Search

The link between palliative care and oncology must continue to develop, taking into account advances in treatment.Immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) for metastatic melanoma is associated with different types of response, making it difficult to assess the benefits to the patient. Some clinical trials suggest a survival advantage of ICI even in the absence of an objective radiographic response. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of continuing ICI after progression of the disease on the overall survival (OS) in a cohort of final-line metastatic melanoma patients. Clinical data from 120 patients with metastatic melanoma were collected via Melbase, a French multicentric biobank, prospectively enrolling unresectable melanoma. Two groups were defined: patients continuing final-line ICI at progression (treated) and patients stopping ICI at progression (controls). The primary end-point is the OS from progression. Propensity score weighting was used to correct for indication bias. From the 120 patients, 72 (60%) continued ICI. Median OS from progression was 4.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.6-6.27] in the treated group and median OS was 1.3 months (95% CI 0.95-1.74) in the control group ( P  < 0.0001). The calculated hazard ratio was 0.20 (0.13-0.33). Continued ICI was discovered to have an association with a higher rate of hospitalization at the end of life; more treatments received in the last 15 days of life and less utilization of specialist palliative care. This study discovered that patients with metastatic melanoma show a significant decrease in the instantaneous probability of mortality when they continue with finale-line ICI after progression., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: In the phase 2 EMPOWER-CSCC-1 study (NCT02760498), cemiplimab demonstrated antitumor activity against metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (mCSCC) and locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (laCSCC)., Objectives: To report final analysis of weight-based cemiplimab in mCSCC and laCSCC (groups 1 and 2), fixed-dose cemiplimab in mCSCC (group 3), and primary analysis of fixed-dose cemiplimab in mCSCC/laCSCC (group 6)., Methods: Patients received cemiplimab (3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks [groups 1 and 2]) or cemiplimab (350 mg intravenously [groups 3 and 6]) every 3 weeks. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR). Duration of response (DOR) and progression-free survival (PFS) are presented per protocol, according to post-hoc sensitivity analyses that only include the period of protocol-mandated imaging assessments., Results: At 42.5 months, ORR for groups 1-3 (n = 193) was 47.2%, estimated 12-month DOR was 88.3%, and median PFS was 26.0 months. At 8.7 months, ORR for group 6 (n = 165 patients) was 44.8%; median DOR and median PFS were not reached. Serious treatment-emergent adverse event rates (grade ≥3) were groups 1-3: 31.1% and group 6: 34.5%., Limitations: Nonrandomized study, nonsurvival primary end point., Conclusion: EMPOWER-CSCC-1 provides the largest prospective data on long-term efficacy and safety for anti-programmed cell death-1 therapy in advanced CSCC., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest Dr Hughes reports consulting/advisory roles at AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, and Roche; and institutional research funding from Amgen. Dr Guminski reports personal fees and advisory board and travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sun Pharma; advisory board fees from Eisai, Merck KGaA, and Pfizer; travel support from Astellas; and clinical trial unit support from PPD Australia. Dr Bowyer reports advisory board roles for Eli Lilly Australia, Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Sanofi; virtual meeting sponsorship from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merck Sharp & Dohme Australia; and travel support from Merck Sharp & Dohme and AstraZeneca. Michael Migden reports honoraria and travel expenses from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sanofi; consulting fees from Feldan Therapeutics, Replimune, Stamford Pharma, and Sun Pharma; and institutional research funding from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Replimune. Dr Schmults reports steering committee membership for Castle Biosciences; steering committee membership and consultancy for Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; consultancy for Sanofi; research funding from Castle Biosciences, Genentech, Merck, Novartis, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and serving as a chair for the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Dr Khushalani reports grants and advisory board fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; advisory board fees from AstraZeneca (data safety monitoring committee), Castle Biosciences, Incyte (data safety monitoring committee), Instil Bio, Iovance, Jounce Therapeutics, Nektar, and Replimune; grants from Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, HUYA, Modulation Therapeutics, and Replimune; honoraria from Genzyme, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (grant funding from general research support through Pfizer), and Nektar (study steering committee); common stock ownership of Amarin, Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, and Transenetrix; study steering committee membership for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Replimune; and travel support from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Dr Chang reports consulting and advisory roles with Merck, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; research funding from Galderma, Merck, Novartis, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and consultancy for Castle Biosciences and Feldan. Dr Grob reports serving on an advisory board for Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Pfizer, Philogen, Roche, and Sanofi; and an advisory role for Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr Lewis reports employment, stock, and other ownership interests at Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. At the time of this study, Dr Lewis was affiliated with the University of Colorado Denver Cancer Center and is now an employee of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Dr Day reports serving on an advisory board for Amgen, travel support from Merck; and clinical trial support (investigational medical product provision, no financial support) from AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr Ladwa reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; consulting or advisory roles for AstraZeneca, and Roche; and travel, accommodation, and expenses from Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr Stein reports ownership of stocks/shares in Icon Group. Dr Muñoz Couselo reports serving on an advisory board for Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Sanofi; honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Roche; and clinical trial participation (principal investigator) for Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr Meier reports travel support, speaker’s fees, or advisor’s honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Sanofi; and research funding from Novartis and Roche. Dr Hauschild reports institutional grants, speaker’s honoraria, and consultancy fees from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Provectus, Roche, and Novartis; institutional grants and consultancy fees from Merck Serono, Philogen, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and consultancy fees from OncoSec. Dr Schadendorf reports honoraria from 4SC AG, Array BioPharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Immunocore, InflarxGmbH, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, NeraCare GmbH, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Philogen, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sandoz, Sanofi, Serono, Sun Pharma, Roche/Genentech, and Ultimovacs; advisory board and consulting fees from 4SC AG, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, and Nektar; speaker fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck KGaA, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sanofi; institutional research funding from Array BioPharma/Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Roche; and travel/accommodation expenses from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi. Dr Basset-Seguin reports serving as an invited speaker, advisory board member, and consultant for Galderma, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, and Sun Pharma. Dr Modi reports consulting/advisory board participation for Merck, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sanofi Genzyme; and speaker bureau participation for Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sanofi Genzyme. Dr Dalac-Rat reports honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Sun Pharma. Dr Dunn reports advisory board participation for Merck and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and research support from CUE-101, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Replimune Pharmaceuticals, and Seagen. Dr Flatz reports research funding from Hookipa Pharma; and advisory board fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Philogen, and Sanofi. Dr Mortier reports personal fees and nonfinancial support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Roche. Dr Guégan reports consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Pierre Fabre; and technical support for congress attendance from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Sanofi. Dr Heinzerling reports consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Highlight Therapeutics, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Sanofi; lecture fees from Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi; and travel grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, and Roche. Dr Mehnert reports advisory board fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Novartis, Pliant Therapeutics, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Seagen; and consultancy fees from Merck. Dr Soria-Rivas reports speaker’s honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Immunocore, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche Pharma, and Sanofi Aventis; and advisory board fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Immunocore, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sanofi Aventis. Dr Stratigos reports advisory board or steering committee roles for Janssen, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roche, and Sanofi; and research support from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genesis Pharma, LEO Pharma, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr Ulrich reports advisory board and speaker roles for Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roche, Sanofi, and Sun Pharma. Dr Wong reports grant funding to institution from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, F-Star Therapeutics, Genentech, Gilead, Kura Oncology, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and TopAlliance Biosciences, and consulting fees from Blueprint Medicines Corporation, Genzyme/Sanofi, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Dr Beylot-Barry reports institutional research funding from Roche and speaker honoraria from Sun Pharma. Dr Bossi reports advisory board or conference honoraria for Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sanofi-Regeneron, and Sun Pharma. Dr Bugés Sánchez reports personal fees from Amgen, Merck, Novartis, and Sanofi. Dr Chandra reports honoraria from Array BioPharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Exicure, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sanofi; consulting/advisory roles for Array BioPharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Exicure, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sanofi; and institutional research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Exicure, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sanofi. Dr Robert reports grants, personal fees, and advisory board roles for Amgen, Biothera, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, and Ultimovacs. Dr Silk reports institutional research grant and funding from Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Morphogenesis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Replimune, and Shattuck Laboratories; advisory board fees from Natera, Merck and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; consulting fees from Leerink, and royalties from UpToDate, Inc. Ms Booth and Drs, Yoo, Seebach, Lowy, and Fury report employment, stock, and other ownership interests at Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Dr Rischin reports institutional research grant and funding from ALX Oncology, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Kura Oncology, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roche, and Sanofi; and uncompensated scientific committee and advisory board roles for Eisai, Bicara, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sanofi. Drs Ansstas, Trabelsi, and Russell have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Mycosis fungoides (MF) usually has an indolent course. However, some patients develop more aggressive disease and few prognostic parameters have been identified. Isolated cases of pustular MF (pMF) suggest an unfavourable prognosis., Objectives: To describe the clinicopathological characteristics and prognostic value of pMF., Methods: We retrospectively collected data from all patients with MF with histological pustules diagnosed from 2009 to 2020. The outcomes and clinicopathological characteristics of pMF at diagnosis (pMFD) were compared with those of a cohort of patients with nonpustular MF (NpMF)., Results: Thirty-three patients with pMF (including 22 with pMFD) and 86 with NpMF were included. Median age at diagnosis of pMF was 61 years [interquartile range (IQR) 50-75]. The median duration of follow-up for patients with pMFD was 32 months (IQR 14-49). Clinically, 33% of patients with pMF had pustules. Large cell transformation (LCT) occurred in 17 patients. Patients with pMFD had significantly more advanced-stage disease and showed more LCT at diagnosis than those with NpMF [50% vs. 7% (P < 0.001) and 23% vs. 0% (P < 0.001), respectively]. On multivariate Cox analysis, the presence of histological pustules at diagnosis was associated with shorter overall survival (OS) in all patients [hazard ratio (HR) 13.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.40-79.00); P = 0.003] and in patients with early-stage disease (HR 11.09, 95% CI 1.56-78.82; P = 0.02). In multivariate Fine and Gray model analysis, pMFD was associated with a higher cumulative incidence of LCT (subdistribution HR 13.90, 95% CI 2.43-79.00; P = 0.003) in all patients. Median OS after the occurrence of histological pustules during follow-up in all patients with pMF was 37 months, with a 5-year OS rate of 25% (95% CI 0.06-0.50)., Conclusions: pMF often follows an aggressive course, with a high risk of LCT and shorter survival, even for patients with early-stage disease. Histological pustules at diagnosis of MF might represent an independent poor prognostic factor, to be confirmed by further studies. As pustules are not always identified clinically, pustules found on histology should be mentioned in MF pathology reports and should prompt discussion of closer follow-up., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The 5-year results of this trial showed that adjuvant therapy with dabrafenib plus trametinib resulted in longer relapse-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival than placebo among patients with BRAF V600-mutated stage III melanoma. Longer-term data were needed, including data regarding overall survival., Methods: We randomly assigned 870 patients with resected stage III melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations to receive 12 months of dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) plus trametinib (2 mg once daily) or two matched placebos. Here, we report the final results of this trial, including results for overall survival, melanoma-specific survival, relapse-free survival, and distant metastasis-free survival., Results: The median duration of follow-up was 8.33 years for dabrafenib plus trametinib and 6.87 years for placebo. Kaplan-Meier estimates for overall survival favored dabrafenib plus trametinib over placebo, although the benefit was not significant (hazard ratio for death, 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 to 1.01; P = 0.06 by stratified log-rank test). A consistent survival benefit was seen across several prespecified subgroups, including the 792 patients with melanoma with a BRAF V600E mutation (hazard ratio for death, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.96). Relapse-free survival favored dabrafenib plus trametinib over placebo (hazard ratio for relapse or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.63), as did distant metastasis-free survival (hazard ratio for distant metastasis or death, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.71). No new safety signals were reported, a finding consistent with previous trial reports., Conclusions: After nearly 10 years of follow-up, adjuvant therapy with dabrafenib plus trametinib was associated with better relapse-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival than placebo among patients with resected stage III melanoma. The analysis of overall survival showed that the risk of death was 20% lower with combination therapy than with placebo, but the benefit was not significant. Among patients with melanoma with a BRAF V600E mutation, the results suggest that the risk of death was 25% lower with combination therapy. