Search

Despite the improved survival rates of patients with advanced stage melanoma since the introduction of ICIs, many patients do not have (long‐term) benefit from these treatments. There is evidence that the exposome, an accumulation of host‐extrinsic factors including environmental influences, could impact ICI response. Recently, a survival benefit was observed in patients with BRAF wild‐type melanoma living in Denmark who initiated immunotherapy in summer as compared to winter. As the Netherlands lies in close geographical proximity to Denmark and has comparable seasonal differences, a Dutch validation cohort was established using data from our nationwide melanoma registry. In this study, we did not observe a similar seasonal difference in overall survival and are therefore unable to confirm the Danish findings. Validation of either the Dutch or Danish findings in (combined) patient cohorts from other countries would be necessary to determine whether this host‐extrinsic factor influences the response to ICI‐treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy improves relapse free survival in stage III melanoma, but also leads to immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Older patients are of particular interest due to comorbidities and frailty, which may impact their ability to tolerate irAEs and benefit from anti-PD-1 therapy. This study aimed to explore associations between clinical parameters and the occurrence of grade ≥ 3 irAEs and recurrence-free survival (RFS) in older patients with radically resected stage III/IV cutaneous melanoma treated with adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy., Methods: Patients aged ≥ 65 with resected stage III/IV cutaneous melanoma treated with adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy between 2018 and 2022 were selected using real-world data from the nationwide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR). A univariate and multivariable logistic regression was used to compare determinants of grade ≥ 3 irAEs, and univariate and multivariable Cox-proportional hazard models were fitted to identify factors influencing RFS., Results: The study included 885 patients, with 280 aged 75 and older. The incidence of grade ≥ 3 irAEs was 15.5 % in the 65-74 age group and 13.9 % in the ≥ 75 age group. No significant correlation was found between age and grade ≥ 3 irAEs. However, an increasing number of comorbidities was associated with a higher risk of grade ≥ 3 irAEs (multivariable analyses: OR 1.83, 95 % C.I. 0.99-3.40). The 1-year RFS rate of 80.0 % of this study was comparable to those reported in previous registration trials and real-world data. Having ≥ 3 comorbidities was significantly associated with a decrease in RFS (HR: 1.68, 95 % C.I. 1.15-2.44)., Conclusion: Older patients had similar benefit of adjuvant immunotherapy compared to older subgroups in previous trials. However, patients with multiple comorbidities were at increased risk of grade ≥ 3 irAEs and had a lower RFS. This should be considered when deciding upon adjuvant treatment., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Introduction: The presence of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in melanoma has been linked to survival. Their predictive capability for immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) response remains uncertain. Therefore, we investigated the association between treatment response and TILs in the largest cohort to date and analyzed if this association was independent of known clinical predictors., Methods: In this multicenter cohort study, patients who received first-line anti-PD1 ± anti-CTLA4 for advanced melanoma were identified. TILs were scored on hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) slides of primary melanoma and pre-treatment metastases using the validated TILs-WG, Clark and MIA score. The primary outcome was objective response rate (ORR), with progression free survival and overall survival being secondary outcomes. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard were performed, adjusting for known clinical predictors., Results: Metastatic melanoma specimens were available for 650 patients and primary specimens for 565 patients. No association was found in primary melanoma specimens. In metastatic specimens, a 10-point increase in the TILs-WG score was associated with a higher probability of response (aOR 1.17, 95 % CI 1.07-1.28), increased PFS (HR 0.93, 95 % CI 0.87-0.996), and OS (HR 0.94, 95 % CI 0.89-0.99). When categorized, patients in the highest tertile TILs-WG score (15-100 %) compared to the lowest tertile (0 %) had a longer median PFS (13.1 vs. 7.3 months, p = 0.04) and OS (49.4 vs. 19.5 months, p = 0.003). Similar results were noted using the MIA and Clark scores., Conclusion: In advanced melanoma patients, TIL patterns on H&E slides of pre-treatment metastases, regardless of measurement method, are independently associated with ICI response. TILs are easily scored on readily available H&Es, facilitating the use of this biomarker in clinical practice., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Karijn P.M. Suijkerbuijk reports financial support was provided by Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development. Karijn P.M. Suijkerbuijk reports financial support was provided by Hanarth Fund Foundation. Karijn P.M. Suijkerbuijk reports financial support was provided by Philips. Dr. de Groot reports a relationship with Bristol Myers Squibb Co that includes: consulting or advisory. Dr. De Groot has advisory board relationships with BMS. Dr. Aarts has advisory board / consultancy honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD-Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Astellas, Bayer and received research grants from Merck-Pfizer and all were paid to the institution and not related to current work. Dr. Hospers has consultancy/advisory relationships with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, MSD, Pfizer, Novartis, Sanofi and Pierre Fabre and has received research grants from Bristol Myers Squibb and Seerave and all were paid to the institution. Dr. Kapiteijn has consultancy/advisory relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck, Pierre Fabre, Lilly and Bayer not related to current work and paid to institute, and received research grants not related to this paper from Bristol Myers Squibb, Delcath and Pierre-Fabre. Dr. Piersma had advisory board relationships with BMS, Novartis and Pierre Fabre, honoraria were paid to institution. Dr. Suijkerbuijk has consulting/advisory relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dome, Abbvie, Pierre Fabre Novartis, Sairopa, received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Merck Sharp and Dome and received research funding from TigaTx, Bristol Myers Squibb and Philips and all were paid to institution and not related to the study. Dr. Schrader received honoraria/research funding from Kyowa Kirin paid to the institution and not related to the study. The remaining authors of this manuscript have no conflicts of interest to disclose. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Recent studies indicate an association between immunosuppression for immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and impaired survival in patients who received immune checkpoint inhibitors. Whether this is related to corticosteroids or second-line immunosuppressants is unknown. In the largest cohort thus far, we assessed the association of immunosuppressant type and dose with survival in melanoma patients with irAEs., Methods: Patients with advanced melanoma who received immunosuppressants for irAEs induced by first-line anti-PD-1 ± anti-CTLA-4 were included from 18 hospitals worldwide. Associations of cumulative and peak dose corticosteroids and use of second-line immunosuppression with survival from start of immunosuppression were assessed using multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression., Results: Among 606 patients, 404 had anti-PD-1 + anti-CTLA-4-related irAEs and 202 had anti-PD-1-related irAEs. 425 patients (70 %) received corticosteroids only; 181 patients (30 %) additionally received second-line immunosuppressants. Median PFS and OS from starting immunosuppression were 4.5 (95 %CI 3.4-8.1) and 31 (95 %CI 15-not reached) months in patients who received second-line immunosuppressants, and 11 (95 %CI 9.4-14) and 55 (95 %CI 41-not reached) months in patients who did not. High corticosteroid peak dose was associated with worse PFS and OS (HR adj 1.14; 95 %CI 1.01-1.29; HR adj 1.29; 95 %CI 1.12-1.49 for 80vs40mg), while cumulative dose was not. Second-line immunosuppression was associated with worse PFS (HR adj 1.32; 95 %CI 1.02-1.72) and OS (HR adj 1.34; 95 %CI 0.99-1.82) compared with corticosteroids alone., Conclusions: High corticosteroid peak dose and second-line immunosuppressants to treat irAEs are both associated with impaired survival. While immunosuppression is indispensable for treatment of severe irAEs, clinicians should weigh possible detrimental effects on survival against potential disadvantages of undertreatment., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: GAPH reports consultancy/advisory relationships with Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Merck Sharp and Dome, Pfizer, Novartis, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre and has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Seerave. All paid to institution. MJBA reports consultancy/advisory relationships with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck Sharp and Dome, Merck-Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Astellas and Bayer, and received research funding from Merck-Pfizer. All paid to institution. KC reports consultancy fees from Eli Lilly AbbVie and Pfizer. ATJM has received fees from AbbVie, Actelion, CSL Behring, Experf, Novartis, and Shire and declares speaking fees from AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Aventis and Bristol-Myers Squibb. CUB reports consulting/advisory relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GenMab, GSK, Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dome, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche and Third Rock Ventures, and received research funding from 4SC, Bristol-Myers Squibb, NanoString and Novartis. All paid to institution. His is co-founder of and owns shares in Immagene BV and Signature Oncology, and is inventor on several related patents (including submitted): WO 2021/177822 A1, N2027907 and P091040NL2. SA reports consulting/advisory relationships with Merck Sharp and Dome, Sanofi, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Ipsen and Galapagos. All paid to institution. DP reports consultancy/advisory relationships with Pierre Fabre and Novartis. Partly paid to intstitution. EK reports consultancy/advisory relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Immunocore and Lilly, and received research grants not related to this paper from Bristol Myers Squibb, Delcath, Novartis and Pierre-Fabre. Not related to current work and paid to institute. ML reports consultancy/advisory relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb and Janssen-Cilag B.V. All paid to institution. AMMvdV