Search

Few clinical trials address efficacy of adjuvant systemic treatment in patients with in-transit melanoma (ITM). This study describes adjuvant systemic therapy of ITM patients beyond clinical trials. In this study, we included stage III adjuvant-treated melanoma patients registered in the nationwide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry between July 2018 and December 2020. Patients were divided into three groups: nodal disease only, ITM only and ITM and nodal disease. Recurrence patterns, recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) at 12-months were analyzed. In our study population of 1037 patients, 66.8% had nodal disease only, 16.7% had ITM only and 16.2% had ITM with nodal disease. RFS at 12-months was comparable in the nodal only and ITM only group (72.2% vs70.1%, P = .97) but lower in ITM and nodal disease patients (57.8%; P = .01, P < .01). Locoregional metastases occurred as first recurrence in 38.9% nodal disease only, 71.9% of ITM-only and 44.0% of ITM and nodal disease patients. Distant recurrences occurred in 42.3%, 18.8% and 36.0%, respectively (P = .02). 12-months OS was not significantly different for nodal disease only patients compared with ITM-only (94.4% vs 97.6%, P = .06) but was significantly higher for ITM-only compared with ITM and nodal disease patients (97.6% vs 91.0%, P < .01). In conclusion, we showed that in the adjuvant setting, RFS rates in ITM-only patients are similar to non-ITM, though better than in ITM and nodal disease patients. Adjuvant-treated ITM-only patients less often experience distant recurrences and have a superior OS compared with ITM and nodal disease patients., (© 2023 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

Background: Recent reports suggest the limited efficacy of immune checkpoints inhibitors in advanced acral melanoma (AM). This study aims to investigate the clinical outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with stage III and IV AM and compare them to cutaneous melanoma (CM)., Methods: We included patients with advanced AM and CM treated with first-line anti-programmed cell death (PD)-1 monotherapy or ipilimumab-nivolumab registered in the prospective nationwide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Objective response rates, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated. A Cox proportional hazard model was used to assess the prognostic factors with PFS and OS., Results: In total, 2058 patients (88 AM and 1970 CM) with advanced melanoma were included. First-line objective response rates were 34% for AM versus 54% for CM in the advanced anti-PD-1 cohort and 33% for AM versus 53% for CM in the advanced ipilimumab-nivolumab cohort. The Median PFS was significantly shorter for anti-PD-1 treated AM patients (3.1 months; 95%CI: 2.8-5.6) than patients with CM (10.1 months; 95%CI: 8.5-12.2) (P < 0.001). In patients with advanced melanoma, AM was significantly associated with a higher risk of progression (HRadj 1.63; 95%CI: 1.26-2.11; P < 0.001) and death (HRadj 1.54; 95%CI: 1.15-2.06; P = 0.004) than CM., Conclusions: This study shows lower effectiveness of anti-PD -1 monotherapy and ipilimumab-nivolumab in AM, with lower response rates, PFS and OS than CM. This group of patients should be prioritised in the development of alternative treatment strategies., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential 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, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Idera and TEVA and has received travel expenses from MSD Oncology, Roche, Pfizer and Sanofi and has received speaker honoraria from BMS and Novartis. JH has advisory relationships with Achilles Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, BioNTech, Immunocore, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Ipsen, MSD, Merck Serono, Molecular Partners, Novartis, Neogene Therapeutics, Pfizer, PokeAcel, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Third Rock Ventures, T-Knife and has received research grants not related to this paper from Asher Bio, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, BioNTech, Neogene Therapeutics and Novartis. All grants were paid to the institutions. CB has received commercial research grants from Novartis, BristolMyers Squibb, and NanoString; is a paid advisory board member for Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Lilly, GenMab, and Pierre Fabre; and holds ownership interest in Uniti Cars, Neon Therapeutics, and Forty Seven. MA has advisory board/consultancy honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD-Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Astellas, Bayer. Research grants Merck-Pfizer. Not related to current work and paid to institute. JdG has consultancy/advisory relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Servier, MSD, Novartis. GH consultancy/advisory relationships with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, MSD, Pfizer, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and has received research grants not related to this paper from Bristol Myers Squibb, Seerave and were paid to the institution. EK has consultancy/advisory relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck, Pierre Fabre, Lilly and Bayer, and received research grants not related to this paper from Bristol Myers Squibb. RvR has advisory board/consultancy honoraria from Pfizer and an expert meeting fee from Roche. AvdV has consultancy relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Sanofi, Ipsen, Eisai, Merck. MBS has consultancy/advisory relationships with Pierre Fabre, MSD and Novartis. KS has advisory relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD, Pierre Fabre, AbbVie and received honoraria from Novartis, MSD and Roche. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)