Search

Background: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) provides important staging and prognostic information that guides surveillance and adjuvant systemic therapy decisions for patients with cutaneous melanoma. At most centers, SLNB is indicated for patients with cutaneous melanoma with at least a 5% risk of having nodal metastases, typically melanomas ≥0.8 mm in thickness or selected thinner lesions with high-risk features such as elevated mitotic rate and/or ulceration. However, up to 85% of patients who undergo SLNB have a negative result. Currently, there is an unmet clinical need to better identify patients with a low risk of nodal metastasis who may safely forgo SLNB, but otherwise meet established criteria for undergoing SLNB. Previously, a model using primary tumor gene expression profile (GEP) data combined with clinicopathological features (CP) was developed to identify melanoma patients with a low risk of having a positive SLN. The model has been externally validated in multiple retrospective studies. The aim of the MERLIN_001 observational registry study is to prospectively validate the CP-GEP model in an independent multicenter cohort of primary cutaneous melanoma patients, who undergo lymphatic mapping and SLNB per current clinical guidelines. Methods: A total of 9 centers across the US are included in the study with planned enrollment of 2,340 patients, allowing for a loss of up to 30% due to screen failure, tissue loss, low RNA yield, no gene expression profile or failure to perform the planned SLNB. Patients with clinically node-negative cutaneous melanoma and planned SLNB using current guideline indications are eligible for the study and will be followed for five years. Both patients and investigators are blinded to the results (NCT04759781). FFPE material from the initial melanoma biopsy is collected and the GEP of the primary melanoma is assessed. Subsequently, CP-GEP probability scores are calculated and expressed as a binary classification (Low Risk or High Risk for nodal metastasis), which will be compared to SLNB pathology results. Performance metrics for CP-GEP will be evaluated and will include: SLNB Reduction Rate based on Negative Predictive Value, Positive Predictive Value, Sensitivity and Specificity, and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Finally, the performance of CP-GEP to stratify patients according to risk of recurrence (recurrence-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, overall survival) will also be assessed, based on five-year outcomes data. Additional analyses will be performed using the data collected throughout the study. Enrollment of patients started in September 2021 and is ongoing. As of January 2023, 890 patients have been enrolled, representing 46% of the targeted number of patients with a successful SLNB and CP-GEP test result. Citation Format: Tina J. Hieken, Michael E. Egger, Christina V. Angeles, Erin E. Burke, Michael C. Lowe, John R. Hyngstrom, Georgia M. Beasley, Edmund K. Bartlett, Vernon K. Sondak. Merlin_001: a prospective registry study of a primary melanoma gene-signature to predict sentinel node (SN) status and determine its prognostic value for more accurate staging of SN-negative melanoma patients [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 2 (Clinical Trials and Late-Breaking Research); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(8_Suppl):Abstract nr CT053.

Background Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare cutaneous neuroendocrine tumor that primarily affects elderly patients. Despite aggressive treatment, overall survival (OS) remains low. Methods This study is a multi-institutional, retrospective review of 102 patients with MCC. We evaluated OS, disease-specific survival (DSS), and risk factors for recurrence. Results Median age of patients was 71.46% of patients recurred. Patients with stage I disease had median 5-year OS of 59.3%, compared to 68.1% DSS. For stage III, median 5-year OS was 46.0% vs 58.2% DSS. Disease stage and advanced age were risk factors for recurrence and decreased OS. Immunocompromised status and disease stage were the strongest predictors of DSS. Conclusions DSS is significantly better than OS for patients with MCC. Many elderly patients with newly diagnosed MCC have low remaining life expectancy, regardless of their MCC diagnosis. Patient age and overall health status should be considered to personalize care plans for patients with MCC.

Background and objectives The relatively recent availability of effective systemic therapies for metastatic melanoma necessitates reconsideration of current surveillance patterns. Evidence supporting surveillance guidelines for resected Stage II melanoma is lacking. Prior reports note routine imaging detects only 21% of recurrent disease. This study aims to define recurrence patterns for Stage II melanoma to inform future surveillance guidelines. Methods This is a retrospective study of patients with Stage II melanoma. We analyzed risk factors for recurrence and methods of recurrence detection. We also assessed survival. Yearly hazards of recurrence were visualized. Results With a median follow-up of 4.9 years, 158 per 580 patients (27.2%) recurred. Overall, most recurrences were patient-detected (60.7%) or imaging-detected (27.3%). Routine imaging was important in detecting recurrence in patients with distant recurrences (adjusted rate 43.1% vs. 9.4% for local/in-transit; p = .04) and with Stage IIC melanoma (42.5% vs. 18.5% for IIA; p = .01). Male patients also self-detected recurrent disease less than females (52.1% vs. 76.8%; p Conclusions Routine imaging surveillance played a larger role in detecting recurrent disease for select groups in this cohort than noted in prior studies. In an era of effective systemic therapy, routine imaging should be considered for detection of asymptomatic relapse for select, high-risk patient groups.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2b trial of the tumor lysate, particle-loaded, dendritic cell (TLPLDC) vaccine was conducted in patients with resected stage III/IV melanoma. Dendritic cells (DCs) were harvested with and without granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF). This analysis investigates differences in clinical outcomes and RNA gene expression between DC harvest methods.The TLPLDC vaccine is created by loading autologous tumor lysate into yeast cell wall particles (YCWPs) and exposing them to phagocytosis by DCs. For DC harvest, patients had a direct blood draw or were pretreated with G-CSF before blood draw. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive TLPLDC or placebo. Differences in disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. RNA-seq analysis was performed on the total RNA of TLPLDC + G and TLPLDC vaccines to compare gene expression between groups.144 patients were randomized: 103 TLPLDC (47 TLPLDC/56 TLPLDC + G) and 41 placebo (19 placebo/22 placebo + G). Median follow-up was 27.0 months. Both 36-month DFS (55.8% vs. 24.4% vs. 30.0%, p = 0.010) and OS (94.2% vs. 69.8% vs. 70.9%, p = 0.024) were improved in TLPLDC compared to TLPLDC + G or placebo, respectively. When compared to TLPLDC + G vaccine, RNA-seq from TLPLDC vaccine showed upregulation of genes associated with DC maturation and downregulation of genes associated with DC suppression or immaturity.Patients receiving TLPLDC vaccine without G-CSF had improved OS and DFS. Outcomes remained similar between patients receiving TLPLDC + G and placebo. Direct DC harvest without G-CSF had higher expression of genes linked to DC maturation, likely improving clinical efficacy.