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; COMBI-AD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01682083; EudraCT number, 2012-001266-15.)., (Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: The phase III KEYNOTE-913 study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab as first-line therapy in patients with advanced Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC)., Objective: The aim was to report results from the primary analysis of KEYNOTE-913., Patients and Methods: Patients with recurrent locally advanced or metastatic MCC received pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 35 treatments (~ 2 years). The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary end points were duration of response (DOR) and progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST v1.1 by BICR, overall survival (OS), and safety and tolerability., Results: Fifty-five patients were treated with pembrolizumab. The median time from first dose to data cutoff (February 15, 2024) was 50.3 months (range 38.7-59.4). The ORR was 49% (95% confidence interval [CI] 35-63), with 12 complete responses and 15 partial responses. The median DOR was 39.8 months (range 4.8-52.5+), and the 24-month DOR rate was 69%. The median PFS was 9.3 months (95% CI 3-26), and the 24-month PFS rate was 39%. The median OS was 24.3 months (95% CI 12.4 to not reached), and the 24-month OS rate was 51%. Any-grade treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 38 patients (69%); 13 patients (24%) experienced grade 3-5 AEs. The most common treatment-related AEs were fatigue (n = 12 [22%]), pruritus (n = 12 [22%]), and lipase increase (n = 10 [18%]). One patient died of treatment-related Guillain-Barré syndrome., Conclusions: Pembrolizumab provided durable antitumor activity and promising survival and had a manageable safety profile in patients with recurrent locally advanced or metastatic MCC, supporting its use in this population., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03783078., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest CL declares consulting and advisory fees from BMS, MSD, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi. SM declares consulting and advisory fees from Novartis and Roche, and research funding from Biocartis. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Aim: Avelumab has been approved worldwide for treatment of metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (mMCC), a rare and aggressive skin cancer. This study evaluated outcomes in patients with mMCC in France who received avelumab as second-line or later (2L+) treatment in routine clinical practice., Methods: This retrospective, noninterventional study evaluated all patients diagnosed with mMCC using two databases: CARADERM (French national database of rare dermatological cancers) and SNDS (national healthcare database), identified via probabilistic linkage. Eligible patients initiated avelumab as 2L+ treatment between August 2016 and December 2019 and were followed for 24 months. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) at 24 months., Results: Overall, 180 patients who received 2L+ avelumab were identified (112 from CARADERM, 68 after SNDS linkage). Median age at diagnosis was 74.0 years and 177 (98.3 %) had received chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment. Median follow-up was 13.1 months. Median OS from start of avelumab was 14.6 months (95 % CI, 9.9-21.3) in the overall population, 15.9 months (95 % CI, 8.6-28.3) in CARADERM patients, and 13.3 months (95 % CI, 6.7-19.1) in non-CARADERM patients. OS rates at 12 and 24 months were 53.8 % (95 % CI, 46.2 %-60.8 %) and 40.5 % (95 % CI, 33.2 %-47.6 %), respectively. In evaluable patients (CARADERM database), median progression-free survival was 3.6 months (95 % CI, 2.7-7.5) and the objective response rate was 55.3 % (95 % CI, 45.3-65.4), including complete response in 31.9 %., Conclusions: Real-world outcomes with 2L+ avelumab treatment for mMCC are consistent with clinical trial findings, supporting the recommendation of avelumab as a standard of care., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Sonic hedgehog inhibitors (SHHis) are an effective treatment in locally advanced basal cell carcinoma (laBCC). However, the use of these drugs is limited by adverse events, and relapse at discontinuation in around one-half of patients. A few cases of patients treated concomitantly by radiotherapy (RT) and SHHis have been reported in the literature, suggesting that the combination results in an improved overall response. Maintaining complete response after stopping treatment is a concern, especially as resuming treatment in the case of relapse does not guarantee a new therapeutic response. The optimal combination and sequence of treatment to improve local control of laBCCs are not yet defined., Objectives: We hypothesized that consolidation RT after complete response to SHHis could reduce the risk of relapse at discontinuation., Methods: We present a case series of patients with laBCCs who achieved complete response after SHHi treatment and were treated with consolidation RT. Patients were evaluated by a skin cancer board. The closure RT technique and dosage were refined by a radiotherapist., Results: Eleven patients were included. SHHis were prescribed for a median 5 months (range 4-11). Consolidation RT was performed after complete response to SHHis and discontinuation. RT was delivered at a median dose of 45 Gy (range 40.5-66) in 10 fractions (range 9-33). With a median follow-up of 23 months, all patients maintained complete clinical response. This strategy was well tolerated with no grade 3 adverse events., Conclusions: SHHi treatment followed by consolidation RT after drug discontinuation seems effective and safe. Further studies are needed to develop a precise strategy for the management of laBCCs., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest N.M. is an occasional consultant for Roche and Novartis. L.M. is an occasional consultant for Novartis, Pierre Fabre Medicament, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Viatris medical, UCB Pharma SA, Leo Pharma, Almirall SAS, Edimark and MSD France. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Significance: Multilesional basal cell carcinoma (BCC) are spread on sun exposed skin areas, including arms, face and back. The first-line treatment remains the surgical resection or Mohs surgery. Despite its high complexity, Mohs surgery is well practiced in USA and Germany and presents very good results both in esthetic and in carcinology point of view. Large lesions more than 2 cm remain challenging to remove by topical cream used in photodynamic therapy (PDT). If these larger lesions are not treated in less than 1 month, they could grow deeply in the skin, thus enhancing the risk of reoccurrence and the severity of the disease. Despite this model herein studied, that is non melanoma skin cancer is a good prognostic cancer, the therapy aims to be applied to more aggressive melanoma skin cancers., Aim: Total regression of large cutaneous lesions less than 1 month with no reoccurrence., Approach: Tumor induction on murine model bearing a 500 mm 3 subcutaneous lesion. Increasing dose of gold nanoparticles at fixed initial concentration C0 = 0.3 mg/mL, infused into the tumor then exposition of the region of interest to NIR medical laser to assess the therapy. One or two intratumoral administration(s) were compared to surgery and control, that is no treatment, laser alone or nanoparticles alone., Results: Gold nanoparticles alone or the NIR laser alone did not induce the tumor regression. The combination of laser and nanoparticles called plasmonic nanophotothermal therapy induced apoptosis. Derma and hypoderm do not show any visible gold nanoparticles and demonstrated a good cicatrization process., Conclusion: Plasmonic nanophotothermal therapy using two doses of gold nanoparticles was the only protocol that proved its efficacy on large lesions in 14 days, that is 500 mm 3 on a murine model bearing human basal cell carcinoma., (© 2024 The Author(s). Skin Research and Technology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Results from the JAVELIN Merkel 200 study led to the approval of avelumab [an anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody] for the treatment of metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (mMCC) in multiple countries and its inclusion in the treatment guidelines as a preferred or recommended therapy in this setting. Here, we report 4-year follow-up results from the cohort of patients with mMCC who received avelumab as first-line treatment., Patients and Methods: In part B of JAVELIN Merkel 200, a single-arm, open-label, phase II study, patients with mMCC who had not received prior systemic therapy for metastatic disease received avelumab 10 mg/kg via intravenous infusion every 2 weeks until confirmed disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal. In this analysis, long-term overall survival (OS), patient disposition, and subsequent treatment were analyzed., Results: In total, 116 patients received first-line avelumab. At the data cutoff (2 February 2022), the median follow-up was 54.3 months (range 48.0-69.7 months). Seven patients (6.0%) remained on treatment and an additional 21 patients remained in follow-up (18.1%); 72 patients (62.1%) had died. The median OS was 20.3 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 12.4-42.0 months], with a 4-year OS rate of 38% (95% CI 29% to 47%). In patients with PD-L1+ or PD-L1- tumors, the 4-year OS rate was 48% (95% CI 26% to 67%) and 35% (95% CI 25% to 45%), respectively. In total, 48 patients (41.4%) received poststudy anticancer drug therapy, most commonly etoposide (20.7%), carboplatin (19.0%), and avelumab (12.1%)., Conclusions: Avelumab first-line monotherapy in patients with mMCC resulted in meaningful long-term OS, which compared favorably with historical studies of first-line chemotherapy. These results further support the role of avelumab as a standard of care for patients with mMCC., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Pan-negative melanomas account for 30% of melanomas. In case of immunotherapy failure, therapeutic options are limited. Oncogene fusions represent a target of interest in many solid cancers. In melanoma, the frequency of oncogene fusion is not well documented and not routinely investigated. We conducted a single-center retrospective study. The objective was to determine the frequency of oncogene fusion detected by RNA sequencing, in patients with advanced or metastatic pan-negative melanoma. In parallel, an extended molecular alteration search was performed using extended targeted next-generation sequencing. We identified 59 patients with advanced pan-negative melanoma between January 2021 and January 2023. It was a cutaneous melanoma in 71.1% of the cases, a mucous melanoma in 15.2% of the cases. We identified nine patients with a RAF fusion, including seven BRAF gene fusion and two RAF1 fusion. Of the other molecular alterations, NF1 mutation was the most frequent molecular alteration identified. Among the nine patients with RAF fusions, all the patients initially received treatment with anti-PD1 ± anti-CTLA4 immunotherapy. After immunotherapy failure, five patients benefited from second-line targeted therapy (two with BRAF and MEK inhibitors combination, three MEK inhibitors alone). The response rate was 20%. In a population of pan-negative melanoma, we detected 15.2% of RAF fusion. Fusion detection allowed the introduction of a second line of targeted therapy, in the absence of a validated therapeutic option in 55.5% of cases. This study suggests the relevance of detecting RAF fusion in a selected population., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Trichoblastic carcinoma is a rare malignant cutaneous adnexal tumor with a risk of local invasion and distant metastasis. As of today, there is no consensus for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic trichoblastic carcinoma. "AcSé Nivolumab" is a multi-center Phase II basket clinical trial (NCT03012581) evaluating the safety and efficacy of nivolumab in several cohorts of rare, advanced cancers. Here we report the results of nivolumab in patients with trichoblastic carcinoma. Of the eleven patients enrolled in the study, five patients had been previously treated by sonic hedgehog inhibitors. The primary endpoint 12-week objective response rate was 9.1% (N = 1/11) with 1 partial response. Six patients who progressed under previous lines of treatment showed stable disease at 12 weeks, reflecting a good control of the disease with nivolumab. Furthermore, 54.5% of the patients (N = 6/11) had their disease under control at 6 months. The 1-year overall survival was 80%, and the median progression-free survival was 8.4 months (95%CI, 5.7 to NA). With 2 responders (2 complete responses), the best response rate to nivolumab at any time was 18.2% (95%CI, 2.3-51.8%). No new safety signals were identified, and adverse events observed herein were previously described and well known with nivolumab monotherapy. These results are promising, suggesting that nivolumab might be an option for patients with advanced trichoblastic carcinomas. Further studies on larger cohorts are necessary to confirm these results and define the role of nivolumab in the treatment of trichoblastic carcinomas., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare type of neuroendocrine tumor. Palpebral localization represents 2.5% of MCCs. Surgery is not always possible due to the localization or comorbidities of elderly patients. We hypothesized that radiotherapy (RT) alone could be a curative treatment in patients contraindicated for oncological surgery., Methods: We performed a retrospective monocentric study of patients with localized eyelid MCC treated with curative intent using curative radiotherapy., Results: Overall, 11 patients with histologically confirmed eyelid MCC were treated with curative radiotherapy. The median age was 77 years old (range: 53-94). Curative RT was decided mainly due to difficult localization and significant co-morbidities. The median lesion dose was 57 Gy (range: 47-70). Most patients had adjuvant lymph nodes irradiation with a median dose of 50 Gy ( n = 9; 82%). The median follow-up was 62 months (6-152 months). None of the seven deaths were MCC-related. None of our patients relapsed during follow-up. Side effects related to radiotherapy were mild (no grade ≥ 2) and rare ( n = 3, 21%)., Conclusion: Our data suggest that curative radiotherapy is an effective and safe treatment for Merkel cell carcinoma of the eyelid and periocular region. Radiotherapy alone allows limiting the aesthetic and functional sequelae in elderly and comorbid patients who are contraindicated for oncological surgery.

