Neoadjuvant-Adjuvant or Adjuvant-Only Pembrolizumab in Advanced Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Whether pembrolizumab given both before surgery (neoadjuvant therapy) and after surgery (adjuvant therapy), as compared with pembrolizumab given as adjuvant therapy alone, would increase event-free survival among patients with resectable stage III or IV melanoma is unknown. METHODS: In a phase 2 trial, we randomly assigned patients with clinically detectable, measurable stage IIIB to IVC melanoma that was amenable to surgical resection to three doses of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab, surgery, and 15 doses of adjuvant pembrolizumab (neoadjuvant-adjuvant group) or to surgery followed by pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for a total of 18 doses) for approximately 1 year or until disease recurred or unacceptable toxic effects developed (adjuvant-only group). The primary end point was event-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Events were defined as disease progression or toxic effects that precluded surgery; the inability to resect all gross disease; disease progression, surgical complications, or toxic effects of treatment that precluded the initiation of adjuvant therapy within 84 days after surgery; recurrence of melanoma after surgery; or death from any cause. Safety was also evaluated. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 14.7 months, the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group (154 patients) had significantly longer event-free survival than the adjuvant-only group (159 patients) (P = 0.004 by the log-rank test). In a landmark analysis, event-free survival at 2 years was 72% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64 to 80) in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 49% (95% CI, 41 to 59) in the adjuvant-only group. The percentage of patients with treatment-related adverse events of grades 3 or higher during therapy was 12% in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 14% in the adjuvant-only group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with resectable stage III or IV melanoma, event-free survival was significantly longer among those who received pembrolizumab both before and after surgery than among those who received adjuvant pembrolizumab alone. No new toxic effects were identified. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and Merck Sharp and Dohme; S1801 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03698019.).

The current state of molecular testing in the treatment of patients with solid tumors, 2019.

The world of molecular profiling has undergone revolutionary changes over the last few years as knowledge, technology, and even standard clinical practice have evolved. Broad molecular profiling is now nearly essential for all patients with metastatic solid tumors. New agents have been approved based on molecular testing instead of tumor site of origin. Molecular profiling methodologies have likewise changed such that tests that were performed on patients a few years ago are no longer complete and possibly inaccurate today. As with all rapid change, medical providers can quickly fall behind or struggle to find up-to-date sources to ensure he or she provides optimum care. In this review, the authors provide the current state of the art for molecular profiling/precision medicine, practice standards, and a view into the future ahead.

Individualised neoantigen therapy mRNA-4157 (V940) plus pembrolizumab versus pembrolizumab monotherapy in resected melanoma (KEYNOTE-942): a randomised, phase 2b study.

BACKGROUND: Checkpoint inhibitors are standard adjuvant treatment for stage IIB-IV resected melanoma, but many patients recur. Our study aimed to evaluate whether mRNA-4157 (V940), a novel mRNA-based individualised neoantigen therapy, combined with pembrolizumab, improved recurrence-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival versus pembrolizumab monotherapy in resected high-risk melanoma. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised, phase 2b, adjuvant study of mRNA-4157 plus pembrolizumab versus pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients, enrolled from sites in the USA and Australia, with completely resected high-risk cutaneous melanoma. Patients with completely resected melanoma (stage IIIB-IV) were assigned 2:1 to receive open-label mRNA-4157 plus pembrolizumab or pembrolizumab monotherapy. mRNA-4157 was administered intramuscularly (maximum nine doses) and pembrolizumab intravenously (maximum 18 doses) in 3-week cycles. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This ongoing trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03897881. FINDINGS: From July 18, 2019, to Sept 30, 2021, 157 patients were assigned to mRNA-4157 plus pembrolizumab combination therapy (n=107) or pembrolizumab monotherapy (n=50); median follow-up was 23 months and 24 months, respectively. Recurrence-free survival was longer with combination versus monotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] for recurrence or death, 0·561 [95% CI 0·309-1·017]; two-sided p=0·053), with lower recurrence or death event rate (24 [22%] of 107 vs 20 [40%] of 50); 18-month recurrence-free survival was 79% (95% CI 69·0-85·6) versus 62% (46·9-74·3). Most treatment-related adverse events were grade 1-2. Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 25% of patients in the combination group and 18% of patients in the monotherapy group, with no mRNA-4157-related grade 4-5 events. Immune-mediated adverse event frequency was similar for the combination (37 [36%]) and monotherapy (18 [36%]) groups. INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant mRNA-4157 plus pembrolizumab prolonged recurrence-free survival versus pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with resected high-risk melanoma and showed a manageable safety profile. These results provide evidence that an mRNA-based individualised neoantigen therapy might be beneficial in the adjuvant setting. FUNDING: Moderna in collaboration with Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Rahway, NJ, USA.

