018 and January 2021, were included. Depending on when adjuvant anti-PD-1 treatment was initiated, patients were divided over 2 cohorts: for the first diagnosis (cohort A) or for a second or subsequent diagnosis (cohort B) of stage III melanoma. Clinical data and RFS were compared between cohorts. 66 patients were included: 37 in cohort A, 29 in cohort B. Median follow-up time from the start of adjuvant therapy was 21 months and 17 months in cohorts A and B, respectively. Significant differences in ulceration of the primary tumor ( P  = 0.032), stage according to the 7th AJCC (American Joint Committee on Cancer , P  = 0.026) and type of metastatic involvement ( P  = 0.005) were found between cohorts. In cohorts A and B, 18 (49%) and 8 (28%) patients developed a recurrence and the 1-year RFS was 51% and 72%, respectively. In cohort B, RFS remained longer in the patients of which the interval between first diagnosis of stage III melanoma and start of adjuvant therapy was >48 months compared to ≤48 months (83% vs. 65%, P  = 0.253). This study demonstrates that patients with recurrent stage III disease, not previously treated with adjuvant systemic therapy, may derive similar benefit to a first diagnosis of stage III patients if access to adjuvant therapy changes.

Adjuvant therapy for stage II melanoma: the need for further studies.

Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has revolutionised the outcomes for melanoma patients. In the metastatic setting, patients treated with nivolumab and ipilimumab have an expected 5-year survival of> 50%. For patients with resected high-risk stage III disease, adjuvant pembrolizumab, nivolumab or dabrafenib and trametinib are associated with a significant improvement in both relapse-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS). More recently neoadjuvant immunotherapy has shown very promising outcomes in patients with clinically detectable nodal disease and is likely to become a new standard of care. For stage IIB/C disease, two pivotal adjuvant trials of pembrolizumab and nivolumab have also reported a significant improvement in both RFS and DMFS. However, the absolute benefit is low and there are concerns about the risk of severe toxicities as well as long-term morbidity from endocrine toxicity. Ongoing registration phase III trials are currently evaluating newer immunotherapy combinations and the role of BRAF/MEK-directed targeted therapy for stage II melanoma. However, our ability to personalise therapy based on molecular risk stratification has lagged behind the development of novel immune therapies. There is a critical need to evaluate the use of tissue and blood-based biomarkers, to better select patients that will recur and avoid unnecessary treatment for the majority of patients cured by surgery alone.

Prognostic and predictive value of metformin in the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 1325/KEYNOTE-054 phase III trial of pembrolizumab versus placebo in resected high-risk stage III melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Metformin is a commonly prescribed and well-tolerated medication. In laboratory studies, metformin suppresses BRAF wild-type melanoma cells but accelerates the growth of BRAF-mutated cells. This study investigated the prognostic and predictive value of metformin, including with respect to BRAF mutation status, in the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 1325/KEYNOTE-054 randomised controlled trial. METHODS: Patients with resected high-risk stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC melanoma received 200 mg of pembrolizumab (n = 514) or placebo (n = 505) every 3 weeks for twelve months. Pembrolizumab prolonged recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) at approximately 42 months median follow-up (Eggermont et al., TLO, 2021). Multivariable Cox regression was used to estimate associations of metformin with RFS and DMFS. Interaction terms were used to model effect modification by treatment and BRAF mutation. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients (0.5%) used metformin at baseline. Metformin was not significantly associated with RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52-1.45) and DMFS (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.47-1.44). The interaction between metformin and the treatment arm was not significant for either RFS (p = 0.92) or DMFS (p = 0.93). Among patients with mutated BRAF, the association of metformin with RFS (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.37-1.33) was greater in magnitude though not significantly different to those without mutated BRAF (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.56-1.69). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant impact of metformin use on pembrolizumab efficacy in resected high-risk stage III melanoma. However, larger studies or pooled analyses are needed, particularly to explore a possible effect of metformin in BRAF-mutated melanoma.

Systemic LRG1 Expression in Melanoma is Associated with Disease Progression and Recurrence.