reports consultancy/advisory relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dome, Sanofi, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Eisai, Merck, Pierre Fabre and Ipsen. All paid to institution. JBAGH reports consultancy/advisory relationships with Achillus Tx, AstraZenica, BioNTech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CureVac, GlaxoSmithKline, Imcyse, Iovance Bio, Instil Bio, Ipsen, Merck, Merck Sharp and Dome, Molecular Partners, Neogene TX, Novartis, Pfizer, PokeAcell, Roche, Sanofi, Scenic, T-Knife and TRV, and received research funding from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, BioNTech, Merck Sharp and Dome, Novartis and Sastra Cell Therapy. All paid to institution. KPMS reports consulting/advisory relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dome, Abbvie, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Sairopa. She received honoraria from Novartis and Merck Sharp and Dome, and research funding from TigaTx, Bristol Myers Squibb, Philips and Genmab. All paid to institution. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Long-term survival data from clinical trials show that survival curves of patients with advanced melanoma treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) gradually reach a plateau, suggesting that patients have a chance of achieving long-term survival., Objective: To investigate long-term survival in patients with advanced melanoma treated with ICIs outside clinical trials., Design, Setting, and Participants: Cohort study using prospectively collected data from the nationwide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry, including patients in the Netherlands with advanced melanoma treated with first-line ICIs from 2012 to 2019. Data were analyzed from January to September 2023., Exposures: Patients were treated with first-line ipilimumab-nivolumab, antibodies that target programmed cell death (anti-PD-1), or ipilimumab., Main Outcomes and Measures: Progression-free survival (PFS) and melanoma-specific survival were analyzed, and a Cox proportional hazards model was used to investigate factors associated with PFS after reaching partial response (PR) or complete response (CR)., Results: A total of 2490 patients treated with first-line ICIs were included (median [IQR] age, 65.0 [55.3-73.0] years; 1561 male patients [62.7%]). Most patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status of 1 or lower (2202 patients [88.5%]) and normal lactate dehydrogenase levels (1715 patients [68.9%]). PFS for all patients was 23.4% (95% CI, 21.7%-25.2%) after 3 years and 19.7% (95% CI, 18.0%-21.4%) after 5 years. Overall survival for all patients was 44.0% (95% CI, 42.1%-46.1%) after 3 years and 35.9% (95% CI, 33.9%-38.0%) after 5 years. Patients with metastases in 3 or more organ sites had a significantly higher hazard of progression after reaching PR or CR (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.11-1.69)., Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study of patients with advanced melanoma treated with ICIs in clinical practice showed that their survival reached a plateau, comparable with patients participating in clinical trials. These findings can be used in daily clinical practice to guide long-term surveillance strategies and inform both physicians and patients regarding long-term treatment outcomes.

Introduction : The difference in incidence and severity of anti-PD-1 therapy-related adverse events (irAEs) between adjuvant and advanced treated melanoma patients remains unclear, as no head-to-head studies have compared these groups. Methods : This multi-center cohort study analyzed melanoma patients treated with anti-PD-1 in adjuvant or advanced settings between 2015 and 2021. Comorbidities and ECOG performance status were assessed before treatment, and grade III-IV irAEs were monitored during treatment. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with irAE development. Results : A total of 1465 advanced melanoma patients and 908 resected melanoma patients received anti-PD-1 therapy. Adjuvant-treated patients were younger, with a median age of 63 years compared to 69 years in the advanced group ( p < 0.01), and had a better ECOG performance status ( p < 0.01). Comorbidities were seen more frequently in advanced melanoma patients than in those receiving adjuvant treatment, 76% versus 68% ( p < 0.01). Grade III-IV irAEs occurred in 214 (15%) advanced treated patients and in 119 (13%) adjuvant-treated patients. Multivariate analysis showed an increased risk of severe irAE development with the presence of any comorbidity (adjusted OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.02-1.44) and ECOG status greater than 1 (adjusted OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.20-3.32). Adjuvant therapy was not associated with an increased risk of irAE development compared to advanced treatment (adjusted OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.74-1.21) after correcting for comorbidities and ECOG performance score. Anti-PD-1 therapy was halted due to toxicity (any grade irAE) more often in the adjuvant setting than in the advanced setting, 20% versus 15% ( p < 0.01). Conclusions : Higher ECOG performance status and presence of any comorbidity were independently associated with an increased risk of Grade III-IV irAE in adjuvant and advanced treated melanoma patients. Patients treated in the adjuvant setting did not have an increased risk of developing severe irAEs compared to advanced melanoma patients. These findings are of clinical significance in consulting patients for adjuvant anti-PD-1 treatment.