A paradigm shift in understanding vulvovaginal melanoma as a distinct tumor type compared with cutaneous melanoma.

OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to compare molecular and immune profiles of vulvovaginal melanoma (VVM) with cutaneous melanoma (CM) and explore the significance of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) agents on survival. METHODS: Samples from VVM and CM tumors underwent comprehensive molecular and immune profiling. Treatment and survival data were extracted from insurance claims data and OS was calculated from time of ICI treatment to last contact. Statistical significance was determined using chi-square and Wilcoxon rank sum test and adjusted for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: Molecular analysis was performed on 142 VVM and 3823 CM tumors. VVM demonstrated significantly (q < 0·01) less frequent BRAF and more frequent KIT, ATRX, and SF3B1 mutations. Alterations in pathways involving DNA damage and mRNA splicing were more common in VVM, while alterations in cell cycle and chromatin remodeling were less common. Immunogenicity of VVM was lower than CM, with an absence of high TMB (0% vs 46.9%) and lower PD-L1 positivity (18·0% vs 29·5%). Median immune checkpoint gene expression was lower in VVM, as were cell fractions for type I macrophages and CD8+ T-cells(q < 0·01). Myeloid dendritic cells were increased in VVM(q < 0·01). Median OS was shorter for VVM than for CM patients treated with ICIs (17·6 versus 37·9 months, HR:1·65 (95% CI 1·02-2·67) p = 0·04). CONCLUSIONS: VVM has a distinct molecular and immune profile compared to CM, which may contribute to the worse survival in VVM compared to CM patients treated with ICI therapy. Though ICIs have been a mainstay of treatment in recent years, our findings suggest that new therapeutic strategies are needed.

A Multicenter Analysis of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors as Adjuvant Therapy Following Treatment of Isolated Brain Metastasis.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this work was to characterize outcomes of patients with isolated brain metastases managed with local therapy followed by immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients from four medical centers were included if they presented with isolated brain metastases treated with local therapy and received adjuvant treatment with ICIs. RESULTS: Eleven patients with median size of largest brain metastasis of 3.9 cm, treated with surgical resection (n = 8) and/or stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS; n = 6), were included. Ipilimumab/nivolumab was the adjuvant ICI used in four patients, of whom one recurred (25%) and none died, compared with three of seven (43%) who recurred and two of seven (29%) who died following adjuvant treatment with ICI monotherapy. All recurrences were intracranial. CONCLUSION: Patients with isolated brain metastases treated with surgery or SRS appeared to benefit from adjuvant ICI therapy, particularly with combination therapy. Recurrences in this setting appear to largely occur intracranially.

Improved survival of patients with melanoma brain metastases in the era of targeted BRAF and immune checkpoint therapies.

BACKGROUND: The development of brain metastases is common for systemic treatment failure in patients with melanoma and has been associated with a poor prognosis. Recent advances with BRAF and immune checkpoint therapies have led to improved patient survival. Herein, the authors evaluated the risk of de novo brain metastases and survival among patients with melanoma brain metastases (MBM) since the introduction of more effective therapies. METHODS: Patients with unresectable AJCC stage III/IV melanoma who received first-line systemic therapy at Moffitt Cancer Center between 2000 and 2012 were identified. Data were collected regarding patient characteristics, stage of disease, systemic therapies, MBM status/management, and overall survival (OS). The risk of de novo MBM was calculated using a generalized estimating equation model and survival comparisons were performed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional analyses. RESULTS: A total of 610 patients were included, 243 of whom were diagnosed with MBM (40%). Patients with MBM were younger, with a lower frequency of regional metastasis. No significant differences were noted with regard to sex, BRAF status, or therapeutic class. The risk of de novo MBM was found to be similar among patients treated with chemotherapy, biochemotherapy, BRAF-targeted therapy, ipilimumab, and anti-programmed cell death protein 1/programmed death-ligand 1 regimens. The median OS of patients with MBM was significantly shorter when determined from the time of first regional/distant metastasis but not when determined from the time of first systemic therapy. The median OS from the time of MBM diagnosis was 7.5 months, 8.5 months, and 22.7 months, respectively, for patients diagnosed from 2000 to 2008, 2009 to 2010, and 2011 to the time of last follow-up (P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Brain metastases remain a common source of systemic treatment failure. The OS for patients with MBM has improved significantly. Further research into MBM prevention is needed. Cancer 2018;124:297-305. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Predictive biomarkers for checkpoint inhibitor-based immunotherapy.