Background: With more than 15,000 new cases /year in France and 2,000 deaths, cutaneous melanoma represents approximately 4% of incidental cancers and 1.2% of cancer related deaths. In locally advanced (stage III) or resectable metastatic (stage IV) melanomas, medical adjuvant treatment is proposed and recent advances had shown the benefit of anti-PD1/PDL1 and anti-CTLA4 immunotherapy as well as anti-BRAF and anti-MEK targeted therapy in BRAF V600 mutated tumors. However, the recurence rate at one year is approximately 30% and justify extensive research of predictive biomarkers. If in metastatic disease, the follow-up of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has been demonstrated, its interest in adjuvant setting remains to be precised, especially because of a lower detection rate. Further, the definition of a molecular response could prove useful to personalized treatment., Methods: PERCIMEL is an open prospective multicentric study executed through collaboration of the Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine (non-profit comprehensive cancer center) and 6 French university and community hospitals. A total of 165 patients with resected stage III and IV melanoma, eligible to adjuvant imunotherapy or anti-BRAF/MEK kinase inhibitors will be included. The primary endpoint is the presence of ctDNA, 2 to 3 weeks after surgery, defined as mutated ctDNA copy number calculated as the allelic fraction of a clonal mutation relative to total ctDNA. Secondary endpoints are recurrence-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival and specific survival. We will follow ctDNA along treatment, quantitatively through ctDNA mutated copy number variation, qualitatively through the presence of cfDNA and its clonal evolution. Relative and absolute variations of ctDNA during follow-up will be also analyzed. PERCIMEL study aims at provide scientific evidence that ctDNA quantitative and qualitative variations can be used to predict the recurrence of patients with melanoma treated with adjuvant immunotherapy or kinase inhibitors, thus defining the notion of molecular recurrence., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Immunotherapy has become the standard of care for several types of cancer, such as melanoma. However, it can induce toxicity, including immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced colitis (CIC). CIC shares several clinical, histological, biological, and therapeutic features with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) can complicate the evolution of IBD. We aimed to characterize the association between CDI and CIC in patients treated with anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 for melanoma. Patients from nine centers treated with anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 for melanoma and presenting with CDI from 2010 to 2021 were included in this retrospective cohort. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of CIC. The secondary endpoints were findings allowing us to characterize CDI. Eighteen patients were included. Eleven were treated with anti-PD-1, four with anti-CTLA-4, and three with anti-PD-1 in combination with anti-CTLA-4. Among the 18 patients, six had isolated CDI and 12 had CIC and CDI. Among these 12 patients, eight had CIC complicated by CDI, three had concurrent CIC and CDI, and one had CDI followed by CIC. CDI was fulminant in three patients. Endoscopic and histological features did not specifically differentiate CDI from CIC. Nine of 11 patients required immunosuppressive therapy when CDI was associated with CIC. In nine cases, immunotherapy was discontinued due to digestive toxicity. CDI can be isolated or can complicate or reveal CIC. CDI in patients treated with immunotherapy shares many characteristics with CDI complicating IBD. Stool tests for Clostridium difficile should be carried out for all patients with diarrhea who are being treated with immunotherapy., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Currently, in the absence of BRAFV600 mutation, the management of advanced melanomas is based on immunotherapies, but only half of the patients are responders. RAF1 (also named CRAF) fusions occur in 1-2.1% of wild-type melanomas. Preclinical data suggest that the presence of RAF fusion may be sensitive to MEK inhibitors. We report the case of a patient with an advanced melanoma harboring an EFCC1-RAF1 fusion who showed a clinical benefit from and a partial response to a MEK inhibitor., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Physical activity is the first-line treatment of cancer-related fatigue. It has shown benefits on patient's quality of life (QoL) when practiced during and after treatment. New treatments have drastically changed the prognosis of melanoma. Still, few data are available about research program of supportive care in advanced melanoma. The primary outcome was to assess the feasibility of setting up a prospective study evaluating the benefits of Adapted Physical Activity (APA) on the QoL of patients with advanced melanoma. Feasibility was defined with a combination of five criteria including completion of questionnaire, recruitment, participant retention, patient adhesion to supportive care, and absence of adverse event. Between September 2019 and March 2021, 271 melanoma patients were questioned. Around 60% of stage IV melanoma patients were interested in support care. Patient retention at 3 months was sufficient. Only one patient could not be evaluated after 3 months of enrolment because of deterioration of the general state. Adhesion to exercise and sessions was good. Supervised APA program appeared to be safe and well tolerated as no adverse events or discontinuations were reported. Setting up a prospective research program evaluating the benefits of physical activity in advanced melanoma patients seems feasible. With melanoma becoming a chronic disease, supportive care may reduce fatigue, improve QoL and help maintain a healthy lifestyle. Data supporting its benefits on this survivor population are needed., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Clinical outcomes of advanced melanoma of unknown primary (MUP) in the era of novel therapies have been scarcely studied., Objective: To investigate the efficacy and safety of systemic treatments in patients with advanced MUP compared to patients with stage-matched melanoma of known cutaneous primary (cMKP)., Methods: Based on the nationwide MelBase prospective database, this study included advanced melanoma patients treated from March 2013 to June 2021 with first-line immunotherapies, targeted therapies, or chemotherapy. Co-primary outcomes were progression-free survival and overall survival. Secondary outcome was treatment-related toxicities. Multivariate and propensity score analyses were performed., Results: Of 1882 patients, 265 (14.1%) had advanced MUP. Patients with advanced MUP displayed more often unfavorable initial prognostic factors than those with cMKP. Progression-free and overall survival did not differ significantly between the groups (P = .73 and P = .93, respectively), as well as treatment-related toxicity rate and severity, regardless of treatment type., Limitations: No record of standard diagnostic criteria of MUP used in the participating centers., Conclusions: Although patients with MUP had less favorable baseline prognostic factors, they benefited from the novel therapies as much as those with cMKP. They should be managed according to similar strategies., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest Dr Dalle received research grants by BMS and MSD, travel costs covered by BMS, spouse working for Sanofi; Dr Dereure reported a Consulting or Advisory Role with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genevrier, Kiowa Kirin, Leo Pharma, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Recordati, and reports travel, accommodations, and expenses from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Recordati; Dr Saiag has received outside of this study personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Merck-Serono, Pfizer, Roche-Genentech, Pierre Fabre, and Novartis; Dr Arnault consulting for NOVARTIS, Dr Lebbé reported honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, and Roche, reports a Consulting or Advisory Role with Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi, is on the Speakers' Bureau for Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, and Roche, received Research Funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Roche, reports travel, accommodations, and expenses from Bristol-Myers Squibb and MSD, and reports other relationship with Avantis Medical Systems; and Dr Montaudié reported a Consulting or Advisory Role with Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, and Pierre Fabre, received Research Funding from Leo Pharma and Novartis, and reports travel, accommodations, and expenses from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Pierre Fabre., (Copyright © 2022 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common human malignancy. In most cases, BCC has slow progression and can be definitively cured by surgery or radiotherapy. However, in rare cases, it can become locally advanced or, even more rarely, metastatic. The alternative recommended treatments are Sonic Hedgehog pathway inhibitors; however, the response is often short-lived., Methods: This was a phase 2 basket study (NCT03012581) evaluating the efficacy and safety of nivolumab in a cohort of 32 advanced BCC patients, enrolled after failure of Sonic Hedgehog inhibitors, including 29 laBCC (91%) and 3 mBCC (9%)., Results: Compared to previously published studies, our population consisted of severe patients with a poor prognosis because they had already received multiple lines of treatment: all patients received previous Sonic Hedgehog inhibitors, 53% of patients already had chemotherapy and 75% radiotherapy. At 12 weeks, we reported 3.1% of complete responses, 18.8% of partial responses, and 43.8% of stable diseases. The best response rate to nivolumab reached 12.5% of complete responses (four patients), 18.8% of partial responses (three patients), and 43.8% of stable diseases (14 patients). Adverse events (AE) were mostly grade 2 or 3, slightly different to the adverse events observed in the treatment of metastatic melanoma (higher rate of diabetes, no thyroid dysfunction)., Conclusion: Nivolumab is a relevant therapeutic option for patients with advanced relapsing/refractory BCC., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Caroline Gaudy Marquestre has declared payment for lectures/presentations/writings from BMS and MSD, and support for attending meetings from MSD, BMS and Jansen. Aurelien Marabelle has declared support for the present manuscript from Unicancer and Gustave Roussy Institute, grants or contract from BMS, MSD and Sanofi, consulting fees from Sanofi, payment for lectures/presentations/writings from BMS and MSD, support for attending meetings from BMS and MSD, participation on Advisory Board with MSD, have leadership role in the board of the French Immune-Therapy for Cancer scholar society. Marie Beylot-Barry has declared payment for lectures/presentations/writings from Sun Pharma. Nicole Basset-Seguin has declared consulting fees from Regeneron/Sanofi and Sun Pharma, payments for lectures/presentations/writings from Regeneron/Sanofi and Sun Pharma, support for attending meetings from Regeneron/Sanofi and Sun Pharma, and have participated on Advisory Board for Regeneron/Sanofi and Sun Pharma. Philippe Saiag has declared consulting fees from BMS outside the topic of this study. Philippe Jamme has declared consulting fees from BMS, support for attending meetings from Pierre Fabre, and have participated on Advisory Board with Pierre Fabre, BMS and Novartis. Celeste Lebbe has declared support for the present manuscript from Amgen, BMS, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche and Sanofi; she have declared consulting fees from Amgen, BMS, MSD, Novartis and Roche; payments for lectures/presentations/writings from Amgen, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche; payment for expert testimony form Amgen, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche; support for attending meetings from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi. Laurent Mortier has provided time for consulting and participation to scientific advisory boards of the following compagnies: Sun pharma, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and MSD, and have participated in congress with the same companies., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Oral mucosal melanoma (OMM) is the subject of few studies, resulting in a lack of understanding. The aim of this study is to review the current literature on OMM. The term searched was "oral mucosal melanoma" between 01/01/2000 and 03/15/2021 in the PubMed Database (MEDLINE). Patients presenting with OMM and treated in our center between January 2009 and January 2020 were included in a case series. Demographics, location, risk factors, genetic mutations, treatment performed, and overall survival (OS) rates were evaluated. The PubMed database search yielded a total of 513 results, thirty-eight articles were finally included, which amounted to 2230 cases of OMM. 13 patients were included in the case series. A male-to-female ratio of 1.28:1.00 was found with a mean age at first diagnosis of 58.2 years old. Hard palate (1060 cases) and then gingiva (794 cases) were the two main locations. No risk factors could be identified. OMM were staged III or IV at diagnosis. Mutations were described as such: KIT in 14.6% of cases, BRAF in 7%, and NRAS in 5.6%. Treatment protocols varied but radical surgery was the cornerstone treatment associated with adjuvant therapies. Immunotherapy has not been evaluated for OMM. OS rates were 43.4% at 3 years, 33.1% at 5 year and 15.4% at 10 years. OMM show distinct features from cutaneous melanoma (CM): typical locations, no identified risk factors, different mutations profile, worse prognosis with advanced stage at diagnosis. Targeted therapies are still underused compared to CM., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None, (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest None disclosed.