The response rates upon neoadjuvant immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) in stage III melanoma are higher as compared with stage IV disease. Given that successful ICB depends on systemic immune response, we hypothesized that systemic immune suppression might be a mechanism responsible for lower response rates in late-stage disease, and also potentially with disease recurrence in early-stage disease. Plasma and serum samples of cohorts of patients with melanoma were analyzed for circulating proteins using mass spectrometry proteomic profiling and Olink proteomic assay. A cohort of paired samples of patients with stage III that progressed to stage IV disease (n = 64) was used to identify markers associated with higher tumor burden. Baseline patient samples from the OpACIN-neo study (n = 83) and PRADO study (n = 49; NCT02977052) were used as two independent cohorts to analyze whether the potential identified markers are also associated with disease recurrence after neoadjuvant ICB therapy. When comparing baseline proteins overlapping between patients with progressive disease and patients with recurrent disease, we found leucine-rich alpha-2-glycoprotein 1 (LRG1) to be associated with worse prognosis. Especially nonresponder patients to neoadjuvant ICB (OpACIN-neo) with high LRG1 expression had a poor outcome with an estimated 36-month event-free survival of 14% as compared with 83% for nonresponders with a low LRG1 expression (P = 0.014). This finding was validated in an independent cohort (P = 0.0021). LRG1 can be used as a biomarker to identify patients with high risk for disease progression and recurrence, and might be a target to be combined with neoadjuvant ICB. Significance: LRG1 could serve as a potential target and as a biomarker to identify patients with high risk for disease recurrence, and consequently benefit from additional therapies and intensive follow-up.

Oncological Outcome After Lymph Node Dissection for Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Although cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) is common, lymph node metastases are relatively rare and are usually treated with lymph node dissection (LND). The aim of this study was to describe the clinical course and prognosis after LND for cSCC at all anatomical locations. METHODS: A retrospective search at three centres was performed to identify patients with lymph node metastases of cSCC who were treated with LND. Prognostic factors were identified by uni- and multivariable analysis. RESULTS: A total of 268 patients were identified with a median age of 74. All lymph node metastases were treated with LND, and 65% of the patients received adjuvant radiotherapy. After LND, 35% developed recurrent disease both locoregionally and distantly. Patients with more than one positive lymph node had an increased risk for recurrent disease. 165 (62%) patients died during follow-up of whom 77 (29%) due to cSCC. The 5-year OS- and DSS rate were 36% and 52%, respectively. Disease-specific survival was significantly worse in immunosuppressed patients, patients with primary tumors >2cm and patients with more than one positive lymph node. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that LND for patients with lymph node metastases of cSCC leads to a 5-year DSS of 52%. After LND, approximately one-third of the patients develop recurrent disease (locoregional and/or distant), which underscores the need for better systemic treatment options for locally advanced cSCC. The size of the primary tumor, more than one positive lymph node, and immunosuppression are independent predictors for risk of recurrence and disease-specific survival after LND for cSCC.

Surgical outcomes of lymph node dissections for stage III melanoma after neoadjuvant systemic therapy are not inferior to upfront surgery.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant systemic therapy has shown promising results in the treatment of high-risk stage III melanoma; however, the effects on surgery are currently unknown. This study aims to compare the surgical outcomes, in terms of postoperative complications, postoperative morbidity, duration of surgery and textbook outcomes, of patients with high-risk stage III melanoma who received neoadjuvant systemic therapy followed by lymph node dissection with patients who received an upfront lymph node dissection. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, patients with high-risk stage III melanoma treated with neoadjuvant anti-PD1 and anti-CTLA4 in the OpACIN (NCT02437279) and OpACIN-neo (NCT02977052) trial between October 2014 and August 2018 were included and compared to patients who received upfront surgery in the same time period. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients were included in this study, of whom 44 received neoadjuvant systemic therapy and 76 underwent upfront surgery. There was no significant difference in the overall rate of postoperative complications between the neoadjuvant group and the upfront surgery group (31.8% versus 36.8%, p = 0.578) and neither in rate of postoperative morbidity (seroma 56.8% versus 57.9%, p = 0.908) (lymphedema 22.7% versus 13.2%, p = 0.175). There was a non-significant difference towards a slightly longer duration of surgery after neoadjuvant immunotherapy (105 versus 90 min, p = 0.077). There were no differences in textbook outcomes (50% versus 49%, p = 0.889). CONCLUSION: This study shows that the surgical outcomes for patients who underwent a lymph node dissection after neoadjuvant systemic immunotherapy or underwent upfront lymph node dissection for high-risk stage III melanoma are comparable.