Introduction: Treatment with the immune checkpoint inhibitor anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) often causes immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Since irAEs resemble autoimmune diseases, autoantibodies might play a role and could potentially be used to identify patients at risk. Therefore, we investigated the association between autoantibody-positivity and toxicity as well as clinical response in patients with melanoma treated with anti-PD-1., Materials and Methods: This two-center, retrospective study included 143 patients with melanoma treated with anti-PD-1. Toxicities grade ≥2 and recurrences/responses were captured until 6 months after treatment initiation. Autoantibody measurements were performed at baseline and 3 months after treatment initiation, including IgM-rheumatoid factor (RF), antinuclear antibodies (ANA), extractable nuclear antigen, anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies (anti-CCP2) and anti-thyroid antibodies., Results: 169 irAEs were experienced by 86/143 patients (137 grades 1-2, 32 grades 3-4), the most common being thyroiditis (n=25), dermatitis (n=24), and sicca problems (n=19). Patients with autoantibodies at baseline experienced more irAEs (p=0.001), predominantly associated with anti-thyroid antibodies and thyroid dysfunction. No association was observed between any irAE and anti-CCP2, RF or ANA. In women, baseline and on-treatment anti-thyroid antibody-positivity as well as seroconversion during treatment was associated with thyroid dysfunction. In men, this association was only observed on-treatment. The presence of autoantibodies was not associated with melanoma recurrence (p=0.776) or response (p=0.597)., Conclusion: The presence of autoantibodies prior to anti-PD-1 therapy is associated with irAEs in patients with melanoma. Both baseline positivity and seroconversion of anti-thyroid antibodies were strongly associated with thyroid dysfunction. This association was stronger in women, with all women who were baseline positive developing thyroid dysfunction., Competing Interests: Competing interests: EK has consultancy/advisory relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Immunocore and Lilly, and received research grants not related to this paper from Bristol Myers Squibb, Delcath, Novartis and Pierre-Fabre. Not related to current work and paid to the institute. JH received compensation for advisory roles for Achilles Therapeutics, AZ, BioNTech, BMS, CureVac, Eisai, Gadeta, Imcyse, Immunocore, Instil Bio, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Ipsen, MSD, Merck Serono, Molecular Partners, Neogene Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Scenic, Third Rock Ventures, and T-knife, and has received grants (all paid to the institute) from Amgen, Asher Bio, BioNTech, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Neogene Therapeutics and Sastra Cell Therapy. All other authors declare to have no competing interest with respect to this manuscript., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Nintedanib is a triple-angiokinase inhibitor with potential activity in patients with advanced thyroid cancers, as radioiodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RAIR DTC) and medullary thyroid cancer (MTC)., Design: EORTC-1209 (NCT01788982) was a double-blind randomized (2:1 ratio) placebo-controlled phase II, multi-cohort study exploring the efficacy and safety of nintedanib in patients with progressive, locally advanced, and/or metastatic RAIR DTC and MTC. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the per-protocol (PP) population for both cohorts. Secondary endpoints included response rate, duration of response, overall survival (OS), and safety., Results: RAIR DTC cohort: Seventy out of the 75 planned patients with RAIR DTC (median age, 66 years; 39 women) who had progressed after one (76%) or two lines (24%) of previous systemic therapy were randomized to receive either nintedanib (N = 45) or placebo (N = 25). Of these, 69 patients started treatment and 56 met all inclusion criteria (PP). At data cutoff, the median duration of follow-up was 26.3 months in the nintedanib arm and 19.8 months in the placebo arm. In the PP population, the median PFS was 3.7 months [80% confidence interval (CI), 1.9-6.5] in the nintedanib arm and 2.9 months (80% CI, 2.0-5.6) in the placebo arm (HR = 0.65; 80% CI, 0.42-0.99; one-sided log-rank test P = 0.0947). No objective response was observed. The median OS was 29.6 months [80% CI, 15.2-not reached (NR)] in the nintedanib arm and not reached in the placebo arm. Grade 3-4 adverse events of any attribution occurred in 50% of patients receiving nintedanib and in 36% of patients receiving placebo. MTC cohort: Thirty-one out of the 67 planned patients with MTC (median age, 57 years; eight women) who had progressed after one (68%) or two (32%) lines of previous systemic therapy were randomized to receive either nintedanib (N = 22) or placebo (N = 9). Of these, 20 patients (15 in the nintedanib arm and five in the placebo arm) started treatment and met all inclusion criteria (PP). The median PFS was 7.0 months (80% CI, 1.9-8.7) in the nintedanib arm and 3.9 months (80% CI, 3.0-5.5) in the placebo arm (HR = 0.49; 95% CI, 0.16-1.53). No objective response was reported. The median OS was 16.4 months (80% CI, 12.1-24.9) in the nintedanib arm and 12.3 months (80% CI, 7.1-NR) in the placebo arm. Grade 3-4 adverse events of any attribution during the blinded period occurred in 59.1% of patients receiving nintedanib and in 33.3% of patients receiving placebo., Conclusion: This study did not suggest a clinically significant improvement of PFS with nintedanib over placebo in patients with pretreated RAIR DTC and MTC., Competing Interests: JC: None related to nintedanib/Boehringer Ingelheim; scientific consultancy role from Novartis, Pfizer, Ipsen, Exelixis, Bayer, Eisai, Advanced Accelerator Applications, Amgen, Sanofi, ITM, Sirlex, Lilly, and Merck Serono. Research grants from Novartis, Pfizer, Astrazeneca, Advanced Accelerator Applications, Eisai, and Bayer. FC: None related to nintedanib/Boehringer Ingelheim; scientific consultancy role from Eisai and Bayer. YG: None related to nintedanib/Boehringer Ingelheim; scientific consultancy role from Eisai, Lilly, Sanofi, and Bayer. EK: None related to nintedanib/Boehringer Ingelheim; scientific consultancy role from Eisai, Bayer, and Genzyme; research grant from Novartis. YL: None related to nintedanib/Boehringer Ingelheim; scientific consultancy role from Eisai, Merck, MSD, and Roche. SLe: None related to nintedanib/Boehringer Ingelheim; scientific consultancy role from Eisai, Bayer, and Lilly; research grant from Novartis and Genzyme. PS: None related to nintedanib/Boehringer Ingelheim; have received institutional research support and biological material from Eisai. TL: None related to nintedanib/Boehringer Ingelheim; advisory board from EISAI, Bayer, and Genzyme-Sanofi. DLL: None related to nintedanib/Boehringer Ingelheim; advisory board from EISAI, IPSEN, MSD, Merck Serono, Bayer, Roche, Lilly, Seagen, Gilead, Novartis, Gentili SrL, and New Bridge. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Leboulleux, Kapiteijn, Litière, Schöffski, Godbert, Rodien, Jarzab, Salvatore, Zanetta, Capdevila, Bastholt, De La Fouchardiere, Lalami, Bardet, Cornélis, Dedecjus, Links, Sents, Schlumberger, Locati and Newbold.)