Purpose: Vismodegib is approved for the treatment of locally advanced basal cell carcinoma (laBCC), but some cases demonstrate intrinsic resistance (IR) to the drug. We sought to assess the frequency of IR to vismodegib in laBCC and its underlying genomic mechanisms., Experimental Design: Response to vismodegib was evaluated in a cohort of 148 laBCC patients. Comprehensive genomic and transcriptomic profiling was performed in a subset of five intrinsically resistant BCC (IR-BCC)., Results: We identified that IR-BCC represents 6.1% of laBCC in the studied cohort. Prior treatment with chemotherapy was associated with IR. Genetic events that were previously associated with acquired resistance (AR) in BCC or medulloblastoma were observed in three out of five IR-BCC. However, IR-BCCs were distinct by highly rearranged polyploid genomes. Functional analyses identified hyperactivation of the HIPPO-YAP and WNT pathways at RNA and protein levels in IR-BCC. In vitro assay on the BCC cell line further confirmed that YAP1 overexpression increases the cell proliferation rate., Conclusions: IR to vismodegib is a rare event in laBCC. IR-BCCs frequently harbor resistance mutations in the Hh pathway, but also are characterized by hyperactivation of the HIPPO-YAP and WNT pathways., (©2022 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: To prospectively assess the impact of expert pathological review of skin adnexal carcinoma diagnosis in France., Methods: From 2014 to 2019, 2573 samples from patients with newly diagnosed or suspected skin adnexal carcinomas were reviewed prospectively by expert pathologists through the national CARADERM (CAncers RAres DERMatologiques) network. Changes in diagnosis between referral and expert review were analysed regarding their potential impact on patient care or prognosis., Results: The samples comprised 2205 newly diagnosed adnexal carcinomas, 129 benign adnexal tumours, 136 basal cell carcinomas, 74 squamous cell carcinomas, six cutaneous metastases and 13 other malignancies. There were 930 (42%) sweat gland carcinomas, of which porocarcinoma (261; 11.8%), microcystic adnexal carcinoma (125; 5.7%) and hidradenocarcinoma (109; 4.9%) were the most frequent subtypes; 778 (35%) hair follicle carcinomas, 238 (11%) sebaceous carcinomas and 212 (10%) extramammary Paget diseases/mammary-like anogenital gland adenocarcinomas. A diagnostic change between referral and expert review occurred in 503 (21.3%) patients, significantly higher for cases sent with a provisional diagnosis seeking an expert second opinion (45.7%) than for cases sent with a formal diagnosis (2.8%) (p < .0001). Sweat gland carcinomas were more prone to diagnostic discrepancies than other tumours (p < .0001), including 1.8% of patients with sweat gland carcinoma subtype misclassification with predicted clinical impact. Changes between benign and malignant conditions occurred in 117 samples (5% of patients)., Conclusion: The study provides a unique description of the distribution of skin adnexal carcinomas and highlights the importance of expert review for these rare cancers. Optimal clinical management was impacted in a significant proportion of patients., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this article., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: Only few robust studies specify the indications of Mohs Surgery techniques in skin tumors. The aim of this work was to carry out a review of almost 10 years of experience, assessing the impact of reduced margins on reconstruction, and proposing a management algorithm in the light of the literature., Patient and Methods: All the records of patients having benefited from a Mohs technique in our center were retrospectively compiled from January 2011 until January 2020. A formalin-fixed tissue Mohs surgery was used. An impact assessment of reduced margins was made both on the excisional surface but also on the improvement of the reconstruction., Results: 548 patients were included. Complete tumour clearance was achieved with one surgical stage in 71% of cases. The excisional surface of tumours located in the periorbital and nasal areas was significantly more often reduced compared to other areas (P=0,020). The improvement of the reconstruction was deemed significant in the periorbital and nasal areas; as well as for tumours located on limbs and trunk linked with Dermatofibrosarcoma management., Conclusion: This study underlines the interest of assessing the clinical relevance of reducing margins depending on the tumor location. Our single-center experience feedback on a large series allows to clarify Mohs technique indications by means of a literature review., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: Smoothened (SMO) inhibitors, blocking the sonic hedgehog pathway, have been approved for advanced basal cell carcinoma (aBCC). Safety analyses reveal a high rate of adverse events (AEs) and, most of the time, vismodegib is most commonly stopped when the best overall response is reached. The long-term evolution of aBCC after vismodegib discontinuation is poorly described. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the SMO inhibitors (SMOis) available (vismodegib and sonidegib) following rechallenge after complete response (CR) following an initial treatment by vismodegib., Materials and Methods: This real-life, retrospective, multicenter and descriptive study is based on an extraction from the CARADERM accredited database, including 40 French regional hospitals, of patients requiring BCC systemic treatment., Results: Of 303 patients treated with vismodegib, 110 achieved an initial CR. The vast majority of these patients (98.2%) stopped vismodegib, notably due to poorly tolerated AEs. The CARADERM database provided a median follow-up of 21 months (13.5-36.0 months) after CR. Of the 110 patients, 48.1% relapsed after a median relapse-free survival of 24 months (13.0-38.0 months). Among them, 35 patients were retreated by an SMOi and the overall response rate was 65.7% (34.3% of CR and 31.4% of partial response). The median duration of retreatment was 6.0 months (4.0-9.5 months)., Conclusion: Our real-life study, carried out on patients with complex clinical pictures, shows that after treatment discontinuation, 48.1% of patients achieved CR relapse within an average of 24 months (13.0-38.0 months). It emphasized that even though rechallenge can be considered as a therapeutic option, efficacy seems to decrease, suggesting the development of resistance mechanisms., Competing Interests: Disclosure EMN: Consulting or advisory role: Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD. EM: Consulting or advisory role: MSD, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Sanofi; research funding: MSD (Inst); travel, accommodations, expenses: MSD Oncology, Pierre Fabre, Novartis. NM: Consulting or advisory role or research funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Merck, Sanofi, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries. MB-B: Research funding: Roche; consulting or advisory role: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries. NB-S: Consulting or advisory role: Sanofi, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries. LM: Consulting or advisory role: Sanofi, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, MSD Oncology, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis. The remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Incidence rates of Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), an uncommon skin cancer with an aggressive disease course, have increased in recent decades. Limited treatment options are available for patients with metastatic MCC (mMCC). Avelumab, an anti-programmed cell death-ligand 1 monoclonal antibody, became the first approved treatment for mMCC after the results of the phase 2 JAVELIN Merkel 200 study. Prior to its regulatory approval, an expanded access program (EAP) enabled compassionate use of avelumab in patients with mMCC. Here we report findings from patients enrolled in the EAP in Europe and the Middle East. Efficacy and safety data were provided at the discretion of treating physicians. Between March 2, 2016, and December 22, 2018, 403 requests for avelumab were received from 21 countries, and avelumab was supplied to 335 patients. Most patients (96.7%) received avelumab as second-line or later treatment. In 150 patients for whom response data were available, the objective response rate was 48.0%, and in responding patients, median duration of treatment was 7.4 months (range, 1.0-41.7 months). The most common treatment-related adverse events were infusion-related reaction (2.4%) and pyrexia (2.1%), and no new safety signals were observed. Overall, results from European and Middle Eastern patients enrolled in this EAP confirm the efficacy and safety of avelumab treatment observed in previous studies in patients with mMCC., (© 2021 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

