Search

Since the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting PD-1 and CTLA-4 receptors, survival has improved significantly for patients with irresectable and metastatic skin cancer, including cutaneous squamous cell cancer and melanoma. However, systemic administration of these drugs is associated with immune related adverse events (irAEs), which can be severe, irreversible and even fatal. To reduce the risk of irAEs associated with systemic exposure to immunotherapeutic drugs, local administration of low doses could be considered. This systematic review provides an overview of early phase clinical trials with drugs that are currently under investigation for intratumoral administration in patients with melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: [T.D. de Gruijl: Consultancy/advisory board fees (all paid to institute): LAVA Therapeutics, Mendus, GE Health; research support: Idera Pharmaceuticals/Aceragen, BMS, Pfizer, Astra Zeneca; holds stocks from LAVA Therapeutics. C. Blank: Consultancy/advisory board fees (all paid to the institute): Bristol Muyers Squibb, F. Hoffman-La Roche, Merck; Research grants (all paid to the institute) 4SC, Nanostring Technologies; Advisory board fee (individual): Third Rock Ventures A.A.M. van der Veldt: consultancy fees (all paid to the institute): BMS, Eisai, Ipsen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi. J.C. Janssen none, B. van Dijk none, D.J. Grünhagen none, L.L. Hoeijmakers none, W.M. Bramer none, C. Verhoef none]., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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

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

Previous studies demonstrated limited efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in unresectable acral melanoma (AM); it remains unclear how this translates to the adjuvant setting. This study investigates clinical outcomes of acral compared to cutaneous melanoma (CM) patients treated with adjuvant anti-PD-1 after complete resection. All stages III-IV AM and CM patients receiving adjuvant anti-PD-1 after complete resection between 2018 and 2022 were included from the prospective nationwide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. We analyzed recurrence-free survival (RFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and overall survival (OS). A multivariable Cox regression analysis of RFS was performed to adjust for potential confounders. We included 1958 (86 AM and 1872 CM) patients. At baseline, AM patients more frequently had KIT mutations, higher disease stages, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, and fewer BRAF and NRAS mutations. Median RFS was 14.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.5-29.3) in AM and 37.4 months (95% CI: 34.6 to not reached) in CM (p = .002). After correcting for potential confounders, AM remained associated with a higher risk of recurrence (HR adj 1.53; 95% CI: 1.07-2.17; p = .019). Two-year DMFS tended to be worse for AM than for CM: 64.5% versus 79.7% (p = .050). Two-year OS was significantly lower in AM (71.5% vs. 84.3%; p = .027). The results of this study suggest a poorer outcome of adjuvant-treated AM compared to CM. Studies assessing the added value of adjuvant treatment in AM are needed. Future research should investigate alternative treatment strategies to improve outcomes of high-risk AM., (© 2024 The Author(s). International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

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

Background: The introduction of adjuvant systemic treatment for patients with high-risk melanomas necessitates accurate staging of disease. However, inconsistencies in outcomes exist between disease stages as defined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer (8th edition). We aimed to develop a tool to predict patient-specific outcomes in people with melanoma rather than grouping patients according to disease stage., Methods: Patients older than 13 years with confirmed primary melanoma who underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) between Oct 29, 1997, and Nov 11, 2013, at four European melanoma centres (based in Berlin, Germany; Amsterdam and Rotterdam, the Netherlands; and Warsaw, Poland) were included in the development cohort. Potential predictors of recurrence-free and melanoma-specific survival assessed were sex, age, presence of ulceration, primary tumour location, histological subtype, Breslow thickness, sentinel node status, number of sentinel nodes removed, maximum diameter of the largest sentinel node metastasis, and Dewar classification. A prognostic model and nomogram were developed to predict 5-year recurrence-free survival on a continuous scale in patients with stage pT1b or higher melanomas. This model was also calibrated to predict melanoma-specific survival. Model performance was assessed by discrimination (area under the time-dependent receiver operating characteristics curve [AUC]) and calibration. External validation was done in a cohort of patients with primary melanomas who underwent SLNB between Jan 30, 1997, and Dec 12, 2013, at the Melanoma Institute Australia (Sydney, NSW, Australia)., Findings: The development cohort consisted of 4071 patients, of whom 2075 (51%) were female and 1996 (49%) were male. 889 (22%) had sentinel node-positive disease