Background The optimal treatment sequence for patients with advanced BRAF V600 mutant melanoma is unknown. BRAF/MEK inhibition (BRAF/MEKi), single agent anti‐PD‐1 (aPD‐1) antibodies and combination immune checkpoint inhibition with nivolumab and ipilimumab (niv/ipi) are all approved; however, they have not been prospectively compared. Therefore, we sought to compare overall survival of patients with advanced BRAF mutant melanoma treated with either front‐line BRAF/MEKi, aPD‐1, or niv/ipi. Methods Patients with advanced BRAF mutant melanoma who had received BRAF/MEKi, niv/ipi, or aPD‐1 in the front‐line setting were identified from a nationwide database comprising de‐identified patient‐level structured and unstructured data derived from electronic health records. Survival was compared using Kaplan‐Meier curves and log‐rank analysis. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression models were used to measure the effect of front‐line treatment, age (>64 or not), LDH (elevated or not), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (>1 or not) on survival. Results Five hundred and sixty seven patients with advanced disease and treated with front‐line aPD‐1 (n = 162), BRAF/MEKi (n = 297) or niv/ipi (n = 108) were identified. With a median follow‐up of 22.4 months, median overall survival (OS) for patients treated with front‐line niv/ipi was not reached (NR) while median OS for patients treated with aPD‐1 or BRAF/MEKi was 39.5 months and 13.2 months, respectively. Front‐line treatment with PD‐1 and niv/ipi were associated with statistically longer survival than BRAF/MEKi in multivariate analyses. Conclusions In our real‐world retrospective analysis, patients with advanced BRAF mutant melanoma treated with front‐line niv/ipi or aPD‐1 had longer survival compared to those treated with front‐line BRAF/MEKi., Real‐world overall survival of patients with advanced BRAF mutant melanoma treated with front‐line BRAF/MEK inhibitors, anti‐PD‐1 antibodies, or nivolumab/ipilimumab.

BackgroundThe tumor lysate, particle-loaded, dendritic cell (TLPLDC) vaccine is an autologous tumor vaccine that decreased recurrence in stage III/IV melanoma when granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) was not used to harvest the dendritic cells in a randomized phase 2B adjuvant trial.1The tumor lysate (TL) particle only (TLPO) vaccine utilizes a similar mechanism, but with autologous TL-loaded yeast cell wall particles; this eliminates the need for dendritic cell (DC) collection and ex-vivo loading and reduces production costs and time. The TLPO vaccine was compared to TLPLDC in an embedded bridging portion of the trial. Here, we examine 36-month outcomes of the ongoing randomized, double-blind phase 2 trial in patients (pts) with resected stage III/IV melanoma.MethodsPts were randomized 2:1 to receive TLPO or TLPLDC as a continuation of a previously established clinical trial comparing TLPLDC versus placebo. The TLPLDC group was analyzed separately based on use (or not) of G-CSF for collection of DC. Safety was measured by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Kaplan-Meier and log-rank analysis was used to compare 36-month disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) main arms as well as pre-specified subgroups.ResultsA total of 187 pts were randomized with 41, 47, 56, and 43 pts enrolled in the placebo, TLPLDC without G-CSF (TLPLDC), TLPLDC with G-CSF (TLPLDC+G), and TLPO arm, respectively. Pts randomized to the TLPO arm were more likely to have stage IV melanoma (22.0% for placebo, 20.4% for TLPLDC and TLPLDC+G, and 44.2% for TLPO; p = 0.002) and to receive prior immunotherapy (36.6% for placebo, 39.8% for both TLPLDC and TLPLDC+G, and 83.7% for TLPO; p < 0.001). Grade 3+ adverse events were not significantly different between arms. In the ITT analysis, 36-month DFS was 30.0% for placebo, 55.8% for TLPLDC, 24.4% for TLPLDC+G, and 64.0% for TLPO (p < 0.001). OS at 36 months was 70.9% for placebo, 94.2% for TLPLDC, 69.8%% for TLPLDC+G, and 94.8% for TLPO (p = 0.011) (figure 1).Abstract 542 Figure 1Kaplan-Meier curves demonstrating DFS (A) and OS (B) between Placebo (n=41), TLPLDC (n=47), TLPLDC+G (n=56), and TLPO (n=43)ConclusionsThe TLPO and TLPLDC (without G-CSF) vaccines improved 36-month DFS and OS in this randomized phase 2 trial. The efficacy of the TLPO and TLPLDC vaccines will be confirmed in a phase III trial in resected Stage III/IV melanoma pts.Trial RegistrationNIH, clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02301611ReferencesO’Shea AE, Chick RC, Clifton GT, et al. The effect of pretreatment with G-CSF prior to dendritic cell collection during the phase IIb trial of an autologous DC-based vaccine for advanced, resectable melanoma. Presented at: Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting & Preconference Programs (SITC 2020); November 11–14, 2020. Abstract 310. J Immunother Cancer. 2020;8(Suppl 3):A656–A959.Ethics ApprovalThe clinical trial protocol was approved by the Western Institutional Review Board (2014–1932). All participants provided informed consent prior to enrollment in the trial.