Objective: Patients with melanoma and early stable disease (SD) with pembrolizumab have unclear prognosis. We present post hoc analyses of long-term outcomes for patients with early SD, partial response (PR) or complete response (CR) with pembrolizumab., Patients and Methods: Patients who received pembrolizumab in the KEYNOTE-001 and KEYNOTE-006 studies and had SD, PR or CR at weeks 12 or 24 were included., Results: Of 294 patients in the week 12 analysis, 107 (36.4%) had SD at week 12, of whom 7 (6.5%) had a best overall response of CR, 43 (40.2%) had PR and 57 (53.3%) had SD. Forty-eight-month overall survival (OS) rates were 95.2%, 73.0% and 47.7%, respectively, for patients with CR, PR and SD at week 12. Similar results were observed in the 241 patients in the week 24 analysis. Forty-eight-month OS rates were 72.1% for patients with SD at week 12 followed by subsequent response and 75.0% for patients with PR at week 12 followed by no change in response or progression. Thirty-six-month and 48-month OS rates were 11.6% and not reached, respectively, for patients with SD at week 12 followed by progression before week 24., Conclusions: A substantial proportion of patients (46.7%) with early (week 12) SD with pembrolizumab achieved subsequent PR or CR. Patients with SD at week 12 and subsequent CR/PR had similar survival to those who maintained PR. In contrast, patients with SD at week 12 and subsequent progression had poor survival outcomes. These findings may guide treatment decisions for patients achieving early SD., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01295827 (KEYNOTE-001); NCT01866319 (KEYNOTE-006)., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: O.H. is a consultant advisor for Aduro, Akeso, Amgen, Array, BeiGene, BMS, Genentech, GSK, Immunocore, Incyte, Janssen, Merck, NextCure, Novartis, Sanofi, Regeneron, Seattle Genetics, Tempus and Zelluna. He is a speaker for Array, BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi and Regeneron. He has contracted research for his institution from Aduro, Akeso, Amgen, Arcus, Array, BMS, CytomX, Exelixis, Genentech, GSK, Immunocore, Incyte, Io-vance, Merck, Merck Serono, Moderna, NextCure, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Torque and Zelluna. S.J.D., B.H.M. and E.J. are employees of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, and S.J.D. owns stock in Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. A.A. is a consultant advisor for Amgen, BMS, Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. M.S.C. is a consultant advisor for Amgen, BMS, Eisai, IDEAYA, MSD, Merck Serono, Nektar, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, QBiotics, OncoSec, Regeneron, Roche and Sanofi. He has also received honoraria from BMS, MSD and Novartis. T.M. has served on advisory boards for Merck, BMS and OncoSec. A.D. has received grants from BMS, Merck, Pfizer/Array and Xencor. He also served on an advisory board meeting for Xencor. J.J.G. has served on advisory boards for BMS, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi and Sun Pharma. He has also received personal fees from BMS, MSD, Novartis and Pierre Fabre for travel as well as personal fees for serving as a speaker for MSD, Novartis and Pierre Fabre. P.H. has no disclosures to report. F.S.H. is a consultant advisor for Aduro, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, EMD Serono, Genentech/Roche, Idera, Merck, Novartis, Pieris Pharmaceutical, Sanofi and Takeda. He reports grants and royalties paid to his institution by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis, as well as personal fees from Gossamer. He also holds equity in Apricity, Bicara, Pionyr and Torque. He has served on advisory boards for Apricity, Bicara, Bioentre, Checkpoint Therapeutics, Compass Therapeutics, Iovance, Pionyr, Surface and Torque. His pending patents include Methods for Treating MICA-Related Disorders (#20100111973; includes royalties), Angiopoietin-2 Biomarkers Predictive of Anti-Immune Checkpoint Response (#20170248603), Compositions and Methods for Identification, Assessment, Prevention, and Treatment of Melanoma Using PD-L1 Isoforms (#20160340407), Therapeutic Peptides (#20160046716, #20140004112, #20170022275, #20170008962), Methods of Using Pembrolizumab and Trebananib and Anti-Galectin Antibody Biomarkers Predictive of Anti-Immune Checkpoint and Anti-Angiogenesis Responses (#20170343552). He has been issued patents for Tumor Antigens and Uses Thereof (#7250291), Therapeutic Peptides (#9402905), Vaccine Compositions and Methods for Restoring NKG2D Pathway Function Against Cancers (#10279021) and Antibodies that Bind to MHC Class I Polypeptide-Related Sequence A (#10106611). A.M.J. has received institutional support from MSD. L.M. has no disclosures to report. A.R. is a consultant for Amgen, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Nurix, Sanofi and Vedanta. He is a current scientific advisory board member and stockholder in 4C Biomed, Apricity, Arcus, Compugen, Highlight, ImaginAb, Isoplexis, Lutris Pharma, MapKure, Merus, PACT Pharma, Rgenix and Tango Therapeutics and is a past scientific advisory board member and stockholder in Advaxis, Cytomx, Five Prime, Kite-Gilead and RAPT. He has also received grants paid to his institution from Agilent and Bristol Myers Squibb. C.R. is a consultant advisor for Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche and Sanofi. J.S. has no disclosures to report. J.S.W. has received grants paid to his institution from Merck. He has been issued a PD-1 biomarker patent with Biodesix unrelated to the submitted work. J.D.W. is a non-compensated consultant for Merck. He is also a consultant for Amgen, Apricity, Arsenal IO, Ascentage Pharma, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Elucida, F Star, Georgiamune, Imvaq, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Linneaus, Merck, Neon Therapeutics, Polynoma, Psioxus, Recepta, Sellas, Serametrix, Surface Oncology, Syndax, Syntalogic, Takara Bio, Tizona Pharmaceuticals, Trieza, Truvax and Werewolf Therapeutics. He reports equity in Adaptive Biotech, Apricity, Arsenal IO, Belgene, Georgiamune, Imvaq, Linneaus and Tizona Pharmaceuticals. He has received research grants from Bristol Myers Squibb and Sephora. He has licensed patents for xenogeneic DNA vaccines (Merial; includes royalties), a myeloid-derived suppressor cell (MDSC) assay (Serametrix; includes royalties), an anti–PD-1 antibody (Agenus), anti-CTLA4 antibodies (Agenus) and anti-GITR antibodies and method of use thereof (Agenus/Incyte). He has also been issued patents for alphavirus replicon particles expressing Newcastle disease viruses for cancer therapy, phosphatidylserine targeting agents and uses thereof for adoptive T-cell therapies, immunosuppressive follicular help-like T cells modulated by immune checkpoint blockade, identifying and treating subjects at risk for checkpoint blockade therapy–associated colitis, CAR+ T cells targeting differentiation antigens as means to treat cancer, anti-CD40 agonist mAB fused to monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL) for cancer therapy and engineered vaccinia viruses for cancer immunotherapy. G.V.L. is consultant advisor for Aduro Biotech Inc, Amgen Inc, Array Biopharma inc, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Bristol Myers Squibb, Evaxion Biotech A/S, Hexel AG, Highlight Therapeutics S.L., Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis Pharma AG, OncoSec, Pierre Fabre, QBiotics Group Limited, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc, SkylineDX B.V., and Specialised Therapeutics Australia Pty Ltd., (Copyright © 2021 Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To describe real-world pembrolizumab administration and outcomes for advanced melanoma in France. Materials & methods: Using the MelBase longitudinal database, this multicenter historical-prospective study examined treatment and outcomes of patients with nonuveal, unresectable stage III/IV melanoma initiating pembrolizumab from April 2016 to September 2017, with follow-up to September 2019. Kaplan-Meier time-to-event analyses were conducted. Results: Of 223 patients (median age 67; 51% men), 134 (60%), 36 (16%) and 53 (24%) initiated pembrolizumab in first-, second- and third-line, respectively. Median overall survival (months) was 32.6 (95% CI: 20.3-not reached [NR]), 14.4 (8.6-NR) and 9.3 (6.4-NR), respectively. Best real-world tumor response of complete or partial response was recorded for 49, 39 and 26% of patients, respectively. Conclusion: Study results support benefits of pembrolizumab therapy for advanced melanoma.

Background: Primary cutaneous lymphomas (PCLs) are a heterogeneous group of T-cell (CTCL) and B-cell (CBCL) malignancies. Little is known about their epidemiology at initial presentation in Europe and about potential changes over time., Objectives: The aim of this retrospective study was to analyse the frequency of PCLs in the French Cutaneous Lymphoma Registry (GFELC) and to describe the demography of patients., Methods: Patients with a centrally validated diagnosis of primary PCL, diagnosed between 2005 and 2019, were included., Results: The calculated incidence was unprecedently high at 1·06 per 100 000 person-years. The number of included patients increased yearly. Most PCL subtypes were more frequent in male patients, diagnosed at a median age of 60 years. The relative frequency of rare CTCL remained stable, the proportion of classical mycosis fungoides (MF) decreased, and the frequency of its variants (e.g. folliculotropic MF) increased. Similar patterns were observed for CBCL; for example, the proportion of marginal-zone CBCL increased over time., Conclusions: Changes in PCL frequencies may be explained by the emergence of new diagnostic criteria and better description of the entities in the most recent PCL classification. Moreover, we propose that an algorithm should be developed to confirm the diagnosis of PCL by central validation of the cases., (© 2020 British Association of Dermatologists.)