and 3182 (78%) had sentinel node-negative disease. The validation cohort comprised 4822 patients, of whom 1965 (41%) were female and 2857 (59%) were male. 891 (18%) had sentinel node-positive disease and 3931 (82%) had sentinel node-negative disease. Median follow-up was 4·8 years (IQR 2·3-7·8) in the development cohort and 5·0 years (2·2-8·9) in the validation cohort. In the development cohort, 5-year recurrence-free survival was 73·5% (95% CI 72·0-75·1) and 5-year melanoma-specific survival was 86·5% (85·3-87·8). In the validation cohort, the corresponding estimates were 66·1% (64·6-67·7) and 83·3% (82·0-84·6), respectively. The final model contained six prognostic factors: sentinel node status, Breslow thickness, presence of ulceration, age at SLNB, primary tumour location, and maximum diameter of the largest sentinel node metastasis. In the development cohort, for the model's prediction of recurrence-free survival, the AUC was 0·80 (95% CI 0·78-0·81); for prediction of melanoma-specific survival, the AUC was 0·81 (0·79-0·84). External validation showed good calibration for both outcomes, with AUCs of 0·73 (0·71-0·75) and 0·76 (0·74-0·78), respectively., Interpretation: Our prediction model and nomogram accurately predicted patient-specific risk probabilities for 5-year recurrence-free and melanoma-specific survival. These tools could have important implications for clinical decision making when considering adjuvant treatments in patients with high-risk melanomas., Funding: Erasmus Medical Centre Cancer Institute., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests RCS reports honoraria (paid to their institution) from Amgen. AAMvdV reports consultancy fees (paid to their institution) from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, Ipsen, Eisai, Merck, Pfizer, Novartis, and Roche. RPMS has received honoraria for advisory board participation from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Qbiotics, and speaker fees from Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis. AHRV has received honoraria from Novartis. RAS has received fees for professional services from MetaOptima Technology, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Evaxion, Provectus, Qbiotics, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, NeraCare, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Myriad Genetics, and GlaxoSmithKline. GVL reports consultancy or advisory fees from Agenus, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Evaxion, Hexal, Highlight Therapeutics, Innovent Biologics, Novartis, OncoSec, PHMR, Pierre Fabre, Provectus, Qbiotics, and Regeneron. JFT has received honoraria for advisory board participation from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, GlaxoSmithKline, and Provectus, and travel and conference support from GlaxoSmithKline, Provectus, and Novartis. PR reports research funding (paid to their institution) from Merck Sharp & Dohme and Pfizer, and has received honoraria for lectures and advisory board participation from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Merck, Philogen, and Blueprint Medicines. UK has received consulting fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, travel support from Merck Serono and Pfizer, and grants for educational activities from Merck Serono, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Pierre-Fabre. ACJvA reports honoraria for consultancy and serving on advisory boards (all paid to their institution) from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck, Pfizer, Neracare, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Provectus, Sanofi, Sirius Medical, and 4SC, and research grants (paid to their institution) from Amgen, Merck, and Pfizer. DvK has participated on the data and safety monitoring boards of the FAST CABG and Multivessel Talent trials. DJG has served on data and safety monitoring boards for Amgen and Novartis (funds paid to their institution). All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The aims of this study were to investigate whether (early) PERCIST response monitoring with 18 F-FDG PET/CT is predictive for progression-free survival (PFS) in unresectable stage III or IV melanoma patients treated with BRAF/MEK inhibitor (MEKi) and to define dissemination patterns at progression with a lesion-based evaluation in direct comparison to baseline to improve our understanding of 18 F-FDG PET/CT during BRAF/MEKi., Patients and Methods: This prospective multicenter single-arm study included 70 patients with unresectable stage III/IV BRAF -mutated melanoma who underwent contrast-enhanced CT and 18 F-FDG PET/CT at baseline and 2 and 7 weeks during treatment with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib and at progression if possible. Tumor response assessment was done with RECIST1.1 and PERCIST. Follow-up PET/CT scans were visually compared with baseline to assess dissemination patterns., Results: Using RECIST1.1, PFS was not significantly different between the response groups ( P = 0.26). At 2 weeks, PERCIST median PFS was 15.7 months for patients with complete metabolic response (CMR) versus 8.3 months for non-CMR ( P = 0.035). The hazards ratio (HR) for progression/death in non-CMR versus CMR was 1.99 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-3.84; P = 0.040) and 1.77 (95% CI, 0.91-3.43; P = 