BackgroundIntratumoral administration of V937, a bioselected, genetically unmodified coxsackievirus A21, has previously demonstrated antitumor activity in patients with advanced melanoma as monotherapy and in combination with the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) antibody pembrolizumab. We report results from an open-label, single-arm, phase 1b study (NCT02307149) evaluating V937 plus the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 inhibitor ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma.MethodsAdult patients (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed metastatic or unresectable stage IIIB/C or IV melanoma received intratumoral V937 on days 1, 3, 5, 8, and 22 and every 3 weeks (Q3W) thereafter for up to 19 sets of injections plus intravenous ipilimumab 3 mg/kg Q3W administered for four doses starting on day 22. Imaging was performed at screening, on days 43 and 106 and every 6 weeks thereafter; response was assessed by immune-related response criteria per investigator assessment. Primary endpoints were safety in all treated patients and objective response rate (ORR) in all treated patients and in patients with disease that progressed on prior anti-PD-1 therapy.ResultsFifty patients were enrolled and treated. ORR was 30% (95% CI 18% to 45%) among all treated patients, 47% (95% CI 23% to 72%) among patients who had not received prior anti-PD-1 therapy, and 21% (95% CI 9% to 39%) among patients who had experienced disease progression on prior anti-PD-1 therapy. Tumor regression occurred in injected and non-injected lesions. Median immune-related progression-free survival was 6.2 months (95% CI 3.5 to 9.0 months), and median overall survival was 45.1 months (95% CI 28.3 months to not reached). The most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were pruritus (n=25, 50%), fatigue (n=22, 44%), and diarrhea (n=16, 32%). There were no V937-related dose-limiting toxicities and no treatment-related grade 5 AEs. Treatment-related grade 3 or 4 AEs, all of which were considered related to ipilimumab, occurred in 14% of patients (most commonly dehydration, diarrhea, and hepatotoxicity in 4% each).ConclusionsResponses associated with intratumoral V937 plus ipilimumab were robust, including in the subgroup of patients who had experienced disease progression on prior anti-PD-1 therapy. Toxicities were manageable and consistent with those of the individual monotherapies.

Immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of melanoma, yet survival remains poor for patients with metastatic disease. The autologous tumor lysate, particle-loaded, dendritic cell (TLPLDC) vaccine has been shown to be safe adjuvant therapy for patients with resected stage III/IV melanoma who complete the primary vaccine series. Here, we describe an open-label trial of patients with metastatic melanoma treated with TLPLDC vaccine in addition to standard of care (SoC) therapies. The TLPLDC vaccine is created by loading autologous tumor lysate into yeast cell wall particles, which are phagocytosed by autologous dendritic cells ex vivo. Patients who recurred while enrolled in a phase IIb trial of adjuvant TLPLDC vaccine (crossover cohort) and patients with measurable metastatic melanoma cohort were offered TLPLDC vaccine along with SoC therapies. Tumor response was measured by RECIST 1.1 criteria. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated by intention-to-treat analysis. Fifty-four patients were enrolled (28 in crossover cohort; 26 in metastatic melanoma cohort). The vaccine was well-tolerated with no grade ≥3 adverse events when given with SoC therapies to include checkpoint inhibitors, BRAF/MEK inhibitors, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, intralesional therapy and/or radiation. In the crossover arm, OS was 76.5% and PFS was 57.1% (median follow-up of 13.9 months). In the metastatic melanoma arm, OS was 85.7% and PFS was 52.2% (median follow-up 8.5 months). The TLPLDC vaccine is well-tolerated and safe in combination with SoC therapies. Future trials will determine the efficacy of TLPLDC in combination with SoC therapies in metastatic melanoma.

Background Checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) in combination with cell‐based vaccines may produce synergistic antitumor immunity. The primary analysis of the randomized and blinded phase IIb trial in resected stage III/IV melanoma demonstrated TLPLDC is safe and improved 24‐month disease‐free survival (DFS) in the per treatment (PT) analysis. Here, we examine efficacy within pre‐specified and exploratory subgroups. Methods Stage III/IV patients rendered disease‐free by surgery were randomized 2:1 to TLPLDC vaccine versus placebo. The pre‐specified PT analysis included only patients completing the primary vaccine/placebo series at 6 months. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to compare 24‐month DFS among subgroups. Results There were no clinicopathologic differences between subgroups except stage IV patients were more likely to receive CPI. In stage IV patients, 24‐month DFS was 43% for vaccine versus 0% for placebo (p = 0.098) in the ITT analysis and 73% versus 0% (p = 0.002) in the PT analysis. There was no significant difference in 24‐month DFS when stratified by use of immunotherapy or CPI. For patients with resected recurrent disease, 24‐month DFS was 88.9% versus 33.3% (p = 0.013) in the PT analysis. All benefit from vaccination was in the PT analysis; no benefit was found in patients receiving up to three doses. Conclusion The TLPLDC vaccine improved DFS in patients completing the primary vaccine series, particularly in the resected stage IV patients. The efficacy of the TLPLDC vaccine will be confirmed in a phase III study evaluating adjuvant TLPLDC + CPI versus Placebo + CPI in resected stage IV melanoma patients., TLPLDC is an autologous tumor lysate vaccine made with autologous dendritic cells to prevent recurrence in patients with high‐risk resected melanoma. In this analysis, the vaccine was found to have the most benefit in stage IV resected patients and may have a synergistic effect in combination with checkpoint inhibitors. ​

Background Electroporated plasmid IL-12 (TAVO or tavokinogene telseplasmid) is a novel pro-inflammatory intratumoral therapy with substantial single agent activity in melanoma, which has been shown to synergize with anti-PD-1 antibodies in patients predicted as non-responders to anti-PD-1.1 2 Interim data from patients with stage III/IV melanoma actively progressing on anti-PD-1 antibody are presented herein. Methods Patients with confirmed disease progression by RECIST v1.1 after at least 12 weeks of treatment on pembrolizumab or nivolumab (or combination checkpoint blockade) and within 12 weeks of last dose (with no intervening therapies) were enrolled. There was no limit on the number of prior lines of therapy. At least one accessible lesion was electroporated with plasmid IL-12 (pIL-12-EP) on days 1, 5 and 8 every 6 weeks and pembrolizumab was administered every 3 weeks. Tumor response in treated and untreated lesions was assessed by RECIST v1.1 every 12 weeks. Endpoints include ORR, safety, PFS, OS, and DOR. Results The first 56 patients treated of 100 planned were included in this interim analysis. Of these, 84% had Stage IV disease, 30% had M1c or M1d disease, and 27% had prior exposure to ipilimumab. In 54 efficacy evaluable patients the investigator-assessed ORR was 30% (3 CR/13 PR), 5 patients had 100% reduction of target lesions. All responses have been confirmed, only two responding patient progressed while on study, 2 patients completed the study with ongoing responses (figures 1 and 2). In patients with M1c/M1d disease, the ORR was 35.2% (n=6/17). Tumor reduction was observed in untreated lesions in 12 of 12 patients who had unaccessible lesions or accessible untreated lesions. The median overall survival (mOS) and duration of response (mDOR) has not been reached, with a median follow-up time of 13 months. Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were seen in 5.4% of patients, and there were no grade 4/5 TRAEs. The rate of grade 3 treatment-emergent (TEAEs) regardless of cause was 23.2%. The median time for pIL-12-EP treatment was 10 minutes (range 2,46). Consistent with prior studies of single-agent pIL-12-EP, tumor IHC, and transcriptomic assessments revealed hallmarks of antigen-specific antitumor immunity in this study. Additional analyses including microbiome, TCR clonality, and peripheral blood biomarker assays will be presented. Conclusions In this rigorously defined PD-1 antibody refractory patient population, the addition of pIL-12-EP to PD-1 antibody therapy induced deep, durable, systemic response in local treated and distant visceral metastatic untreated lesions with nominal systemic toxicity. Trial Registration Trial Registration: NCT#03132675 Ethics Approval The study was approved by a central IRB and/or local institutional IRBs/Ethics Committees as required for each participating institution. Consent Written informed consent was obtained from the patients participating within the trial, the current abstract does not contain sensitive or identifiable information requiring an additional consent from patients. References Algazi A, Bhatia S, Agarwala S, et al. Intratumoral delivery of tavokinogene telseplasmid yields systemic immune responses in metastatic melanoma patients. Annals of Oncology 2019;31:532–540. Algazi A, Twitty C, Tsai K, et al. Phase II trial for IL-12 plasmid transfection and PD-1 blockade in immunologically quiescent melanoma. Clinical Cancer Research 2020;26:2827-2837.