Background: Ipilimumab has shown long-term overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced melanoma in clinical trials, but robust real-world evidence is lacking. We present long-term outcomes from the IMAGE study (NCT01511913) in patients receiving ipilimumab and/or non-ipilimumab (any approved treatment other than ipilimumab) systemic therapies., Methods: IMAGE was a multinational, prospective, observational study assessing adult patients with advanced melanoma treated with ipilimumab or non-ipilimumab systemic therapies between June 2012 and March 2015 with ≥3 years of follow-up. Adjusted OS curves based on multivariate Cox regression models included covariate effects. Safety and patient-reported outcomes were assessed., Results: Among 1356 patients, 1094 (81%) received ipilimumab and 262 (19%) received non-ipilimumab index therapy (systemic therapy [chemotherapy, anti-programmed death 1 antibodies, or BRAF ± MEK inhibitors], radiotherapy, and radiosurgery). In the overall population, median age was 64 years, 60% were male, 78% were from Europe, and 78% had received previous treatment for advanced melanoma. In the ipilimumab-treated cohort, 780 (71%) patients did not receive subsequent therapy (IPI-noOther) and 314 (29%) received subsequent non-ipilimumab therapy (IPI-Other) on study. In the non-ipilimumab-treated cohort, 205 (78%) patients remained on or received other subsequent non-ipilimumab therapy (Other-Other) and 57 (22%) received subsequent ipilimumab therapy (Other-IPI) on study. Among 1151 patients who received ipilimumab at any time during the study (IPI-noOther, IPI-Other, and Other-IPI), 296 (26%) reported CTCAE grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events, most occurring in year 1. Ipilimumab-treated and non-ipilimumab-treated patients who switched therapy (IPI-Other and Other-IPI) had longer OS than those who did not switch (IPI-noOther and Other-Other). Patients with prior therapy who did not switch therapy (IPI-noOther and Other-Other) showed similar OS. In treatment-naive patients, those in the IPI-noOther group tended to have longer OS than those in the Other-Other group. Patient-reported outcomes were similar between treatment cohorts., Conclusions: With long-term follow-up (≥ 3 years), safety and OS in this real-world population of patients treated with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg were consistent with those reported in clinical trials. Patient-reported quality of life was maintained over the study period. OS analysis across both pretreated and treatment-naive patients suggested a beneficial role of ipilimumab early in treatment., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT01511913. Registered January 19, 2012 - Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01511913.

Purpose: Early stage Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare and aggressive primary skin cancer. The standard of care for MCC is broad excision and adjuvant external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). However, for some patients, anesthesia is contraindicated, while others run the risk of serious aesthetic sequelae. In such cases, exclusive radiotherapy is an interesting alternative to surgery. Though limited data is available, this study evaluates exclusive radiotherapy for MCC, using data from the largest retrospective study to date., Methods: All patients who were followed in our center between 1989 and 2019 for histologically proven early stage MCC were included in the study. They were treated either by surgery with a 2-cm clear margin followed by adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) or by exclusive RT. Survival rates with adjuvant and exclusive EBRT were analyzed using Cox model and Fine and Gray model depending on the type of survival. p value < 0.05 was considered significant., Results: Eighty-four patients treated for MCC were included. Fifty-three of them (63.1%) were treated by exclusive RT, and 31 (36.9%) had surgical excision followed by adjuvant RT. Local relapse rate was 13.7% (95% CI 8.0-43.7) in the RT monotherapy group (group A) and 25.8% (95% CI 10.3-56.2) in the surgery + RT group (group B) (p = 0.42). No statistical difference was found for nodal relapse (p = 0.81), metastatic relapse (p = 0.10), disease free survival (p = 0.83) or overall survival (p = 0.98)., Conclusion: Our study suggests that exclusive radiotherapy for early Merkel cell carcinoma leads to a similar oncological outcome as combined treatment, with fewer aesthetic sequelae. The approach is interesting for elderly patients with comorbidities or patients for whom surgery would cause significant functional or aesthetic sequelae.

Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) is a soft-tissue sarcoma characterized by a high risk of local infiltration. The identification of the COL1A1-PDGFB t(17;22) translocation activating the PDGF pathway led to the use of imatinib in unresectable DFSP, with a response rate of 36-80%. Pazopanib is a multitarget tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for soft-tissue sarcomas. We conducted a phase II study of patients with unresectable DFSP to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pazopanib. Patients received 800 mg of pazopanib daily. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate defined as the reduction of the largest diameter of the tumor by ≥30% at 6 months or at surgery. A total of 23 patients, including one pretreated with imatinib, were enrolled. With a median follow-up of 6.2 months (interquartile range = 5.6-7.8 months), five patients (22%, 95% confidence interval = 7-22%) had a partial response to pazopanib. The best objective response rate was 30% (95% confidence interval = 13-53%) using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. One patient with metastatic DFSP previously treated with imatinib died after 2.4 months. Nine patients (39%) discontinued the treatment owing to adverse events. Pharmacodynamics analyses of tumor samples were conducted: the enrichment of EGF and the EGFR-associated gene panel was associated with resistance, suggesting that EGFR-targeted therapies could be a therapeutic option to explore in DFSP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01059656., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the previously reported primary analysis of this phase 3 trial, 12 months of adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib resulted in significantly longer relapse-free survival than placebo in patients with resected stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations. To confirm the stability of the relapse-free survival benefit, longer-term data were needed., Methods: We randomly assigned 870 patients who had resected stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations to receive 12 months of oral dabrafenib (at a dose of 150 mg twice daily) plus trametinib (2 mg once daily) or two matched placebos. The primary end point was relapse-free survival. Here, we report 5-year results for relapse-free survival and survival without distant metastasis as the site of the first relapse. Overall survival was not analyzed, since the required number of events to trigger the final overall survival analysis had not been reached., Results: The minimum duration of follow-up was 59 months (median patient follow-up, 60 months for dabrafenib plus trametinib and 58 months for placebo). At 5 years, the percentage of patients who were alive without relapse was 52% (95% confidence interval [CI], 48 to 58) with dabrafenib plus trametinib and 36% (95% CI, 32 to 41) with placebo (hazard ratio for relapse or death, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.61). The percentage of patients who were alive without distant metastasis was 65% (95% CI, 61 to 71) with dabrafenib plus trametinib and 54% (95% CI, 49 to 60) with placebo (hazard ratio for distant metastasis or death, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.70). No clinically meaningful between-group difference in the incidence or severity of serious adverse events was reported during the follow-up period., Conclusions: In the 5-year follow-up of a phase 3 trial involving patients who had resected stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations, 12 months of adjuvant therapy with dabrafenib plus trametinib resulted in a longer duration of survival without relapse or distant metastasis than placebo with no apparent long-term toxic effects. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; COMBI-AD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01682083; EudraCT number, 2012-001266-15.)., (Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Importance: Since 2011, many patients with metastatic melanoma have been treated with ipilimumab therapy and have developed severe immune-related adverse events (AEs). Because several immune therapies are now available to treat metastatic melanoma, a better knowledge of mechanisms and recurrence risks of immune-related AEs is needed before reintroduction of immunotherapies., Objectives: To evaluate the risk of a recurrence of immune toxic effects associated with anti-programmed cell death 1 antibody (anti-PD-1) therapy after discontinuation of ipilimumab monotherapy because of severe AEs., Design, Settings, and Participants: This cohort study conducted at 19 French melanoma referral centers included patients with metastatic melanoma who experienced severe immune-related AEs after ipilimumab therapy and then were treated with anti-PD-1 therapy between February 1, 2013, and December 31, 2016. The study cutoff was June 1, 2017. Statistical analysis was performed from June 1, 2016, to August 31, 2017., Exposures: Monotherapy with at least 1 cycle of ipilimumab that was associated with a grade 3 or 4 immune-related AE and subsequent treatment with at least 1 cycle of an anti-PD-1 (nivolumab or pembrolizumab) therapy., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the rate of immune-related AEs associated with anti-PD-1 therapy. Secondary outcomes were characteristics of ipilimumab-related and anti-PD-1 immune-related AEs and overall response rate and overall survival associated with anti-PD-1 therapy., Results: Of 56 patients with metastatic melanoma included in the study, all of whom experienced severe immune-related AEs after ipilimumab therapy (31 [55%] male; mean [SD] age, 64 [14.9] years), 20 (36%) experienced at least 1 immune-related AE associated with pembrolizumab (6 of 20 [30%]) or nivolumab (14 of 20 [70%]) therapy. A total of 12 patients (21%) experienced grade 3 or 4 immune-related AEs, and among these patients, 4 (33%) presented with the same immune-related AE as with ipilimumab therapy. Severe immune-related AEs were resolved with use of systemic corticosteroids (7 [58%]) and/or anti-tumor necrosis factor (1 [8%]), and no grade 5 toxic effects were reported. Five patients discontinued anti-PD-1 therapy because of immune-related AEs. The overall response rate was 43%, with a median overall survival of 21 months (interquartile range, 18 to ongoing)., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that anti-PD-1 therapy may be associated with reduced risk of toxic effects and improved survival among patients who have experienced severe toxic effects after ipilimumab therapy.

Background: Targeted therapies such as BRAF and MEK inhibitors and immunotherapies have been made available to treat melanoma., Objectives: To provide an overview of the management of the French Stage III melanoma population after complete lymph node resection prior to new adjuvant therapies., Materials and Methods: A subgroup data analysis., Results: Data from 1,835 patients were analysed (15.58% Stage IIIA, 39.24% Stage IIIB, 43.92% Stage IIIC and 1.25% Stage IIID). Superficial spreading melanoma was the most frequent (70.98% in Stage IIIA for whom mutation analysis was performed; BRAF mutation was identified in up to 62% Stage IIIA patients). Sentinel lymph node biopsy was performed in 88.46% of Stage IIIA patients, 42.36% of Stage IIIB, 53.97% of Stage IIIC and 34.78% of Stage IIID. Up to 80% of Stage IIIA patients had no adjuvant treatment follow-up. Ulceration (p = 0.004; RR: 2.98; 95% CI: 1.4-6.3) and age at diagnosis (p = 0.0002; RR: 1.04; 95% CI: 1.02-1.06) were significant predictive factors for survival. Adjuvant interferon-α was administered in up to 13.04% of Stage IIID patients., Conclusion: Only a small number of Stage III melanoma patients were treated with interferon-α in adjuvant settings. New adjuvant therapies are currently having an effect on clinical practice in France, increasing survival and decreasing cost.