0.0935) when adjusting for lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). At 7 weeks, median PFS for PERCIST CMR was 16.7 months versus 8.5 months for non-CMR ( P = 0.0003). The HR for progression/death in the non-CMR group was significantly increased (HR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.60-5.40; P = 0.0005), even when adjusting for LDH (HR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.43-4.91; P = 0.0020). At week 7, 18 F-FDG PET/CT was false-positive in all 4 (6%) patients with new FDG-avid lesions but CMR of known metastases. When 18 F-FDG PET/CT was performed at progressive disease, 18/22 (82%) patients had progression of known metastases with or without new 18 F-FDG-avid lesions., Conclusions: This study shows that PERCIST response assessment at week 7 is predictive for PFS, regardless of LDH. At 2 weeks, patients with CMR have longer PFS than patients with non-CMR, but different PET parameters should be investigated to further evaluate the added value of early 18 F-FDG PET/CT. Disease progression on PET/CT is predominated by progression of known metastases, and new 18 F-FDG-avid lesions during BRAF/MEKi are not automatically a sign of recurrent disease., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: The REPOSIT study is supported by an unrestricted grant by Roche Medical B.V. The company has approved the design of the study and provided cobimetinib free of charge. The company has no role in collection, analysis, and interpretation of data or in writing the article. A.J.M.v.d.E. received study grant from Sanofi, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, TEVA, and Idera; received travel expenses coverage from MSD Oncology, Roche, Pfizer, and Sanofi; received speaker honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis; and is part of the advisory board of Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology, Amgen, Roche, Novartis, Sanofi, Pfizer, Ipsen, Merck, and Pierre Fabre. E.W.K. has consultancy/advisory relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck, Pierre Fabre, Lilly, and Bayer, all paid to the institute; and received research grants not related to this article from Bristol Myers Squibb, Delcath, Novartis, and Pierre Fabre. G.A.P.H. has consultancy/advisory relationships with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, MSD, Pfizer, Novartis, Sanofi, and Pierre Fabre, all paid to the institute; and received research grants from Bristol Myers Squibb and Seerave, all paid to the institute. M.J.B.A. has advisory board/consultancy honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD-Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Astellas, and Bayer, and research grants from Merck-Pfizer, all paid to the institute and not related to current work. F.Y.F.L.d.V. received research grant from Foundation STOPBraintumors.org , Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Servier, CureVac, and EORTC, all paid to the institute. A.A.M.v.d.V. has consultancy roles (all paid to the institute) for Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, Sanofi, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Merck, Ipsen, Eisai, and Pfizer, all paid to the institute. J.B.A.G.H. has advisory roles for Bristol Myers Squibb, CureVac, GSK, Ipsen, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Imcyse, Merck Serono, Molecular Partners, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Third Rock Ventures; is a member of SAB of Achilles Tx, BioNTech, Gadeta, Immunocore, Instil Bio, PokeAcell, Scenic, T-Knife, and Neogene Tx, all paid to the institute except Neogene Tx and Scenic; and received grant support from Amgen, Asher Bio, BioNTech, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, and Sastra Cell Therapy, all paid to the institute. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is recommended for patients with >pT1b cutaneous melanoma, and should be considered and discussed with patients diagnosed with pT1b cutaneous melanoma for the purpose of staging, prognostication and determining eligibility for adjuvant therapy. Previously, the clinicopathologic and gene expression profile (CP-GEP, Merlin Assay®) model was developed to identify patients who can forgo SLNB because of a low risk for sentinel node metastasis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical use and implementation of the CP-GEP model in a prospective multicenter study in the Netherlands. Both test performance and feasibility for clinical implementation were assessed in 260 patients with T1-T4 melanoma. The CP-GEP model demonstrated an overall negative predictive value of 96.7% and positive predictive value of 23.7%, with a potential SLNB reduction rate of 42.2% in patients with T1-T3 melanoma. With a median time of 16 days from initiation to return of test results, there was sufficient time left before the SLNB was performed. Based on these outcomes, the model may support clinical decision-making to identify patients who can forgo SLNB in clinical practice., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest This study was partially funded by SkylineDx. All other authors declare that they have no potential or competing interests., (© 2023 Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

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