Introduction Anti-PD-1 antibodies are commonly used as frontline therapy for patients with metastatic melanoma. Although these medications can cause long term responses, a significant number of patients will not respond or will lose response. Optimal second-line therapy after losing response to anti-PD-1 antibodies is not well established. Therefore, we retrospectively compared the overall survival of patients who lost response to anti-PD1 antibodies between patients treated with single agent ipilimumab or ipilimumab and nivolumab. Methods A de-identified U.S. nationwide electronic health record-derived database was reviewed for patients with advanced melanoma treated with single agent anti-PD1 antibodies in the frontline setting and who subsequently received second-line ipilimumab or combination ipilimumab and nivolumab. Overall survival from initiation of second-line therapy was compared using Kaplan Meier curves and log-rank analysis. Other known prognostic markers for melanoma were analyzed for correlation with survival in a similar fashion. Disease characteristics between the two groups were compared using chi-square analysis. Results A total of 842 patients with advanced melanoma who received frontline anti-PD-1 antibodies were included for analysis. Of these, 57 received either ipilimumab ( n = 22) or ipilimumab in combination with nivolumab ( n = 35) in the second-line setting. Median survival from second-line therapy initiation for those treated with ipilimumab alone was 6 months and was 5.6 months for those treated with combination ipilimumab and anti-PD-1 antibodies, p = 0.81. Conclusions In this small, retrospective analysis, for patients who lost response to frontline anti-PD-1 therapy, patients treated with ipilimumab had similar survival to those who received ipilimumab in combination with anti-PD-1 antibodies.

Background Anti-PD-1 antibodies have changed the treatment landscape for patients with metastatic melanoma. Two of these antibodies, pembrolizumab (P) and nivolumab (N), are currently FDA approved in the frontline setting for these patients. The efficacy of these drugs has not been directly compared; thus we aimed to compare the overall survival for patients with metastatic melanoma treated with either front line P or N in routine clinical practice. Methods This study included patients with advanced melanoma treated with frontline P or N using the U.S. nationwide Flatiron Health electronic health record (EHR)-derived database. Overall survival (OS) from the start of frontline therapy was estimated for each treatment group using Kaplan-Meier curves with a log-rank test. OS comparative-effectiveness was estimated using a propensity score-matched Cox regression model to reduce bias for pairs of P (n = 371) and N treated subjects (n = 371). Propensity scores were generated using age, gender, ECOG, LDH (elevated or not), BRAF (mutated or not), KIT (mutated or not), NRAS (mutated or not), PD-L1 expression (0% or greater), BMI and primary site. Results From a total of 7650 melanoma patients, 888 had advanced disease treated with frontline P (n = 486) or N (n = 402). 58% of N treated patients received flat 240 mg q2 week dosing and 38% of P treated patients received flat 200 mg q3 week dosing. Median OS for patients treated with P was 22.6 months(m) and was 23.9 m for those treated with N (p = 0.91). In the propensity score matched analysis (n = 742), there was no difference in survival between patients treated with P or N (HR 1.10; 95% CI 0.87-1.39). Conclusions In our retrospective real world analysis of patients with advanced melanoma, no statistical difference in OS was noted between patients treated with frontline P compared to N. This supports the current practice of choosing either P or N based on patient and provider preference. Legal entity responsible for the study Huntsman Cancer Institute. Funding Has not received any funding. Disclosure K.F. Grossmann: Advisory / Consultancy: Array BioPharma; Advisory / Consultancy: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Advisory / Consultancy: Genentech; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Castle Biosciences. S. Patel: Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

BACKGROUND: Survival data are mixed comparing patients with multiple primary melanomas (MPM) to those with single primary melanomas (SPM). OBJECTIVES: We compared MPM versus SPM patient survival using a matching method that avoids potential biases associated with other analytic approaches. METHODS: Records of 14,138 individuals obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry of all melanomas diagnosed or treated in Utah between 1973 and 2011 were reviewed. A single matched control patient was selected randomly from the SPM cohort for each MPM patient, with the restriction that they survived at least as long as the interval between the first and second diagnoses for the matched MPM patient. RESULTS: Survival curves (n = 887 for both MPM and SPM groups) without covariates showed a significant survival disadvantage for MPM patients (chi-squared 39.29, P < .001). However, a multivariate Coxproportional hazards model showed no significant survival difference (hazard ratio 1.07, P = .55). Restricting the multivariate analysis to invasive melanomas also showed no significant survival difference (hazard ratio 0.99, P = .96). LIMITATIONS: Breslow depth, ulceration status, and specific cause of death were not available for all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with MPM had similar survival times as patients with SPM. (J Am Acad Dermatol 2018;79:238–44.)