The clinical development of checkpoint inhibitor-based immunotherapy has ushered in an exciting era of anticancer therapy. Durable responses can be seen in patients with melanoma and other malignancies. Although monotherapy with PD-1 or PD-L1 agents are typically well tolerated, the risk of immune-related adverse events increases with combination regimens. The development of predictive biomarkers is needed to optimise patient benefit, minimise risk of toxicities, and guide combination approaches. The greatest focus has been on tumour-cell PD-L1 expression. Although PD-L1 positivity enriches for populations with clinical benefit, PD-L1 testing alone is insufficient for patient selection in most malignancies. In this Review, we discuss the status of PD-L1 testing and explore emerging data on new biomarker strategies with tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes, mutational burden, immune gene signatures, and multiplex immunohistochemistry. Future development of an effective predictive biomarker for checkpoint inhibitor-based immunotherapy will integrate multiple approaches for optimal characterisation of the immune tumour microenvironment.

Advances in immunotherapy for melanoma.

In recent years, the introduction and Federal Drug Administration approval of immune checkpoint inhibitor antibodies has dramatically improved the clinical outcomes for patients with advanced melanoma. These antagonist monoclonal antibodies are capable of unleashing dormant or exhausted antitumor immunity, which has led to durable complete and partial responses in a large number of patients. Ipilimumab targets the cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) receptor. Nivolumab and pembrolizumab target programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) receptors and have proven to be superior to ipilimumab alone. The combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab has yielded higher response rates, greater tumor shrinkage, and longer progression-free survival than either monotherapy alone. As other promising immunotherapies for melanoma proceed through clinical trials, future goals include defining the role of immune checkpoint inhibitors as adjuvant therapy, identifying optimal combination strategies, and developing reliable predictive biomarkers to guide treatment selection for individual patients.

Evaluating melanoma drug response and therapeutic escape with quantitative proteomics.

The evolution of cancer therapy into complex regimens with multiple drugs requires novel approaches for the development and evaluation of companion biomarkers. Liquid chromatography-multiple reaction monitoring mass spectrometry (LC-MRM) is a versatile platform for biomarker measurement. In this study, we describe the development and use of the LC-MRM platform to study the adaptive signaling responses of melanoma cells to inhibitors of HSP90 (XL888) and MEK (AZD6244). XL888 had good anti-tumor activity against NRAS mutant melanoma cell lines as well as BRAF mutant cells with acquired resistance to BRAF inhibitors both in vitro and in vivo. LC-MRM analysis showed HSP90 inhibition to be associated with decreased expression of multiple receptor tyrosine kinases, modules in the PI3K/AKT/mammalian target of rapamycin pathway, and the MAPK/CDK4 signaling axis in NRAS mutant melanoma cell lines and the inhibition of PI3K/AKT signaling in BRAF mutant melanoma xenografts with acquired vemurafenib resistance. The LC-MRM approach targeting more than 80 cancer signaling proteins was highly sensitive and could be applied to fine needle aspirates from xenografts and clinical melanoma specimens (using 50 µg of total protein). We further showed MEK inhibition to be associated with signaling through the NFκB and WNT signaling pathways, as well as increased receptor tyrosine kinase expression and activation. Validation studies identified PDGF receptor ß signaling as a potential escape mechanism from MEK inhibition, which could be overcome through combined use of AZD6244 and the PDGF receptor inhibitor, crenolanib. Together, our studies show LC-MRM to have unique value as a platform for the systems level understanding of the molecular mechanisms of drug response and therapeutic escape. This work provides the proof-of-principle for the future development of LC-MRM assays for monitoring drug responses in the clinic.