Introduction: When analysing patient survival, one is often interested in cause of death. Little is known about the presence of population mortality in advanced melanoma patients. The aim of this study was to assess population mortality after different response states in advanced melanoma patients in the Netherlands, and analyse the contribution of disease and population mortality for different age groups., Methods: We selected patients diagnosed between 2013 and 2019 with unresectable IIIC or stage IV melanoma, registered in the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. A multi-state model with response states integrating population mortality was fitted. One-year landmark analyses were performed to assess outcomes after each response state., Results: Overall, 5119 patients were selected. Five-year probabilities of melanoma-related mortality in patients alive in complete response at one year after diagnosis increased with age, and was 17.2% (95% confidence interval: 13.0-21.4) for patients aged <65 years and 28.7% (95% confidence interval: 24.3-33.1) in patients aged ≥80 years. Population mortality only played a large role for older patients (75 years and above) alive at 1 year after diagnosis with a partial or complete response., Conclusion: Even though survival outcomes of advanced melanoma patients have improved over the last decade, the vast majority of patients still die due to melanoma-related mortality., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is important for staging in patients with primary cutaneous melanoma. Did having previously undergone SLNB also affect outcomes in patients once they have progressed to metastatic melanoma in the era prior to adjuvant therapy?, Methods: Data were retrieved from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry, a prospectively collected, nationwide database of patients with unresectable stage IIIC or IV (advanced) melanoma between 2012 and 2018. Melanoma-specific survival (MSS) was compared between patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma, previously treated with a wide local excision (WLE) or WLE combined with SLNB as initial treatment of their primary tumor. Cox regression analyses were used to analyze the influence of different variables on MSS., Results: In total, 2581 patients were included, of whom 1412 were treated with a WLE of the primary tumor alone and 1169 in whom this was combined with SLNB. At a median follow-up of 44 months from diagnosis of advanced melanoma, MSS was significantly longer in patients who had previously undergone SLNB {median 23 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 19-29) vs. 18 months (95% CI 15-20) for patients treated with WLE alone; p = 0.002}. However, multivariate Cox regression did not identify SLNB as an independent favorable prognostic factor for MSS after diagnosis of advanced melanoma., Conclusion: Prior to the availability of adjuvant systemic therapy, once patients have unresectable stage IIIC or IV (advanced) melanoma, there was no difference in disease outcome for patients who were or were not previously staged with SLNB., (© 2022. Society of Surgical Oncology.)

Background: The incidence of melanoma is increasing and 37% of patients with metastatic melanoma eventually have brain metastasis (BM). Currently, there is no consensus on screening for BM in patients with resected stage III melanoma. However, given the high incidence of BM, routine screening magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain is considered in patients with completely resected stage III melanoma before the start of adjuvant treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the yield of screening for BM in these patients., Materials and Methods: A single-center cohort study was carried out in the Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, a large tertiary referral center for patients with melanoma. Eligible patients with complete resection of stage III melanoma and a screening MRI of the brain, made within 12 weeks after resection and before adjuvant treatment (programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitors, dabrafenib-trametinib), available between 1 August 2018 and 1 January 2021, were included., Results: A total of 202 patients were included. Eighteen (8.9%) of 202 patients had extracranial metastasis at screening. Two (1.1%) of the remaining 184 patients had BM at screening, resulting in a switch from adjuvant treatment to ipilimumab-nivolumab. At a median follow-up of 21.2 months, BM was detected in another 4 (2.4%) of 166 patients who started with adjuvant treatment., Conclusions: The yield of screening MRI of the brain is low after complete resection of stage III melanoma, before the start of adjuvant treatment. Therefore, routine screening MRI is not recommended in this setting., Competing Interests: Disclosure AAMvdV: consultancy boards (fees paid to the institution) for BMS, MSD, Merck, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Ipsen. MS: speaker fee (paid to the institution) from AuntMinnie. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Recent results of patients with advanced melanoma treated with first-line BRAF-MEK inhibitors in clinical trials showed 5-year survival in one-third of patients with a median overall survival (OS) of more than 2 years. This study aimed to investigate these patients' real-world survival and identify the characteristics of long-term survivors. The study population consisted of patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma with a BRAF-V600 mutated tumor who were treated with first-line BRAF-MEK inhibitors between 2013 and 2017. Long-term survival was defined as a minimum OS of 2 years from start therapy. The median progression-free survival (mPFS) and median OS (mOS) of real-world patients ( n  = 435) were respectively 8.0 (95% CI, 6.8-9.4) and 11.7 (95% CI, 10.3-13.5) months. Two-year survival was reached by 28% of the patients, 22% reached 3-year survival and 19% reached 4-year survival. Real-world patients often had brain metastases (41%), stage IV M1c disease (87%), ECOG PS ≥2 (21%), ≥3 organ sites (62%) and elevated LDH of ≥250 U/I (49%). Trial-eligible real-world patients had an mOS of 17.9 months. Patients surviving more than 2 years ( n  = 116) more often had an ECOG PS ≤1 (83%), normal LDH (60%), no brain metastases (60%), no liver metastases (63%) and <3 organ sites (60%). Long-term survival of real-world patients treated with first-line BRAF-MEK inhibitors is significantly lower than that of trial patients, which is probably explained by poorer baseline characteristics of patients treated in daily practice. Long-term survivors generally had more favorable characteristics with regard to age, LDH level and metastatic sites, compared to patients not reaching long-term survival., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) is an intralesional oncolytic virotherapy for patients with irresectable stage III-IVM1a cutaneous melanoma. Although this treatment is considered to mainly act through T cell-mediated mechanisms, prominent numbers of plasma cells after T-VEC treatment have been described. The aim was to investigate how often these plasma cells were present, whether they were relevant in the response to treatment, and if these or other histopathological features were associated with durable response to treatment. Histopathological (granulomas, perineural inflammation, etc.) and immunological features [e.g. B cells/plasma cells (CD20/CD138) and T cells (CD3,CD4,CD8)] were scored and correlated with durable tumor response [i.e. complete response (CR) persisting beyond 6 months after treatment]. Plasmacellular infiltrate was examined with next-generation sequencing and immunohistochemistry (IgG, IgM, IgA, and IgD). Plasma cells were present in all T-VEC injected biopsies from 25 patients with melanoma taken at 3-5 months after starting treatment. In patients with a durable response ( n = 12), angiocentric features and granulomas were more frequently identified compared with patients without a (durable) response ( n = 13); 75% versus 29% for angiocentric features ( P = 0.015) and 58% versus 15% for granulomas ( P = 0.041). There was a class switch of IgM to IgG with skewing to certain dominant Ig heavy chain clonotypes. An angiocentric granulomatous pattern in T-VEC injected melanoma lesions was associated with a durable CR (>6 months). Plasma cells are probably a relevant feature in the mechanism of response but were not associated with durable response., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Neoadjuvant ipilimumab and nivolumab induces high pathologic response rates (pRRs) in clinical stage III nodal melanoma, and pathologic response is strongly associated with prolonged relapse-free survival (RFS). The PRADO extension cohort of the OpACIN-neo trial ( NCT02977052 ) addressed the feasibility and effect on clinical outcome of using pathologic response after neoadjuvant ipilimumab and nivolumab as a criterion for further treatment personalization. In total, 99 patients with clinical stage IIIb-d nodal melanoma were included and treated with 6 weeks of neoadjuvant ipilimumab 1 mg kg -1 and nivolumab 3 mg kg -1 . In patients achieving major pathologic response (MPR, ≤10% viable tumor) in their index lymph node (ILN, the largest lymph node metastasis at baseline), therapeutic lymph node dissection (TLND) and adjuvant therapy were omitted. Patients with pathologic partial response (pPR; >10 to ≤50% viable tumor) underwent TLND only, whereas patients with pathologic non-response (pNR; >50% viable tumor) underwent TLND and adjuvant systemic therapy ± synchronous radiotherapy. Primary objectives were confirmation of pRR (ILN, at week 6) of the winner neoadjuvant combination scheme identified in OpACIN-neo; to investigate whether TLND can be safely omitted in patients achieving MPR; and to investigate whether RFS at 24 months can be improved for patients achieving pNR. ILN resection and ILN-response-tailored treatment were feasible. The pRR was 72%, including 61% MPR. Grade 3-4 toxicity within the first 12 weeks was observed in 22 (22%) patients. TLND was omitted in 59 of 60 patients with MPR, resulting in significantly lower surgical morbidity and better quality of life. The 24-month relapse-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival rates were 93% and 98% in patients with MPR, 64% and 64% in patients with pPR, and 71% and 76% in patients with pNR, respectively. These findings provide a strong rationale for randomized clinical trials testing response-directed treatment personalization after neoadjuvant ipilimumab and nivolumab., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature America, Inc.)