BackgroundMost patients with advanced melanomas relapse after checkpoint blockade therapy. Thus, immunotherapies are needed that can be applied safely early, in the adjuvant setting. Seviprotimut-L is a vaccine containing human melanoma antigens, plus alum. To assess the efficacy of seviprotimut-L, the Melanoma Antigen Vaccine Immunotherapy Study (MAVIS) was initiated as a three-part multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial. Results from part B1 are reported here.MethodsPatients with AJCC V.7 stage IIB-III cutaneous melanoma after resection were randomized 2:1, with stage stratification (IIB/C, IIIA, IIIB/C), to seviprotimut-L 40 mcg or placebo. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) was the primary endpoint. For an hypothesized HR of 0.625, one-sided alpha of 0.10, and power 80%, target enrollment was 325 patients.ResultsFor randomized patients (n=347), arms were well-balanced, and treatment-emergent adverse events were similar for seviprotimut-L and placebo. For the primary intent-to-treat endpoint of RFS, the estimated HR was 0.881 (95% CI: 0.629 to 1.233), with stratified logrank p=0.46. However, estimated HRs were not uniform over the stage randomized strata, with HRs (95% CIs) for stages IIB/IIC, IIIA, IIIB/IIIC of 0.67 (95% CI: 0.37 to 1.19), 0.72 (95% CI: 0.35 to 1.50), and 1.19 (95% CI: 0.72 to 1.97), respectively. In the stage IIB/IIC stratum, the effect on RFS was greatest for patients ConclusionsSeviprotimut-L is very well tolerated. Exploratory efficacy model estimation supports further study in stage IIB/IIC patients, especially younger patients and those with ulcerated melanomas.Trial registration numberNCT01546571.

9548 Background: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase IIb trial of the tumor lysate, particle loaded, dendritic cell (TLPLDC) vaccine was conducted to prevent recurrence in patients (pts) with resected stage III/IV melanoma. Two methods for dendritic cell (DC) harvest were used for vaccine production, including no pretreatment or pretreatment with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) in an attempt to reduce blood draw volumes. This analysis investigates differences in clinical outcomes and RNA gene expression between these DC harvest methods for TLPLDC vaccine creation. Methods: The TLPLDC vaccine is created by loading autologous tumor lysate into yeast cell wall particles (YCWPs) and exposing them to phagocytosis by DCs. By investigator/pt choice, pts had 120mL of blood drawn for DC harvest, or pts received 300μg of G-CSF for pre-DC mobilization and a 50-70 mL blood draw 24-48 hours later. Total vaccine production time was 72 hrs. Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive TLPLDC or placebo (DCs exposed to empty YCWPs). 1-1.5 x10^6 cells/dose were injected intradermally at 0, 1, 2, 6, 12, and 18 months. Differences in disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated by Kaplan Meier analysis between pts who did not receive pretreatment (TLPLDC), pts who did receive pretreatment with G-CSF (TLPLDC+G), and pts receiving placebo. RNA-seq analysis was performed on the total RNA of pts’ prepared TLPLDC vaccines to assess gene expression. Relative RNA expression (RRE) was compared between TLPLDC and TLPLDC+G. Results: As previously reported, 144 pts were randomized: 103 received TLPLDC (46 TLPLDC, 57 TLPLDC+G) and 41 received placebo. There were no significant clinicopathologic or treatment differences between the three treatment arms. Survival was significantly improved in TLPLDC compared to TLPLDC+G or placebo, including 36-month OS (92.9% vs 62.8% vs 72.3% respectively, p = 0.022) and DFS (51.8% vs 23.4% vs 27.1%, p = 0.027). When compared to TLPLDC+G (n = 3) vaccine, RNA-seq from TLPLDC vaccine (n = 3) showed upregulation of genes associated with DC maturation, including HLA-DMB (RRE: 3.60), IFIT1 (3.38), CD27 (3.26), IFI44L (3.24), MX1 (2.96), HLA-DQA1 (2.67), HLA-DRA (2.40), CD49D (2.34) and CD74 (2.09), while downregulated genes were associated with DC suppression or immaturity including SERPINA1 (RRE:7.8), TLR2 (6.65), CCR1 (5.11), IL10 (4.19), CD93 (3.84) and CD14 (3.25). Conclusions: Pts receiving TLPLDC vaccine had significantly improved OS and DFS, while outcomes remained similar between those who received TLPLDC+G vs placebo. Pts who did not receive G-CSF had higher expression of genes linked to DC maturation and antigen processing and presentation, likely explaining the improvement in clinical efficacy. A phase III trial to further assess the TLPLDC vaccine to prevent recurrence is planned. Clinical trial information: NCT02301611.

Surgical management of external ear melanoma presents unique technical challenges based on the unique anatomy and reconstruction concerns. Surgical technique, including preservation of cartilage, is variable and impact on recurrence is unclear. Our goal was to investigate surgical approach, including extent of surgical resection and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), and the impact on recurrence. In this retrospective review of primary clinical stage 1/2 external ear melanoma, demographics, tumor characteristics, surgical resection technique (including cartilage-sparing vs. cartilage removal), and SLNB results were evaluated for recurrence risk. One hundred and fifty-six patients total had an average follow-up of 5.6 years. Twenty-nine (18.6%) patients underwent cartilage-sparing surgery and 99 (63.5%) patients underwent SLNB, 14.1% of whom had micrometastatic disease. Ten (6.4%) patients recurred loco-regionally. Recurrence was associated with Breslow depth, initial stage at diagnosis, and SLNB status. Cartilage-sparing surgery was not associated with increased recurrence. Sentinel lymph node identification rate was 100% based on clinical detection with use of lymphoscintigraphy. In addition to confirming established risk factors for melanoma recurrence, we confirm the feasibility of SLNB in stratifying recurrence risk. Although we did not see an increased recurrence risk with surgical technique and cartilage-sparing approaches, these findings are limited by small sample size.