Background: The predictive value of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in immune-related adverse event (irAE) development remains unknown, although an association between tumor immunogenicity and irAEs has been suggested. We investigated the association between TIL abundance in pretreatment primary and metastasis specimens and the subsequent development of severe irAEs., Patients and Methods: We retrospectively identified patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma who received first-line anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) with or without anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein 4 (anti-CTLA-4) from 10 hospitals in the Netherlands. TILs were scored on representative hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stains of the primary melanoma and pretreatment melanoma metastasis as 'absent', 'nonbrisk', or 'brisk'. A univariable logistic regression analysis was carried out to assess the association between the TIL scores and the development of severe irAEs. Fine and Gray subdistribution hazard models were used to estimate the cumulative incidence of severe irAEs., Results: Of the 1346 eligible patients, 536 patients had primary melanoma specimens available, and 613 patients had metastasis specimens available. Severe irAEs occurred in 15% of anti-PD-1-treated patients and 49% of anti-PD-1 + anti-CTLA-4-treated patients. The presence of TILs was not associated with the occurrence of grade ≥3 irAEs in primary melanoma specimens ( P  = 0.70) nor pretreatment metastasis specimens ( P  = 0.91). In the univariable analysis, patients with brisk TILs did not have a higher chance of developing severe irAEs compared with patients with absent TILs, for both primary specimen (odds ratio 1.15, 95% confidence interval 0.60-2.18) and metastasis specimen (odds ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.37-1.59). There was also no significant difference in the lifetime risk or timing of the development of severe irAEs in patients with TILs present compared with patients with TILs absent., Conclusion: There was no association between the TIL scores on H&E-stained slides from the primary melanoma or pretreatment metastasis and the development of grade 3 or higher irAEs. Additionally, no correlation was found between the presence of TILs and the timing of irAEs., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Background: Phase 1-2 trials involving patients with resectable, macroscopic stage III melanoma have shown that neoadjuvant immunotherapy is more efficacious than adjuvant immunotherapy., Methods: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with resectable, macroscopic stage III melanoma, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive two cycles of neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab and then undergo surgery or to undergo surgery and then receive 12 cycles of adjuvant nivolumab. Only the patients in the neoadjuvant group who had a partial response or nonresponse received subsequent adjuvant treatment. The primary end point was event-free survival., Results: A total of 423 patients underwent randomization. At a median follow-up of 9.9 months, the estimated 12-month event-free survival was 83.7% (99.9% confidence interval [CI], 73.8 to 94.8) in the neoadjuvant group and 57.2% (99.9% CI, 45.1 to 72.7) in the adjuvant group. The difference in restricted mean survival time was 8.00 months (99.9% CI, 4.94 to 11.05; P<0.001; hazard ratio for progression, recurrence, or death, 0.32; 99.9% CI, 0.15 to 0.66). In the neoadjuvant group, 59.0% of the patients had a major pathological response, 8.0% had a partial response, 26.4% had a nonresponse (>50% residual viable tumor), and 2.4% had progression; in 4.2%, surgery had not yet been performed or was omitted. The estimated 12-month recurrence-free survival was 95.1% among patients in the neoadjuvant group who had a major pathological response, 76.1% among those who had a partial response, and 57.0% among those who had a nonresponse. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher that were related to systemic treatment occurred in 29.7% of the patients in the neoadjuvant group and in 14.7% in the adjuvant group., Conclusions: Among patients with resectable, macroscopic stage III melanoma, neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab followed by surgery and response-driven adjuvant therapy resulted in longer event-free survival than surgery followed by adjuvant nivolumab. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and others; NADINA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04949113.)., (Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