Objective: Patients with cutaneous melanoma and a positive sentinel node (SN) are currently eligible for adjuvant treatment with targeted therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors. Near-infrared (NIR) fluorescence imaging could be an alternative and less invasive tool for SN biopsy to select patients for adjuvant treatment. One potential target for NIR is the mesenchymal-epithelial transition factor (MET). This study aimed to assess MET immunoreactivity in positive SNs and to evaluate its potential diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic value., Methods: In this retrospective study, positive SN samples from patients with primary cutaneous melanoma were collected to assess MET immunoreactivity. To this end, paraffin-embedded SNs were stained for MET (monoclonal antibody D1C2). A 4-point Histoscore was used to determine cytoplasmic and membranous immunoreactivity (0 negative/1 weak/2 moderate/3 strong). Samples were considered positive when ≥10% of the cancer cells showed MET expression (staining intensity ≥1). Patient and clinicopathological characteristics were used for descriptive statistics, binary logistic regression, and survival analyses., Results: Positive MET immunohistochemistry was observed in 24 out of 37 samples (65%). No statistically significant associations were found between MET positivity and the following prognostic factors: Breslow thickness (P = 0.961), ulceration (P = 1.000), and SN tumor burden (P = 0.792). According to MET positivity, Kaplan-Meier curves showed no significant differences in survival., Conclusion: This exploratory study found no evidence to support MET immunoreactivity in positive SNs as a possible diagnostic or prognostic indicator in patients with melanoma., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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

The COVID-19 pandemic had a severe impact on medical care. Our study aims to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on advanced melanoma care in the Netherlands. We selected patients diagnosed with irresectable stage IIIc and IV melanoma during the first and second COVID-19 wave and compared them with patients diagnosed within the same time frame in 2018 and 2019. Patients were divided into three geographical regions. We investigated baseline characteristics, time from diagnosis until start of systemic therapy and postponement of anti-PD-1 courses. During both waves, fewer patients were diagnosed compared to the control groups. During the first wave, time between diagnosis and start of treatment was significantly longer in the southern region compared to other regions (33 vs 9 and 15 days, P-value <.05). Anti-PD-1 courses were postponed in 20.0% vs 3.0% of patients in the first wave compared to the control period. Significantly more patients had courses postponed in the south during the first wave compared to other regions (34.8% vs 11.5% vs 22.3%, P-value <.001). Significantly more patients diagnosed during the second wave had brain metastases and worse performance status compared to the control period. In conclusion, advanced melanoma care in the Netherlands was severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. In the south, the start of systemic treatment for advanced melanoma was more often delayed, and treatment courses were more frequently postponed. During the second wave, patients were diagnosed with poorer patient and tumor characteristics. Longer follow-up is needed to establish the impact on patient outcomes., (© 2021 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

There is no consensus on the optimal treatment duration of anti-PD-1 for advanced melanoma. The aim of our study was to gain insight into the outcomes of anti-PD-1 discontinuation, the association of treatment duration with progression and anti-PD-1 re-treatment in relapsing patients. Analyses were performed on advanced melanoma patients in the Netherlands who discontinued first-line anti-PD-1 monotherapy in the absence of progressive disease (n = 324). Survival was estimated after anti-PD-1 discontinuation and with a Cox model the association of treatment duration with progression was assessed. At the time of anti-PD-1 discontinuation, 90 (28%) patients had a complete response (CR), 190 (59%) a partial response (PR) and 44 (14%) stable disease (SD). Median treatment duration for patients with CR, PR and SD was 11.2, 11.5 and 7.2 months, respectively. The 24-month progression-free survival and overall survival probabilities for patients with a CR, PR and SD were, respectively, 64% and 88%, 53% and 82%, 31% and 64%. Survival