Background: We have previously reported significantly longer overall survival (OS) with ipilimumab 10 mg/kg versus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg in patients with advanced melanoma, with higher incidences of adverse events (AEs) at 10 mg/kg. This follow-up analysis reports a 5-year update of OS and safety., Methods: This randomized, multicenter, double-blind, phase III trial included patients with untreated or previously treated unresectable stage III or IV melanoma. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for 4 doses. The primary end point was OS., Results: At a minimum follow-up of 61 months, median OS was 15.7 months (95% CI 11.6 to 17.8) at 10 mg/kg and 11.5 months (95% CI 9.9 to 13.3) at 3 mg/kg (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.99; p=0.04). In a subgroup analysis, median OS of patients with asymptomatic brain metastasis was 7.0 months (95% CI 4.0 to 12.8) in the 10 mg/kg group and 5.7 months (95% CI 4.2 to 7.0) in the 3 mg/kg group. In patients with wild-type or mutant BRAF tumors, median OS was 13.8 months (95% CI 10.2 to 17.0) and 33.2 months (95% CI 19.4 to 45.2) in the 10 mg/kg group, and 11.2 months (95% CI 9.2 to 13.8) and 19.7 months (95% CI 11.6 to 25.3) in the 3 mg/kg group, respectively. The incidence of grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs was 36% in the 10 mg/kg group vs 20% in the 3 mg/kg group, and deaths due to treatment-related AEs occurred in four (1%) and two patients (1%), respectively., Conclusions: This 61-month follow-up of a phase III trial showed sustained long-term survival in patients with advanced melanoma who started metastatic treatment with ipilimumab monotherapy, and confirmed the significant benefit for those who received ipilimumab 10 mg/kg vs 3 mg/kg. These results suggest the emergence of a plateau in the OS curve, consistent with previous ipilimumab studies., Trial Registration Number: NCT01515189., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PAA has served as a consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Array, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Incyte, NewLink Genetics, Genmab, MedImmune, AstraZeneca, Syndax, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Ultimovacs, Sandoz, Immunocore and 4SC, and received research funding from Array, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech and MSD. MDV has served as a consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi. CR has served as a consultant to, or served on the board of directors/advisors of Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Amgen, Merck, Roche, MSD and Sanofi. AA has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, Sanofi and Merck. CLebbé has served on the board of advisors/directors of Merck Serono, Novartis and Sanofi, and has served as a consultant to, received research funding from or served on the board of directors/advisors of Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche and MSD. IMS has received honoraria from MSD, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pierre Fabre. PR has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Blueprint Medicines. CLoquai has served on the board of advisors/directors of Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Novartis, Sanofi, Biontech and Idera, and received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Novartis, Sanofi and Kyowa Kirin. LM has served on a medical board for Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck and Roche, and has received travel fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb. OH has received research funding from Amgen, Arcus, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celldex, CytomX, Genentech, GSK, Immunocore, Incyte, Iovance, Merck, Merck Serono, MedImmune, NextCure, Novartis, Parker, Pfizer, Polynoma, Regeneron and Roche, served as a consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Merck, Novartis and Roche, and received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Array, Genentech, Novartis and Sanofi. LB has served on the board of advisors/directors of Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck, Roche, Incyte and Bayer, and received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb. BD has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche and Novartis and honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre and Roche. DS has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, Merck, Amgen, 4SC, Merck-EMD, Array, Pierre Fabre, Philiogen, Incyte and Pfizer, and research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Novartis. CG has has served as a consultant to, or served on the board of directors/advisors of Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, MSD, NeraCare, Novartis, Philogen, Roche and Sanofi, and research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, NeraCare, Novartis, Roche and Sanofi. MN has received honoraria from Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Bristol-Myers Squibb. J-JG has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma and Sanofi. LT has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb. GL has received honoraria from and served as a consultant to Roche, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Novartis. MS has received honoraria from BMS, Merck, Sanofi Genzyme and Novartis. CH has received honoraria from, and served on the board of advisors for Bristol-Myers Squibb, and honoraria from Amgen, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Roche. RG has received research funding and honoraria from Amgen, Novartis, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson, and honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche Pharma, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Merck, Almirall Hermal, LEO, AstraZeneca, Sun Pharma and 4SC. FH and BS are employees of Bristol-Myers Squibb. MM has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Roche, MSD, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline and Incyte, and research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The recent publication of randomized trials investigating the efficacy of adjuvant therapy and completion lymph node dissection at microscopic stage III melanoma calls for a reappraisal of melanoma management from different angles: indications for sentinel lymph node biopsy, indications for completion lymph node dissection in microscopic-stage disease, and adjuvant therapies. Our objective was to evaluate current practices and to question French onco-dermatologists about any changes they envisaged in their practices in the light of recent publications., Methods: We conducted a national survey among members of the Cutaneous Oncology Group of the French Society of Dermatology in October 2017., Results: Forty French health centers were included, and 53 individual responses were collected. Sentinel lymph node biopsy for melanoma was performed at 75 % of the centers. Before the summer of 2017 and the publication of MSLT-II (proving the absence of any therapeutic benefits for complete lymph node dissection in microscopic stage III melanoma), when a positive sentinel lymph node was diagnosed, immediate completion lymph node dissection was performed at 90 % of the centers. After the publication of MSLT-II, 45 % of the respondents considered stopping this practice. The risk-benefit ratio prompted prescription of nivolumab and of combined dabrafenib+trametinib as adjuvant therapy by respectively 96 % and 79 % of respondents, while the corresponding rates for interferon and ipilimumab were only 21 % and 15 %., Conclusion: Early melanoma management stands on the verge of major changes thanks to the arrival of efficient adjuvant therapies and a decrease in immediate completion lymph node dissections for patients with microscopic stage III is also anticipated., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.)

Purpose: Vismodegib is a hedgehog pathway inhibitor indicated for the treatment of locally advanced basal cell carcinoma (laBCC), with an objective response rate of 65%, including a 32% complete response (CR). However, adverse effects often lead to drug discontinuation. The objective of our study was to evaluate long-term responses, predictive factors, and management of relapse after vismodegib discontinuation., Methods: An observational retrospective study was conducted in nine French oncodermatology units. We included patients with laBCC with CR on vismodegib who discontinued treatment between March 2012 and January 2016; we reviewed charts up to June 2016. The primary objective was to evaluate median relapse-free survival (RFS). Secondary objectives were risk factors associated with RFS, relapse, and death and treatment modalities after relapse and their efficacy., Results: One hundred sixteen patients with laBCC were included. The median RFS was 18.4 months (95% CI, 13.5 to 24.8 months). The RFS rate at 36 months was 35.4% (95% CI, 22.5% to 47.9%) for the total population and 40.0% (95% CI, 25.7% to 53.7%) for patients without Gorlin syndrome. LaBCC to the limbs and trunk was the only variable independently associated with a higher risk of relapse (hazard ratio, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.23 to 6.22; P = .019). Twenty-seven patients (50%) who experienced relapse during follow-up were retreated with vismodegib, with an objective response in 23 (objective response rate, 85%; CR rate, 37%; partial response rate, 48%) and eligibility for surgery in 24 (42%)., Conclusion: Long-term response after vismodegib discontinuation is frequent. Most patients who experience a relapse still respond to vismodegib rechallenge.

Introduction: CARADERM is a French national network that includes patients with rare skin adnexal neoplasms. The present paper describes only the adnexal neoplasm part of this network. The primary objective of CARADERM is to improve medical care for malignant skin adnexal neoplasms. A multidisciplinary review group and a centralized pathological review group have been set up., Patients and Methods: A dual network of clinicians and pathologists has been set up. Data are recorded in a secure database., Results: The CARADERM network comprises of 38 clinical centres and 22 pathology centres. Between 2014 and 2017, 1598 patients with an adnexal neoplasm were included. Data of interest were documented in 80% of cases. Median patient age was 72 years. Major histological subtypes were sweat gland carcinomas (50%), hair follicle carcinomas (37.7%), and sebaceous gland carcinomas (9.8%). Surgery was the first-line treatment for 81% of patients, including 76.9% with standard surgical margin analysis, and 5.5% with exhaustive margin analysis. 920 patients (57.6%) underwent a national pathology review process., Discussion: The CARADERM network aims at providing assistance in difficult situations concerning diagnosis and care in skin adnexal neoplasms. Analysis of the CARADERM data should allow the creation of a prognostic classification of these rare neoplasms together with recommendations. A national multidisciplinary consensus exists. Translational and therapeutic research is ongoing., Conclusion: The CARADERM network is currently recruiting and more data should lead to improved knowledge of these tumours in the coming years., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) induced by protoporphyrin IX (PpIX) has been widely used in dermatological practices such as treatment of skin cancers. Clearance rate depends on different factors such as light irradiation, skin oxygenation and drug penetration. The poor penetration of 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA) with topical application is limited and restrains the production of PpIX which could restrict PDT outcomes. This review will focus on techniques already used to enhance drug penetration in human skin, and will present their results, advantages, and drawbacks. Chemical and physical pretreatments will be discussed. Chemical pre-treatments comprise of drug formulation modification, use of agents that modify the heme cycle, enhance PpIX formation, and the combination of differentiation-promoting agent prior to PDT. On the other hand, physical pretreatments affect the skin barrier by creating holes in the skin or by removing stratum corneum. To promote drug penetration, iontophoresis and temperature modulation are interesting alternative methods. Cellular mechanisms enrolled during chemical or physical pretreatments have been investigated in order to understand how 5-ALA penetrates the skin, why it is preferentially metabolized in PpIX in tumour cells, and how it could be accumulated in deeper skin layers. The objective of this review is to compare clinical trials that use innovative technology to conventional PDT treatment. Most of these pretreatments present good or even better clinical outcomes than usual PDT., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Adnexal carcinomas are rare and heterogeneous skin tumors, for which no standard treatments exist for locally advanced or metastatic tumors., Aim of the Study: To evaluate the expression of PD-L1 and CD8 in adnexal carcinomas, and to study the association between PD-L1 expression, intra-tumoral T cell CD8 + infiltrate, and metastatic evolution., Materials and Methods: Eighty-three adnexal carcinomas were included. Immunohistochemistry using anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibodies (E1L3N and 22C3) and CD8 was performed. PD-L1 expression in tumor and immune cells, and CD8 + tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) density were analyzed semi-quantitatively., Results: Among the 60 sweat gland, 18 sebaceous and 5 trichoblastic carcinomas, 11% expressed PD-L1 in ≥ 1% tumor cells, more frequently sweat gland carcinomas (13%, 8/60) including apocrine carcinoma (40%, 2/5) and invasive extramammary Paget disease (57%, 4/7). Immune cells expressed significantly more PD-L1 than tumor cells (p < 0.01). Dense CD8 + TILs were present in 60% trichoblastic, 43% sweat gland, and 39% sebaceous carcinomas. CD8 + TILs were associated with PD-L1 expression by tumor cells (p < 0.01). Thirteen patients out of 47 developed metastases (27%) with a median follow-up of 30.5 months (range 7-36). Expression of PD-L1 by tumor cells was associated with the development of metastasis in univariate analysis (HR 4.0, 95% CI 1.1-15, p = 0.0377) but not in multivariate analysis (HR 4.1, 95% CI 0.6-29, p = 0.15)., Conclusion: PD-L1 expression is highly heterogeneous among adnexal carcinoma subtypes, higher in apocrine carcinoma and invasive extramammary Paget disease, and associated with CD8 + TILs. Our data suggest the interest of evaluating anti-PD1 immunotherapy in advanced or metastatic cutaneous adnexal carcinoma.