We evaluated the prognostic value of hypoalbuminemia in context of various biomarkers at baseline, including clinical, genomic, transcriptomic, and blood-based markers, in patients with metastatic melanoma treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy or anti-PD-1/anti-CTLA-4 combination therapy (n = 178). An independent validation cohort (n = 79) was used to validate the performance of hypoalbuminemia compared to serum LDH (lactate dehydrogenase) levels. Pre-treatment hypoalbuminemia emerged as the strongest predictor of poor outcome for both OS (HR = 4.01, 95% CI 2.10-7.67, Cox P = 2.63e-05) and PFS (HR = 3.72, 95% CI 2.06-6.73, Cox P = 1.38e-05) in univariate analysis. In multivariate analysis, the association of hypoalbuminemia with PFS was independent of serum LDH, IFN-γ signature expression, TMB, age, ECOG PS, treatment line, treatment type (combination or monotherapy), brain and liver metastasis (HR = 2.76, 95% CI 1.24-6.13, Cox P = 0.0131). Our validation cohort confirmed the prognostic power of hypoalbuminemia for OS (HR = 1.98, 95% CI 1.16-3.38; Cox P = 0.0127) and was complementary to serum LDH in analyses for both OS (LDH-adjusted HR = 2.12, 95% CI 1.2-3.72, Cox P = 0.00925) and PFS (LDH-adjusted HR = 1.91, 95% CI 1.08-3.38, Cox P = 0.0261). In conclusion, pretreatment hypoalbuminemia was a powerful predictor of outcome in ICI in melanoma and showed remarkable complementarity to previously established biomarkers, including high LDH., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Predicting who will benefit from treatment with immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) in patients with advanced melanoma is challenging. We developed a multivariable prediction model for response to ICI, using routinely available clinical data including primary melanoma characteristics. We used a population-based cohort of 3525 patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma treated with anti-PD-1-based therapy. Our prediction model for predicting response within 6 months after ICI initiation was internally validated with bootstrap resampling. Performance evaluation included calibration, discrimination and internal-external cross-validation. Included patients received anti-PD-1 monotherapy (n = 2366) or ipilimumab plus nivolumab (n = 1159) in any treatment line. The model included serum lactate dehydrogenase, World Health Organization performance score, type and line of ICI, disease stage and time to first distant recurrence-all at start of ICI-, and location and type of primary melanoma, the presence of satellites and/or in-transit metastases at primary diagnosis and sex. The over-optimism adjusted area under the receiver operating characteristic was 0.66 (95% CI: 0.64-0.66). The range of predicted response probabilities was 7%-81%. Based on these probabilities, patients were categorized into quartiles. Compared to the lowest response quartile, patients in the highest quartile had a significantly longer median progression-free survival (20.0 vs 2.8 months; P < .001) and median overall survival (62.0 vs 8.0 months; P < .001). Our prediction model, based on routinely available clinical variables and primary melanoma characteristics, predicts response to ICI in patients with advanced melanoma and discriminates well between treated patients with a very good and very poor prognosis., (© 2024 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

Background: Effectivity of BRAF(/MEK) inhibitor rechallenge has been described in prior studies. However, structured data are largely lacking., Methods: Data from all advanced melanoma patients treated with BRAFi(/MEKi) rechallenge were retrieved from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. The authors analyzed objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) for both first treatment and rechallenge. They performed a multivariable logistic regression and a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model to assess factors associated with response and survival., Results: The authors included 468 patients in the largest cohort to date who underwent at least two treatment episodes of BRAFi(/MEKi). Following rechallenge, ORR was 43%, median PFS was 4.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.1-5.2), and median OS was 8.2 months (95% CI, 7.2-9.4). Median PFS after rechallenge for patients who discontinued first BRAFi(/MEKi) treatment due to progression was 3.1 months (95% CI, 2.7-4.0) versus 5.2 months (95% CI, 4.5-5.9) for patients who discontinued treatment for other reasons. Discontinuing first treatment due to progression and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels greater than two times the upper limit of normal were associated with lower odds of response and worse PFS and OS. Symptomatic brain metastases were associated with worse survival, whereas a longer treatment interval between first treatment and rechallenge was associated with better survival. Responding to the first BRAFi(/MEKi) treatment was not associated with response or survival., Conclusions: This study confirms that patients benefit from rechallenge. Elevated LDH levels, symptomatic brain metastases, and discontinuing first BRAFi(/MEKi) treatment due to progression are associated with less benefit from rechallenge. A prolonged treatment interval is associated with more benefit from rechallenge., (© 2024 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.)