Phosphoproteomic analysis of basal and therapy-induced adaptive signaling networks in BRAF and NRAS mutant melanoma.

Basal and kinase inhibitor driven adaptive signaling has been examined in a panel of melanoma cell lines using phosphoproteomics in conjunction with pathway analysis. A considerable divergence in the spectrum of tyrosine-phosphorylated peptides was noted at the cell line level. The unification of genotype-specific cell line data revealed the enrichment for the tyrosine-phosphorylated cytoskeletal proteins to be associated with the presence of a BRAF mutation and oncogenic NRAS to be associated with increased receptor tyrosine kinase phosphorylation. A number of proteins including cell cycle regulators (cyclin dependent kinase 1, cyclin dependent kinase 2, and cyclin dependent kinase 3), MAPK pathway components (Extracellular signal regulated kinase 1 and Extracellular signal regulated kinase 2), interferon regulators (tyrosine kinase-2), GTPase regulators (Ras-Rasb interactor 1), and controllers of protein tyrosine phosphorylation (dual specificity tyrosine (Y) phosphorylation regulated kinase 1A and protein tyrosine phosphatase receptor type A) were common to all genotypes. Treatment of a BRAF-mutant/phosphatase and tensin homologue (PTEN) null melanoma cell line with vemurafenib led to decreased phosphorylation of ERK, phospholipase C1, and ß-catenin with increases in receptor tyrosine kinase phosphorylation, signal transduction and activator of signaling 3, and glycogen synthase kinase 3α noted. In NRAS-mutant melanoma, MEK inhibition led to increased phosphorylation of epidermal growth factor receptor signaling pathway components, Src family kinases, and protein kinase Cδ with decreased phosphorylation seen in STAT3 and ERK1/2. Together these data present the first systems level view of adaptive and basal phosphotyrosine signaling in BRAF- and NRAS-mutant melanoma.

p75 neurotrophin receptor cleavage by α- and γ-secretases is required for neurotrophin-mediated proliferation of brain tumor-initiating cells.

Malignant gliomas are highly invasive, proliferative, and resistant to treatment. Previously, we have shown that p75 neurotrophin receptor (p75NTR) is a novel mediator of invasion of human glioma cells. However, the role of p75NTR in glioma proliferation is unknown. Here we used brain tumor-initiating cells (BTICs) and show that BTICs express neurotrophin receptors (p75NTR, TrkA, TrkB, and TrkC) and their ligands (NGF, brain-derived neurotrophic factor, and neurotrophin 3) and secrete NGF. Down-regulation of p75NTR significantly decreased proliferation of BTICs. Conversely, exogenouous NGF stimulated BTIC proliferation through α- and γ-secretase-mediated p75NTR cleavage and release of its intracellular domain (ICD). In contrast, overexpression of the p75NTR ICD induced proliferation. Interestingly, inhibition of Trk signaling blocked NGF-stimulated BTIC proliferation and p75NTR cleavage, indicating a role of Trk in p75NTR signaling. Further, blocking p75NTR cleavage attenuated Akt activation in BTICs, suggesting role of Akt in p75NTR-mediated proliferation. We also found that p75NTR, α-secretases, and the four subunits of the γ-secretase enzyme were elevated in glioblastoma multiformes patients. Importantly, the ICD of p75NTR was commonly found in malignant glioma patient specimens, suggesting that the receptor is activated and cleaved in patient tumors. These results suggest that p75NTR proteolysis is required for BTIC proliferation and is a novel potential clinical target.

LINAC-based stereotactic radiosurgery to the brain with concurrent vemurafenib for melanoma metastases.