IFN-γ signature enables selection of neoadjuvant treatment in patients with stage III melanoma.

Neoadjuvant ipilimumab + nivolumab has demonstrated high pathologic response rates in stage III melanoma. Patients with low intra-tumoral interferon-γ (IFN-γ) signatures are less likely to benefit. We show that domatinostat (a class I histone deacetylase inhibitor) addition to anti-PD-1 + anti-CTLA-4 increased the IFN-γ response and reduced tumor growth in our murine melanoma model, rationalizing evaluation in patients. To stratify patients into IFN-γ high and low cohorts, we developed a baseline IFN-γ signature expression algorithm, which was prospectively tested in the DONIMI trial. Patients with stage III melanoma and high intra-tumoral IFN-γ scores were randomized to neoadjuvant nivolumab or nivolumab + domatinostat, while patients with low IFN-γ scores received nivolumab + domatinostat or ipilimumab + nivolumab + domatinostat. Domatinostat addition to neoadjuvant nivolumab ± ipilimumab did not delay surgery but induced unexpected severe skin toxicity, hampering domatinostat dose escalation. At studied dose levels, domatinostat addition did not increase treatment efficacy. The baseline IFN-γ score adequately differentiated patients who were likely to benefit from nivolumab alone versus patients who require other therapies.

Common toxicities associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapy in the treatment of melanoma: A systematic scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: This systematic scoping review compares the toxicities experienced by patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) or targeted therapy (TT) for stage III (resected and unresectable) and stage IV melanoma. METHODS: OVID Medline, Embase, and PsycInfo were searched to identify Phase III trials reporting toxicities of FDA-approved ICIs and TT for advanced melanoma. AEs that were reported by ≥ 10% of patients in the evaluated trials were included. RESULTS: Toxicity profiles of 11208 patients from 24 studies were reviewed. The rate of AEs was lower with ICIs compared to TT. However, ICIs were associated with higher rates of long-term or permanent AEs compared to TT, where toxicities generally were shortterm and reversible with treatment discontinuation. CONCLUSION: The toxicity profiles of ICIs and TT vary substantially. Whilst the rate of AEs was lower with ICIs than during TT, it was also associated with higher rates of potentially chronic AEs.

Neo-adjuvant immunotherapy emerges as best medical practice, and will be the new standard of care for macroscopic stage III melanoma.

Survival of macroscopic stage III melanoma is poor. Five-year overall survival and relapse-free survival rates for surgery alone range from 40 to 59% and 30 to-39%, respectively. The current standard of care is therapeutic lymph node dissection (TLND) followed by a year of adjuvant systemic therapy. Multiple phase 2 trials have shown that neo-adjuvant immunotherapy induces major pathologic response (MPR) rates (pathologic complete response (pCR): pCR, 0% viable tumour cells; near-pCR, <10% viable tumour cells), which translate into durable relapse free survival rates. Single agent anti-PD-1 achieves 20-30% MPR, the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab doubles the MPR rates to 50-60%. The OpACIN trial demonstrated that neoadjuvant immunotherapy induced both higher numbers and a broader repertoire of tumour-resident T-cells in peripheral blood compared with adjuvant immunotherapy. Very recently, the randomised phase 2 trial S1801 reported its first interim results. S1801 compared TLND, followed by 18 courses of adjuvant pembrolizumab, to three courses of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab, followed by surgery and 15 adjuvant doses. With a median follow-up of 14 months, a 23% EFS rate benefit was observed. The ongoing phase 3 NADINA trial randomises patients between TLND + one year of adjuvant nivolumab (control arm) or 2 courses of neoadjuvant therapy with ipilimumab + nivolumab, followed by adjuvant therapy only for non-MPR patients. There is rapid, consistent, and accumulating evidence generated from all phase 1 and phase 2 trials, indicating clinical superiority of neoadjuvant immunotherapy over adjuvant systemic therapy for macroscopic stage III melanoma. Therefore, payers should consider neoadjuvant immunotherapy for reimbursement as this approach is the best option for our patients, and classify it as the best medical practice.