10017 Background: Seviprotimut-L is a vaccine prepared from antigens of 3 human melanoma cell lines, administered with alum. Prior formulations induced T cell and antibody responses and improved survival in a small phase II clinical trial. Part B1 of MAVIS (Melanoma Antigen Vaccine Immunotherapy Study, a three part, Phase III clinical program), was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess efficacy of seviprotimut-L, with the primary endpoint of relapse-free survival (RFS). The goal of Part B1 was to guide design of the pivotal Part B2. Methods: Patients with AJCC v7 stage IIB-III cutaneous melanoma, after surgical resection, age 18-75, ECOG PS 0-1, were randomized 2:1 to seviprotimut-L 40 mcg or placebo, injected subcutaneously every 2 weeks x 5, then monthly x 4, then every 3 months x 9. Patients were stratified by stage (IIB/C, IIIA, IIIB/C). Target enrollment was 325. The study was powered for assessment of RFS, with target hazard ratio (HR) of 0.625, one-sided alpha of 0.10, and power 80%. Final data are presented. Results: 347 patients were randomized. Arms were well-balanced. Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) led to discontinuation in 0.4% and 0%, respectively, for vaccine and placebo arms. There were no treatment-related SAEs. By intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis, RFS was not significantly longer for seviprotimut-L in the full study population but trended toward benefit (HR 0.88). Subgroup analysis based on planned stratification revealed the hazard ratio (HR) for the Stage IIB/IIC subset (randomization stratum, n=111) to be 0.65 (95% CI [0.37, 1.17]), favoring seviprotimut-L. Age can decrease immune competence: RFS was longer with vaccine for patients age

63 Background: A novel vaccine strategy may prevent recurrence in high-risk melanoma patients (pts). The TLPLDC vaccine uses yeast cell wall particles (YCWP) to load tumor lysate into autologous dendritic cells (DC). In this phase IIb trial of TLPLDC vs. placebo in resected stage III/IV pts, TLPLDC increased 24 month (mo) disease free survival (DFS) in the per treatment (PT) population. Here, we present a 24mo DFS subgroup analysis and estimated overall 36mo DFS. Methods: Disease-free pts were randomized 2:1 to the TLPLDC vaccine vs. unloaded YCWP+DC at 0, 1, 2, 6, 12, and 18mo. The protocol was amended to allow concurrent adjuvant checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) therapy once approved. The pre-specified PT population included only pts completing the primary vaccine/placebo series (PVS) at 6 mo. Kaplan-Meier estimates of DFS were used to compare treatment arms by stage (III or IV) and CPI therapy (yes/no) in the ITT and PT populations. Results: 144 pts were randomized (103 TLPLDC, 41 placebo); 98 pts (66 TLPLDC, 32 placebo) completed the PVS. There were no clinicopathologic differences between treatment groups. There was no difference in 24mo DFS in stage III pts (n = 112), but in stage IV pts (n = 32), the 24mo DFS was 44% vs 0% (TLPLDC vs placebo) (p = 0.41) in ITT and 73.3% vs. 0% (HR 0.14, p = 0.002) in PT. Stage IV pts were more likely to receive CPI than stage III pts (50% vs. 30%, p = 0.003). There was no difference in 24mo DFS for pts who did not receive CPI (n = 102), but in pts who received CPI (n = 42), the 24mo DFS was 49.3% vs. 31.3% (p = 0.71) in ITT and 68.8% vs. 41.7% (HR 0.46, p = 0.28) in PT, showing a trend toward improved DFS in pts who completed the PVS and received CPI (n = 31). Overall, the 36mo estimated DFS was 34.2% vs. 21.6% (p = 0.89) for ITT and 56.9% vs. 27.9% (p = 0.021) for PT. Conclusions: The TLPLDC vaccine improved DFS in patients completing the PVS at 24 and 36 mos, particularly in the resected stage IV subset. The apparent synergistic effect with TLPLDC + CPI will be confirmed in a phase III study evaluating adjuvant TLPLDC + CPI vs. CPI alone in resected stage IV melanoma pts. Clinical trial information: NCT02301611.

Pelvic sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) are commonly identified during inguinal SLN biopsy for melanoma, but retrieval is not uniform among surgeons/centers. Few studies have assessed rates of micrometastases in pelvic versus superficial inguinal SLNs. Previous studies suggested that presence of pelvic SLNs was predicted by aggressive pathologic features and that their presence portended a worse prognosis. The objectives of this study were to examine presurgical predictors of pelvic SLNs among patients undergoing inguinal SLN biopsy, assess rates of micrometastases in superficial inguinal versus pelvic SLNs, and determine whether presence of pelvic SLNs was associated with long-term outcomes. Multivariable regression was used to assess presurgical factors associated with presence of pelvic SLNs. Rates of micrometastases in superficial inguinal versus pelvic SLNs in patients who had a pelvic SLN were compared with McNemar's test. Groin recurrence, disease-free survival (DFS), and disease-specific survival were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier method. A multivariable Cox model for DFS was performed. Pelvic SLNs were retrieved in 100/537 (18.6%) superficial inguinal SLN biopsies and no preoperative factors predicted their presence. In patients with a pelvic SLN, micrometastases were present in 3.0% of pelvic versus 34.0% of superficial inguinal SLN biopsies (P0.001). There were no differences in groin recurrence, DFS, and disease-specific survival for patients with/without pelvic SLNs in univariate analyses (all P0.2) or in the multivariable Cox model for DFS (hazard ratio: 1.1, 95% confidence interval: 0.6-2.1). In conclusion, pelvic SLNs harbor micrometastases less frequently than superficial inguinal SLNs do, suggesting that omission of pelvic SLN biopsy may be reasonable.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Close observation may be an appropriate alternative to completion lymph node dissection (CLND) for selected patient populations, especially those with minimal tumor burden in the sentinel lymph node (SLN). In this study, we examined the practice patterns of CLND utilization. METHODS Using the National Cancer Database, we examined CLND utilization in SLN-positive patients diagnosed with clinically node-negative Stage III melanoma from 2012 to 2015. Hierarchical logistic regression models were constructed to assess the factors associated with observation after positive SLN biopsy (SLNB). RESULTS Of the 131 171 patients identified, 55 688 (42.5%) underwent SLNB and 7200 (12.9%) had an SLN with a metastatic disease. CLND was performed in 57.0% of the patients with a positive SLNB. Patients were more likely to forgo CLND if the primary tumor was located on the lower extremity (odds ratio [OR], 1.65, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.40-1.94), were older (P