About 500,000 patients with rare adult solid cancers (RASC) are diagnosed yearly in Europe. Delays and unequal quality of management impact negatively their survival. Since 2017, European reference networks (ERN) aim to improve the quality of care of patients with rare disease. The steering committee of EURACAN, including physicians, researchers and patients review here the previous actions, present objectives of the ERN EURACAN dedicated to RASC. EURACAN promoted management in reference centres, and equal implementation of excellence and innovation in Europe and developed 22 clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Additionally, fourteen information brochures translated in 24 EU languages were developed in collaboration with patient advocacy groups (ePAGs) and seventeen training session were organized. Nevertheless, connections to national networks in the 26 participating countries (106 centres), simplification of cross-border healthcare, international multidisciplinary tumour boards, registries and monitoring of the quality of care are still required. In this Health Policy, evaluation criteria of the performances of the network and of health care providers are proposed., Competing Interests: WwdH Consulting fees Novartis, Ipsen, Camurus, ITM Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events Novartis, Ipsen, Camurus, ITM (personal). AMF: Grants or contracts from any entity Advenchen Laboratories, Amgen DompÈ, AROG Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi Sankyo, Deciphera, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Epizyme Inc, GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, SpringWorks. Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid EURACAN Coordination team G1 ISG Coordination of the WG dedicated to education (Institution). AI: Grants or contracts from any entity: Carthera Transgene NutrithÈragËne Sanofi Consulting fees: Novocure Leo Pharma Novartis Boehringer Ingelheim Polytone Laser INC. Support for attending meetings and/or travel Carthera, Enterome (To my institution, unrelated to the submitted work)/DSMB: NCT02331498 (unpaid). HJK: Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board Janssen, Astra Zeneca, MSD (Advisory board, payments to my institution). JM-B Grants or contracts from any entity (PharmaMar Novartis Eisai IMMIX Biopharma Boehringer Ing. PTC Bio (Preclinical grant, to the institution); Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events PharmaMar Invited speaker Eli-Lilly Invited speaker Bayer Invited speaker Eisai Invited speaker Roche Invited speaker Daichii Invited speaker; IDMC: Tracon –(personal). LL: Grants or contracts: Adlai Nortye, Astrazeneca, BMS, DEbiopharm Eisai Eli Lilly, Exeliixis, Hoffman la Roche Isa therapeutics, Kura oncology, Merck Serono, MSD, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Syneos, Sun Pharma, Incyte Bioscienc ee international, Gilead Science, Genmab, Merck KGa (to the institution); Consulting fees: MSD IT, Merck Serono, Spa Healthcare professional, Merck Healthcare Kga, GSK, Hoffman la Roche, ALX oncology, EMD Serono Research and Development Inst. , Boehringer Ingelheim Int. Payment or honoraria for lectures: Merck Serono Spa, Merck Healthcare Kga, Neutron therapeutics Inc, Merck& Co IOnc., Astrazeneca, MSD IT, EMDSerono Research & Development Institute Inc, Mirati THerapeutics inc, F Hoffmann la Roche Ltd, Novartis Pharma Spa, Janssen Research and Development LLC, SEagen International GmbH, Eisai Europe Limited, Genmab US Inc, AstraZeneca uK Ltd, Abbvie Srl (Personal). MC: Consulting fees AAA-NOVARTIS To me IPSEN Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events AAA-NOVARTIS IPSEN INCA (personal). MJS: Consulting fees:Gamida (personal). PGC: Grants or contracts: Advenchen, Amgen, Dompé, AROG Pharma, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer ingelheim, Diichi Sankyo, Deciphera, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Epizyme inc, Foghorn Ther. Inc, Glaxo, Hutchinson Mredipharma Ltd, Inhibrx Inc, Karyopharm pharmaceuticals, PTC ther, Novartis, Pfize, Pharmamar, Rain Oncology, Springworks (to institution). JYB Grants or contracts: EURACAN grant French NCI (INCA) NETSARC + grant, INTERSARC + grant, LYRICAN + grant; DEpGYN RHU; Fondation ARC:ACSE grant (to the institution); Ligue Nationale contre le Cancer ACSE Grant; Comité de l’Ain de la Ligue contre le Cancer Grant (all for the institution). The other authors report no conflict of interest related to this work., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

Background: The prognosis of advanced melanoma patients has significantly improved over the years. We aimed to evaluate the survival per year of diagnosis., Methods: All systemically treated patients diagnosed with advanced melanoma from 2013 to 2021 were included from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Baseline characteristics and overall survival (OS) were compared between the different years of diagnosis. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the association between year of diagnosis and OS., Findings: For this cohort study, we included 6260 systemically treated advanced melanoma patients. At baseline, there was an increase over the years in age, the percentage of patients with an ECOG PS ≥ 2, with brain metastases, and a synchronous diagnosis of primary and unresectable melanoma. Median OS increased from 11.2 months (95% CI 10.0-12.4) for patients diagnosed in 2013 to 32.0 months (95% CI 26.6-36.7) for patients diagnosed in 2019. Median OS was remarkably lower for patients diagnosed in 2020 (26.6 months; 95% CI 23.9-35.1) and 2021 (24.0 months; 95% CI 20.4-NR). Patients diagnosed in 2020 and 2021 had a higher hazard of death compared to patients diagnosed in 2019, although this was not significant. The multivariable Cox regression showed a lower hazard of death for the years of diagnosis after 2013. In contrast, patients diagnosed in 2020 and 2021 had a higher hazard of death compared to patients diagnosed in 2019., Interpretation: After a continuous survival improvement for advanced melanoma patients between 2013 and 2019, outcomes of patients diagnosed in 2020 and 2021 seem poorer. This trend of decreased survival remained after correcting for known prognostic factors and previous neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment, suggesting that it is explained by unmeasured factors, which-considering the timing-could be COVID-19-related., Funding: For the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR), the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing foundation received a start-up grant from governmental organization The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMW, project number 836002002). The DMTR is structurally funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, and Roche Pharma. Roche Pharma stopped funding in 2019, and Pierre Fabre started funding the DMTR in 2019. For this work, no funding was