While selective BRAF inhibitors have demonstrated improved outcomes in patients with metastatic BRAF V600E mutant melanoma, management of brain metastases prior to and during therapy presents challenges. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is an effective treatment for melanoma brain metastases, but there is limited safety and efficacy data on the use of SRS during BRAF therapy. An analysis was performed of patients with metastatic melanoma and brain metastases treated with SRS while on vemurafenib. MRI scans were reviewed post-SRS to evaluate local control (LC) as well as distant control. We identified 80 metastatic melanoma brain lesions treated in 24 patients. The median planning target volume was 0.28 cm(3) (range 0.05-4.19 cm(3)), and lesions were treated to a median dose of 24 Gy (range 15-24 Gy). The median follow up was 5.1 months (range 2-25.2 months). Eight (10 %) lesions showed progression at a median of 6.1 months (range 2-20.1 months) following SRS. Kaplan-Meier LC estimates at 6 and 12 months were 92 and 75 %, respectively. Fourteen (58 %) patients were noted to have distant brain failure at a median of 3.4 months (range 1.9-16.1 months) following treatment with SRS. Median overall (OS) from the date of SRS was 7.2 months (range 1.5-26.8 months) with a median of 11.9 months (range 1.5-28.5 months) since the date of brain metastases diagnosis. There was no evidence of increased toxicity with the combination of SRS and vemurafenib. SRS to brain metastases appears to be both safe and effective for patients treated concurrently with BRAF inhibitors.

Immunotherapy or molecularly targeted therapy: what is the best initial treatment for stage IV BRAF-mutant melanoma?

The recent developments in BRAF-targeted therapy and checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapies for metastatic melanoma patients have led to better tolerability and markedly improved clinical outcomes, including higher objective response rates and longer survival. Treatment planning has become complex in patients with metastatic BRAF-mutant melanoma, with several options for BRAF- and/or MEK-targeted therapy (vemurafenib, dabrafenib, and trametinib) and immunotherapy (interleukin 2, ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab). Clinicians must weigh various patient factors, including the extent of disease (eg, symptomatic visceral metastases vs limited disease) and central nervous system involvement, as well as factors related to the therapeutic agent, such as rate of clinical response, durability of response, and impact on median and long-term survival. The combination regimen of dabrafenib plus trametinib has become a standard treatment strategy, and ipilimumab plus nivolumab is emerging as a promising treatment strategy. In this review, we discuss the benchmark trials leading to the approval of these new agents and provide emerging data on their use in sequence and impact on overall survival, with the goal of helping oncologists navigate treatment decisions for patients with metastatic BRAF-mutant melanoma.

Novel treatments for melanoma brain metastases.

BACKGROUND: The development of brain metastases is common in patients with melanoma and is associated with a poor prognosis. Treating patients with melanoma brain metastases (MBMs) is a major therapeutic challenge. Standard approaches with conventional chemotherapy are disappointing, while surgery and radiotherapy have improved outcomes. METHODS: In this article, we discuss the biology of MBMs, briefly outline current treatment approaches, and emphasize novel and emerging therapies for MBMs. RESULTS: The mechanisms that underlie the metastases of melanoma to the brain are unknown; therefore, it is necessary to identify pathways to target MBMs. Most patients with MBMs have short survival times. Recent use of immune-based and targeted therapies has changed the natural history of metastatic melanoma and may be effective for the treatment of patients with MBMs. CONCLUSIONS: Developing a better understanding of the factors responsible for MBMs will lead to improved management of this disease. In addition, determining the optimal treatments for MBMs and how they can be optimized or combined with other therapies, along with appropriate patient selection, are challenges for the management of this disease.

Combination of Itacitinib or Parsaclisib with Pembrolizumab in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors: A Phase I Study.