Background Risk of recurrence and death remain high for pts with advanced melanoma after resection. TVEC, an intralesional immunotherapy for advanced melanoma, selectively replicates in tumors and enhances systemic antitumor immune response. We examined the impact of neo T-VEC in resectable metastatic melanoma. Methods Pts with resectable stage IIIB-IVM1a melanoma and ≥ 1 injectable cutaneous, subcutaneous or nodal lesions were randomized 1:1 to 6 doses/12 wks of neo T-VEC then surg (Arm 1) vs surg alone (Arm 2). T-VEC was given until surg, no remaining injectable tumors or intolerance. The primary endpoint per protocol was recurrence-free survival (RFS) at 2-yrs, with events defined as first of local, regional or distant recurrence or death due to any cause after surg in the ITT set. Per protocol, pts who withdrew prior to surg or had a non-R0 resection were counted as an RFS event at randomization. An additional sensitivity analysis that did not count non-R0 events at baseline per conventional RFS calculation was also conducted. Results Demographics, tx status and safety for the 150 pts analyzed has been reported (Dummer et al., ASCO 2019). Median follow-up (range) was 31.2 (0.1, 49.9) mos. Per protocol, 29.5% of pts in Arm 1 and 16.5% of pts in Arm 2 remained recurrence free at 2 yrs (HR 0.75, P = 0.07). 50.5% of pts in Arm 1 and 30.2% of pts in Arm 2 (HR 0.66, P = 0.038) remained recurrence free at 2 yrs in the additional sensitivity analysis. 2-yr overall survival (OS) rates were 88.9% in Arm 1 and 77.4% in Arm 2 (overall HR 0.49, P = 0.050). In Arm 1, T-VEC resulted in a 3x increase in intratumoral CD8+ cell density (P Conclusions In the largest randomized trial of neo tx in resectable stage IIIB-IVM1a melanoma, neo T-VEC improved 2-yr RFS and OS. T-cell influx and PD-L1 upregulation after T-VEC tx support a role for the adaptive immune system consistent with the mechanisms of action. Clinical trial identification NCT02211131, release date: August 7, 2014; EudraCT: 2014-001146-13. Editorial acknowledgement Medical writing support was provided by Sarah K Madsen (Amgen Inc.). Legal entity responsible for the study Amgen Inc. Funding Amgen Inc. Disclosure R. Dummer: Advisory / Consultancy, Intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationship outside the submitted work: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy, Intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationship outside the submitted work: Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD); Advisory / Consultancy, Intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationship outside the submitted work.: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy, Intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationship outside the submitted work: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy, Intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationship outside the submitted work: Amgen Inc; Advisory / Consultancy, Intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationship outside the submitted work: Takeda; Advisory / Consultancy, Intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationship outside the submitted work.: Pierre Fabre; Advisory / Consultancy, Intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationship outside the submitted work: Sun Pharma; Advisory / Consultancy, Intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationship outside the submitted work: Sanofi; Advisory / Consultancy, Intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationship outside the submitted work: Catalym. D.E. Gyorki: Honoraria (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Amgen Inc.. J. Hyngstrom: Advisory / Consultancy, Reviews of general surgery research articles every 2 months for Practical Reviews of General Surgery: Ebix. A. Berger: Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Cardinal Health; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Castle Biosciences. R. Conry: Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Merck; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Amgen Inc.; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Novartis; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Array; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Regeneron-Sanofi. L. Demidov: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (self): Novartis; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Merck Sharp & Dohme; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Roche. A. Sharma: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Amgen Inc.. S.A. Treichel: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Amgen Inc.. K. Gorski: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Amgen Inc.. A. Anderson: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Amgen Inc.. M. Faries: Advisory / Consultancy: Delcath Systems Inc.; Advisory / Consultancy: Pulse Bioscience; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis. M.I. Ross: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Amgen Inc.; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Merck; Research grant / Funding (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Provectus; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Castle Biosciences; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Novartis.

Melanoma metastasis to the brain is associated with a poor prognosis. We sought to determine patient demographics and primary tumor factors associated with the development of brain metastasis (BM) and survival. We also investigated whether the BM detection setting (routine screening vs. symptomatic presentation) affected clinical outcomes. A database of melanoma patients seen from 1999 to 2015 at our institution was reviewed to identify patients who developed BM. Patients with BM were matched by initial stage with patients who did not develop BM as a control group. Patient demographics, primary tumor characteristics, and clinical outcomes were analyzed. A total of 123 patients with BM were matched by initial presenting stage to 237 patients without BM. The characteristics of the primary melanoma tumor associated with BM development included location on the scalp (P=0.030), nodular histologic type (P=0.020), and Breslow depth more than 4 mm (P=0.048), whereas location on the leg was associated with decreased BM risk (P=0.006). In patients with BM, time to first recurrence for melanomas of the scalp was significantly shorter (10.8 vs. 24.8 months, P=0.007) than nonscalp head and neck tumors. Patient stage, tumor depth, nodular type, and ulceration were also associated with worse clinical outcomes. There were no differences in the clinical outcomes between patients whose BM were detected upon routine screening versus those detected upon symptomatic presentation. In summary, factors predictive of development of BM included primary scalp location, nodular type, and depth. In BM patients, scalp location, stage, tumor depth, nodular type, and ulceration, but not detection setting, were associated with worse clinical outcomes.

Background We evaluated the role of intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) during radical resection of locally advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods We retrospectively evaluated all patients with CRC treated with IORT at our institution from 2001 to 2010. IORT was delivered using high-dose-rate brachytherapy (median 12.5-Gy). We analyzed factors associated with postoperative morbidity, local control (LC), and overall survival (OS). Results One hundred patients were evaluated with 70% received IORT for recurrent tumors. R0 resection rate was 58%. Postoperative Grade ≥3 complications (33%) were independently associated with transfusions ≥3 units packed red blood cells (P = 0.016) and body mass index (BMI) ≥35 (P = 0.0499). Eighty-two patients underwent external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) before IORT. Five-year LC was 94%, for primary and 56%, for recurrent tumors, respectively (P = 0.007). Microscopic positive (R1) margins were not associated with LC (P = 0.316). BMI ≥30 (P = 0.048) and post-discharge complications (P = 0.041) were independent risk factors for worse LC. Median post-IORT OS was 67.7 (95% CI 51.1–84.3) months for all patients. Conclusion For patients with primary or recurrent locally advanced CRC, treatment with radical surgery and IORT achieved excellent LC outcomes irrespective of microscopic margin status. IORT may be indicated for tumors suspected to have close or positive microscopic margins. J. Surg. Oncol 2014; 109:652–658. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