granted., Competing Interests: AvdE has advisory relationships with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Novartis, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Pfizer, Ipsen, Merck and has received research study grants not related to this paper from Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Idera and TEVA and has received travel expenses from MSD Oncology, Roche, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi. JH has advisory relationships with AstraZeneca, Achilles Therapeutics, BioNTech, BMS, CureVac, Iovance Bio, Eisai, Instil Bio, Imcyse, MSD, Neogene Therapeutics, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sastra Cell Therapy, TRV, and T-Knife. And has received research grants not related to this paper from Asher Bio, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, BioNTech, Novartis, and Sastra Cell Therapy. All grants were paid to the institutions. MA has advisory board/consultancy honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD-Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Astellas, Bayer. She received travel expenses from Astella, BMS, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sanofi and a research grant from Merck-Pfizer. Not related to current work and paid to institute. GH consultancy/advisory relationships with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, MSD, Pfizer, Novartis, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre and has received research grants not related to this paper from Bristol Myers Squibb and Seerave. All payments were paid to the institution. RI has no declarations of interest for this research, but is employed at MSD since January 2022. DP has advisory relationships/consultancy honororia with Pierre Fabre and Novartis and received travel expenses from Pierre Fabre. AvdV has consultancy relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Sanofi, Ipsen, Eisai all paid to the institute. KS has consulting/advisory relationship with Abbvie, Pierre Fabre, and Sairopa. She received honoraria received from Novartis, Roche, Merck Sharp and Dome and research funding not related to this paper from Genmab, TigaTx, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Philips. All paid to institution. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

Background: Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) has improved cancer treatment in recent years. Older and frail patients are frequently treated with ICIs, but since they have been underrepresented in previous clinical trials, the real impact of ICI in this patient group is not well defined. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence for associations between geriatric impairments and treatment outcomes in older patients with advanced and metastatic cancer treated with ICIs., Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science for relevant articles published before June 2022. Studies investigating the association between impairments in at least two geriatric domains and treatment outcome were considered eligible. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment using the QUIPS tool was performed independently by two investigators., Results: A total of nine studies were included. Median sample size of the studies was 92 patients (interquartile range (IQR) 47-113), with a median of 26 frail patients (IQR 21-35). Five studies investigated disease-related and survival outcomes, and two of them found a statistically significant association between geriatric impairments and either survival or disease progression. Eight studies investigated toxicity outcomes, and two of them showed a statistically significant association between geriatric impairments and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Few studies suggested a relation between geriatric impairments and worse clinical outcomes., Conclusions: Only a few studies have investigated the association between geriatric impairments and treatment outcomes and these studies were small. Older patients with geriatric impairments seem to be more likely to experience irAEs, but larger studies that include frail patients and use geriatric screening tools are required to confirm this association. These studies will be essential to improve the development of specific strategies to deal with frail patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest M. Slingerland is a paid advisory board member for Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and Lilly. E. Kapiteijn has consultancy/advisory relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck, Pierre Fabre, Lilly and Bayer, these were paid to the institution. Furthermore, she received research grants not related to this paper from Bristol Myers Squibb, Delcath, Novartis and Pierre Fabre. No potential conflict of interest were disclosed by the other authors. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Introduction: Historically, stage IV adrenocortical carcinoma (mACC) has a poor prognosis with a median overall survival (OS) of only 5 months. Based on the FIRM-ACT trial published in 2012, guidelines now advise first line systemic treatment with etoposide, cisplatin, doxorubicin and mitotane (EDP-M). The effect of EDP-M on patient survival in clinical practice in the Netherlands is unknown., Methods: The data of all patients with mACC (2005-2020) were obtained from the Netherlands comprehensive cancer organization (IKNL). The effect of EDP-M on patient survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariate Cox regression analysis including clinical, therapy and tumor characteristics., Results: In total 167 patients with mACC were included. For patients diagnosed from 2014 onwards, EDP-M (in 22 patients (22%)) lead to a numerically but not statistically significant improved OS compared to those not receiving EDP-M (11.8 vs 5.6 months, p = 0.525). For systemic treatments, patients treated with mitotane only had the best 5-year OS (11.4%, p = 0.006) regardless of year of diagnosis. In multivariate Cox regression analysis EPD-M was not associated with OS; palliative adrenalectomy (HR: 0.26, p = <.001) and local treatment of metastases (HR: 0.35, p = 0.001) were associated with a better OS and a primary tumor Ki-67 index > 20% (HR: 2.67, p = 0.003) with a worse OS from 2014 onwards. Patients diagnosed before 2014 had a significantly poorer OS compared to from 2014 onwards (5-yr: 4.5 vs 8.4%, OS: 6.8 vs 8.3 months, p = 0.032)., Conclusion: OS for mACC in the Netherlands has improved in the last decade. Receiving EDP-M did not significantly improve OS for patients with mACC. The use of multimodality treatment including palliative adrenalectomy, mitotane and local treatment of (oligo-)metastases in appropriately selected patients has improved the OS for mACC patients since 2014., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial or personal relationships that could be of influence on the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)