PURPOSE: This phase Ib open-label, multicenter, platform study (NCT02646748) explored safety, tolerability, and preliminary activity of itacitinib (Janus kinase 1 inhibitor) or parsaclisib (phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase δ inhibitor) in combination with pembrolizumab [programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor]. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors with disease progression following all available therapies were enrolled and received itacitinib (Part 1 initially 300 mg once daily) or parsaclisib (Part 1 initially 10 mg once daily; Part 2 all patients 0.3 mg once daily) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks). RESULTS: A total of 159 patients were enrolled in the study and treated with itacitinib (Part 1, n = 49) or parsaclisib (Part 1, n = 83; Part 2, n = 27) plus pembrolizumab. The maximum tolerated/pharmacologically active doses were itacitinib 300 mg once daily and parsaclisib 30 mg once daily. Most common itacitinib treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) were fatigue, nausea, and anemia. Most common parsaclisib TRAEs were fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, and pyrexia in Part 1, and fatigue, maculopapular rash, diarrhea, nausea, and pruritus in Part 2. In patients receiving itacitinib plus pembrolizumab, four (8.2%) achieved a partial response (PR) in Part 1. Among patients receiving parsaclisib plus pembrolizumab, 5 (6.0%) achieved a complete response and 9 (10.8%) a PR in Part 1; 5 of 27 (18.5%) patients in Part 2 achieved a PR. CONCLUSIONS: Although combination of itacitinib or parsaclisib with pembrolizumab showed modest clinical activity in this study, the overall response rates observed did not support continued development in patients with solid tumors. SIGNIFICANCE: PD-1 blockade combined with targeted therapies have demonstrated encouraging preclinical activity. In this phase I study, patients with advanced solid tumors treated with pembrolizumab (PD-1 inhibitor) and either itacitinib (JAK1 inhibitor) or parsaclisib (PI3Kδ inhibitor) experienced limited clinical activity beyond that expected with checkpoint inhibition alone and showed little effect on T-cell infiltration in the tumor. These results do not support continued development of these combinations.

Multi-omic profiling reveals discrepant immunogenic properties and a unique tumor microenvironment among melanoma brain metastases.

Melanoma brain metastases (MBM) are clinically challenging to treat and exhibit variable responses to immune checkpoint therapies. Prior research suggests that MBM exhibit poor tumor immune responses and are enriched in oxidative phosphorylation. Here, we report results from a multi-omic analysis of a large, real-world melanoma cohort. MBM exhibited lower interferon-gamma (IFNγ) scores and T cell-inflamed scores compared to primary cutaneous melanoma (PCM) or extracranial metastases (ECM), which was independent of tumor mutational burden. Among MBM, there were fewer computationally inferred immune cell infiltrates, which correlated with lower TNF and IL12B mRNA levels. Ingenuity pathway analysis (IPA) revealed suppression of inflammatory responses and dendritic cell maturation pathways. MBM also demonstrated a higher frequency of pathogenic PTEN mutations and angiogenic signaling. Oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) was enriched in MBM and negatively correlated with NK cell and B cell-associated transcriptomic signatures. Modulating metabolic or angiogenic pathways in MBM may improve responses to immunotherapy in this difficult-to-treat patient subset.

Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of melanoma, version 3.0.

Since the first approval for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for the treatment of cutaneous melanoma more than a decade ago, immunotherapy has completely transformed the treatment landscape of this chemotherapy-resistant disease. Combination regimens including ICIs directed against programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) with anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) agents or, more recently, anti-lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3) agents, have gained regulatory approvals for the treatment of metastatic cutaneous melanoma, with long-term follow-up data suggesting the possibility of cure for some patients with advanced disease. In the resectable setting, adjuvant ICIs prolong recurrence-free survival, and neoadjuvant strategies are an active area of investigation. Other immunotherapy strategies, such as oncolytic virotherapy for injectable cutaneous melanoma and bispecific T-cell engager therapy for HLA-A*02:01 genotype-positive uveal melanoma, are also available to patients. Despite the remarkable efficacy of these regimens for many patients with cutaneous melanoma, traditional immunotherapy biomarkers (ie, programmed death-ligand 1 expression, tumor mutational burden, T-cell infiltrate and/or microsatellite stability) have failed to reliably predict response. Furthermore, ICIs are associated with unique toxicity profiles, particularly for the highly active combination of anti-PD-1 plus anti-CTLA-4 agents. The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a panel of experts to develop this clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of melanoma, including rare subtypes of the disease (eg, uveal, mucosal), with the goal of improving patient care by providing guidance to the oncology community. Drawing from published data and clinical experience, the Expert Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for healthcare professionals using immunotherapy to treat melanoma, with topics including therapy selection in the advanced and perioperative settings, intratumoral immunotherapy, when to use immunotherapy for patients with BRAFV600-mutated disease, management of patients with brain metastases, evaluation of treatment response, special patient populations, patient education, quality of life, and survivorship, among others.