Importance: The prognosis of advanced melanoma has been greatly improved by new therapeutic agents and clinicians rely on dynamic signals to drive their therapeutic choices. Although the kinetics of metastatic disease seem to be correlated with survival, progression of the localized disease is not predictable., Objective: To assess whether progression of metastatic disease is associated with the time to the first distant recurrence of melanoma., Design, Setting, and Participants: This study was conducted from March 1, 2013, to September 1, 2017, among 638 adults with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma within the French multicentric prospective cohort MelBase. Patients treated with first-line immunotherapies, targeted therapies, or chemotherapy were included. Patients with unknown primary or de novo metastatic melanoma were not included. Data were analyzed from March 1, 2013, to December 1, 2017., Main Outcomes and Measures: The date of primary excision and time to first distant recurrence, progression-free survival, and overall survival were collected. Cox proportional hazards regression models were planned to assess the association between time to first distant recurrence and progression-free survival or overall survival, which was evaluated in terms of hazard ratio (HR). Time to recurrence was analyzed both as a continuous and categorical variable (<12 months, 12-24 months, and >24 months)., Results: A total of 638 patients (272 women and 366 men; median age, 64 years [interquartile range, 52-73 years]) were included in the study. The median time from primary excision to first distant recurrence was 25 months (interquartile range, 12-55 months). There was no evidence of association of the time to recurrence with progression-free survival, both when analyzed as a continuous variable (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.99-1.01) or after categorization (12-24 months: HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.56-1.02; >24 months: HR, 0.62; 95% CI; 0.47-1.01). There was no evidence of association of the time to recurrence with overall survival, both when analyzed as a continuous variable (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-1.02) or after categorization (12-24 months: HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.54-1.07; >24 months: HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.54-1.03). Those results remained nonsignificant after stratification by treatment., Conclusions and Relevance: In the MelBase cohort, time to recurrence of metastatic melanoma appears not to be associated with progression-free survival or overall survival.

Background: Myxoid melanoma is a rare variant of melanoma that must be recognised. Herein we describe a new metastatic case., Patients and Methods: A 78-year-old woman consulted for a firm, pinkish nodule measuring 25mm and present for six months on her left leg. Analysis of the biopsy revealed achromic fusiform tumour cells separated by large myxoid plaques. Labeling of SOX10, HMB45 and PS100 was diffuse and of moderate to strong intensity. A diagnosis of myxoid melanoma was considered, with Breslow thickness of 9mm. Surgery was carried out with a 2-cm margin and confirmed the diagnosis. Dermatological follow-up at one year revealed metastatic spread to the ganglia, pleura, liver and bone., Discussion: Few cases of primary myxoid melanoma have been described, and the condition is probably underdiagnosed. The classic clinical presentation of this condition consists of a solitary achromic nodule found chiefly on the limbs. The microscopic appearance is relatively non-specific. Immunohistochemical analysis may indicate melanocytic involvement: cells exhibit expression of SOX10, diffuse expression of protein S100, and less consistent and more variable expression of HMB45. The increasingly common use of anti-SOX10 is of value since it is expressed in the nucleus of melanocytes. Mastocytes and TGF-ß secretion appear to be involved in myxoid stroma production. In the absence of specific codification, management of myxoid melanoma is comparable to that of other types of melanoma. There is uncertainty about the prognosis, with the involvement of TGF-ß possibly indicating the aggressive potential of this type of tumour., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the phase 3 COMBI-AD study, patients with resected, stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or BRAF V600K mutations received adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib or placebo. The primary analysis showed that dabrafenib plus trametinib significantly improved relapse-free survival at 3 years. These results led to US Food and Drug Administration approval of dabrafenib plus trametinib as adjuvant treatment for patients with resected stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or BRAF V600K mutations. Here, we report the patient-reported outcomes from COMBI-AD., Methods: COMBI-AD was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study done at 169 sites in 25 countries. Study participants were aged 18 years or older and had complete resection of stage IIIA (lymph node metastases >1 mm), IIIB, or IIIC cutaneous melanoma as per American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th edition criteria, with BRAF V600E or BRAF V600K mutations, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice response system, stratified by mutation type and disease stage, to receive oral dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) plus oral trametinib (2 mg once daily) or matching placebos for 12 months. Patients, physicians, and the investigators who analysed the data were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival, reported elsewhere. Health-related quality of life, reported here, was a prespecified exploratory endpoint, and was assessed with the European Quality of Life 5-Dimensions 3-Levels (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire in the intention-to-treat population. We used a mixed-model repeated-measures analysis to assess differences in health-related quality of life between groups. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01682083. The trial is ongoing, but is no longer recruiting participants., Findings: Between Jan 31, 2013, and Dec 11, 2014, 870 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive dabrafenib plus trametinib (n=438) or matching placebos (n=432). Data were collected until the data cutoff for analyses of the primary endpoint (June 30, 2017). The median follow-up was 34 months (IQR 28-39) in the dabrafenib plus trametinib group and 33 months (20·5-39) in the placebo group. During the 12-month treatment phase, there were no significant or clinically meaningful changes from baseline between groups in EQ-5D-3L visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) or utility scores. During treatment, there were no clinically meaningful differences in VAS scores or utility scores in the dabrafenib plus trametinib group between patients who did and did not experience the most common adverse events. During long-term follow-up (range 15-48 months), VAS and utility scores were similar between groups and did not differ from baseline scores. At recurrence, there were significant decreases in VAS scores in both the dabrafenib plus trametinib group (mean change -6·02, SD 20·57; p=0·0032) and the placebo group (-6·84, 20·86; p<0·0001); the mean change in utility score also differed significantly at recurrence for both groups (dabrafenib plus trametinib -0·0626, 0·1911, p<0·0001; placebo -0·0748, 0·2182, p<0·0001)., Interpretation: These findings show that dabrafenib plus trametinib did not affect patient-reported outcome scores during or after adjuvant treatment, and suggest that preventing or delaying relapse with adjuvant therapy could be beneficial in this setting., Funding: Novartis., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (NIVO1+IPI3) is approved for first-line treatment of patients with advanced melanoma in several countries. We conducted a phase IIIb/IV study (CheckMate 511) to determine if nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg (NIVO3+IPI1) improves the safety profile of the combination., Patients and Methods: Patients (N = 360) age 18 years or older with previously untreated, unresectable stage III or IV melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to NIVO3+IPI1 or NIVO1+IPI3 once every 3 weeks for four doses. After 6 weeks, all patients received NIVO 480 mg once every 4 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was a comparison of the incidence of treatment-related grade 3 to 5 adverse events (AEs) between groups. Secondary end points included descriptive analyses of objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. The study was not designed to formally demonstrate noninferiority of NIVO3+IPI1 to NIVO1+IPI3 for efficacy end points., Results: At a minimum follow-up of 12 months, incidence of treatment-related grade 3 to 5 AEs was 34% with NIVO3+IPI1 versus 48% with NIVO1+IPI3 ( P = .006). In descriptive analyses, objective response rate was 45.6% in the NIVO3+IPI1 group and 50.6% in the NIVO1+IPI3 group, with complete responses in 15.0% and 13.5% of patients, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 9.9 months in the NIVO3+IPI1 group and 8.9 months in the NIVO1+IPI3 group. Median overall survival was not reached in either group., Conclusion: The CheckMate 511 study met its primary end point, demonstrating a significantly lower incidence of treatment-related grade 3-5 AEs with NIVO3+IPI1 versus NIVO1+IPI3. Descriptive analyses showed that there were no meaningful differences between the groups for any efficacy end point, although longer follow up may help to better characterize efficacy outcomes.

Importance: This analysis provides long-term follow-up in patients with BRAF wild-type advanced melanoma receiving first-line therapy based on anti-programmed cell death 1 receptor inhibitors., Objective: To compare the 3-year survival with nivolumab vs that with dacarbazine in patients with previously untreated BRAF wild-type advanced melanoma., Design, Setting, and Participants: This follow-up of a randomized phase 3 trial analyzed 3-year overall survival data from the randomized, controlled, double-blind CheckMate 066 phase 3 clinical trial. For this ongoing, multicenter academic institution trial, patients were enrolled from January 2013 through February 2014. Eligible patients were 18 years or older with confirmed unresectable previously untreated stage III or IV melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 but without a BRAF mutation., Interventions: Patients were treated until progression or unacceptable toxic events with nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus dacarbazine-matched placebo every 3 weeks) or dacarbazine (1000 mg/m2 every 3 weeks plus nivolumab-matched placebo every 2 weeks)., Main Outcome and Measure: Overall survival., Results: At minimum follow-ups of 38.4 months among 210 participants in the nivolumab group (median age, 64 years [range, 18-86 years]; 57.6% male) and 38.5 months among 208 participants in the dacarbazine group (median age, 66 years [range, 25-87 years]; 60.1% male), 3-year overall survival rates were 51.2% (95% CI, 44.1%-57.9%) and 21.6% (95% CI, 16.1%-27.6%), respectively. The median overall survival was 37.5 months (95% CI, 25.5 months-not reached) in the nivolumab group and 11.2 months (95% CI, 9.6-13.0 months) in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.36-0.59; P < .001). Complete and partial responses, respectively, were reported for 19.0% (40 of 210) and 23.8% (50 of 210) of patients in the nivolumab group compared with 1.4% (3 of 208) and 13.0% (27 of 208) of patients in the dacarbazine group. Additional analyses were performed on outcomes with subsequent therapies. Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 15.0% (31 of 206) of nivolumab-treated patients and in 17.6% (36 of 205) of dacarbazine-treated patients. There were no deaths due to study drug toxic effects., Conclusions and Relevance: Nivolumab led to improved 3-year overall survival vs dacarbazine in patients with previously untreated BRAF wild-type advanced melanoma., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01721772.