9520 Background: We previously reported that neo T-VEC + surgx resulted in a pathologic CR rate of 21% and an OR rate of 14.7% in a randomized trial of neo T-VEC + surgx vs upfront surgx in pts with resectable stage IIIB/C/IVM1a MEL (Andtbacka et al, ASCO 2018; NCT02211131). Here, we present results from an interim 1-yr analysis of RFS. Methods: Patients (pts) with resectable stage IIIB/C/IVM1a MEL, ≥ 1 injectable cutaneous, subcutaneous, or nodal lesions ≥ 10 mm, and no systemic tx 3 mos prior were randomized 1:1 to 6 doses/12 wks of T-VEC followed by surgx during wks 13-18 (Arm 1) vs upfront surgx during wks 1-6 (Arm 2). T-VEC was given at standard dosing until surgx, no injectable tumors, or intolerance. This analysis conducted on the ITT set estimated a between-group difference in 1-yr RFS per protocol. An RFS event was defined as the first of local, regional or distant recurrence or death due to any cause after surgx. Pts without a R0 surgical outcome or withdrew prior to surgx were considered an event at randomization for RFS. In a sensitivity analysis, RFS was calculated from randomization to the date of the first post-surgx event regardless of surgical outcome. Results: 150 pts were randomized (76 Arm 1, 74 Arm 2). Median (range) follow-up time was 20.6 (0.1, 38.5) mos in Arm 1 and 20.0 (0.1, 35.3) mos in Arm 2. 75% in Arm 1 and 93% in Arm 2 had surgx as planned. R0, R1, and R2 rates, respectively, for Arm 1 were 42.1%, 31.6%, and 1.3% and for Arm 2 were 37.8%, 51.4%, and 4.1%. At 1 yr, 33.5% of pts in Arm 1 and 21.9% of pts in Arm 2 remained recurrence free (HR 0.73, P= 0.048). From the sensitivity analysis, 55.8% of pts in Arm 1 and 39.3 % in Arm 2 remain recurrence free at 1 yr (HR 0.63, P= 0.024). OS rates at 1 yr were 95.9% in Arm 1 and 85.8% in Arm 2 (HR 0.47, P= 0.076). Pts receiving subsequent adjuvant tx was 8 (11%) in Arm 1 and 20 (29%) in Arm 2- most common was immunotherapy 6 (8.2%) and 8 (11.6%), respectively. Conclusions: In the largest randomized neo trial to date in resectable stage IIIB-IVM1a MEL, the following outcomes were improved with neo T-VEC monotherapy vs surgx: R0 surgical resections, 1-yr RFS, and OS. Primary analysis of RFS at 2 yrs is expected. Clinical trial information: NCT02211131.

We aimed to prospectively assess limb volume change (LVC) and associated symptoms in patients with melanoma undergoing sentinel lymph node biopsy and/or therapeutic lymph node dissection. Limb volume was measured preoperatively and postoperatively at 6 and 12 months using a perometer (1000 mol/l). LVC was calculated and used to define three groups: less than 5%, 5-10%, and greater than 10%. A 19-item lymphedema symptom questionnaire was administered at baseline, 6, and 12 months. One hundred and eighty-two patients were enrolled. Twelve months after axillary surgery, 9% had LVC 5-10% and 13% had LVC greater than 10%. Twelve months after inguinofemoral surgery, 10% had LVC 5-10% and 13% had LVC greater than 10%. There was a significant seven- to nine-fold increase in symptoms for patients with LVC greater than 10% compared with those with LVC less than 5% (P

We evaluated clinical features and survival outcomes among patients with signet ring and mucinous histologies of colorectal adenocarcinoma by using data from the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB). Patients aged 18–90 years with colorectal adenocarcinoma diagnosed between 1998 and 2002 were identified from the NCDB. Site-stratified (colon vs. rectum) survival analysis was performed by multivariate relative survival adjusted for multiple clinicopathologic and treatment variables. The study included 244,794 patients: 25,546 (10%) with mucinous, 2,260 (1%) with signet ring, and 216,988 (89%) with nonmucinous, non–signet ring adenocarcinoma. Mucinous and signet ring cancers were more frequently right-sided (60% and 62%, respectively) than were nonmucinous, non–signet ring adenocarcinomas (42%, P

Patients with locally advanced esophageal carcinoma have consistently poor survival following surgery with associated high systemic and local-regional failure rates. Neoadjuvant therapeutic strategies have been employed in an attempt to improve outcome with variable success. Randomized trials of either neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy have shown conflicting results regarding survival and local-regional control. Future efforts should focus on identifying novel agents and targets to improve therapeutic efficacy.

3018 Background: Intratumoral (IT) IL-2 is highly effective and well tolerated, but does not generate systemic immunity or response in untreated lesions. Intravenous (IV) ipilimumab (Ipi) lowers th...

575 Background: Microsatellite instability (MSI) testing in colorectal cancer (CRC) provides prognosis, predicts chemotherapy response, and guides diagnosis of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) syndrome. MSI can be sporadic or hereditary, arising from somatic or germline mutations in DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes respectively. The clinical implications of these distinct mechanisms are uncertain. Methods: Patients who underwent MSI testing for CRC between 2000 and 2011 were identified. MSI-high (MSH) CRCs were defined by: pathogenic mutation in MMR genes; >30% of markers with allelic shift in PCR-based MSI testing; or loss of expression in at least 1 MMR protein on immunohistochemistry. The subset with MLH1 gene promoter methylation, BRAF mutation, or EPCAM mutation was considered sporadic. Clinicopathologic features and disease-free survival (DFS) were examined in reference to microsatellite stable (MSS) CRCs. Results: MSH CRC’s, 92 germline and 49 sporadic, were compared with 105 MSS CRCs. Compared to MSS CRCs, both germline and sporadic MSH CRCs more commonly arose in the proximal colon (63% and 92%, vs. 30%; p Conclusions: Patients with sporadic MSH CRCs exhibit distinct clinicopathologic features compared to those with germline MSH tumors. Despite poor prognostic features, no apparent survival difference was observed. Further characterization of these distinct groups is warranted to explain the discordance between risk factors and outcomes.