outcomes of patients with a PR and CR were similar when anti-PD-1 discontinuation was not due to adverse events. Having a PR at anti-PD-1 discontinuation and longer time to first response were associated with progression [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.81 (95% confidence interval, CI = 1.11-2.97) and HR = 1.10 (95% CI = 1.02-1.19; per month increase)]. In 17 of the 27 anti-PD-1 re-treated patients (63%), a response was observed. Advanced melanoma patients can have durable remissions after (elective) anti-PD-1 discontinuation., (© 2021 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) is a genetically modified herpes simplex virus-1-based oncolytic immunotherapy and has been approved for the local treatment of unresectable (stage IIIB/C and IVM1a) cutaneous melanoma. During T-VEC treatment, tumor response is often evaluated using [18F]2-fluoro-2-deoxy- d-glucose(FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT). In a Dutch cohort (n = 173), almost one-third of patients developed new-onset FDG uptake in uninjected locoregional lymph nodes during T-VEC. In 36 out of 53 (68%) patients with new nodal FDG uptake, nuclear medicine physicians classified this FDG uptake as "suspected metastases" without clinical or pathological confirmation in the majority of patients. These false positive results indicate that new-onset FDG uptake in locoregional lymph nodes during T-VEC treatment does not necessarily reflect progressive disease, but may be associated with immune infiltration. In current clinical practice, physicians should be aware of the high false positive rate of FDG uptake during treatment with T-VEC in patients with melanoma. Therefore, pathological examination of lymph node lesions with new FDG uptake is recommended to differentiate between progressive disease and immune infiltration after treatment with T-VEC., (© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Surgical Oncology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: The introduction of adjuvant systemic treatment has significantly improved recurrence-free survival in patients with resectable high-risk melanoma. Adjuvant treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapy, however, substantially impacts health care budgets, while the number of patients with melanoma who are treated in the adjuvant setting is still increasing. To evaluate the socioeconomic impact of the three adjuvant treatments, a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was carried out., Materials and Methods: Data were obtained from the three pivotal registration phase III clinical trials on the adjuvant treatment of patients with resected high-risk stage III in melanoma (KEYNOTE-054, CheckMate 238, and COMBI-AD). For this CEA, a Markov model with three health states (no evidence of disease, recurrent/progressive disease, and death) was applied. From a societal perspective, different adjuvant strategies were compared according to total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. To evaluate model uncertainty, sensitivity analyses (deterministic and probabilistic) were carried out., Results: In the adjuvant setting, total costs (per patient) were €168 826 for nivolumab, €194 529 for pembrolizumab, and €211 110 for dabrafenib-trametinib. These costs were mainly determined by drug acquisition costs, whereas routine surveillance costs varied from €126 096 to €134 945. Compared with routine surveillance, LYs improved by approximately 1.41 for all therapies and QALYs improved by 2.02 for immune checkpoint inhibitors and 2.03 for targeted therapy. This resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of €21 153 (nivolumab), €33 878 (pembrolizumab), and €37 520 (dabrafenib-trametinib) per QALY gained., Conclusions: This CEA compared the three EMA-approved adjuvant systemic therapies for resected stage III melanoma. Adjuvant treatment with nivolumab was the most cost-effective, followed by pembrolizumab. Combination therapy with dabrafenib-trametinib was the least cost-effective. With the increasing number of patients with high-risk melanoma who will be treated with adjuvant treatment, there is an urgent need to reduce drug costs while developing better prognostic and predictive tools to identify patients who will benefit from adjuvant treatment., Competing Interests: Disclosure SS is chair of the Centre for Personalized Cancer Treatment (CPCT), member of the SkylineDx Supervisory board (paid to institute), and declares patents on assays detecting CECs, EpCAM-neg CTCs, and CTC-ARv7 detection and outcome to cabazitaxel. AV is advisory board member for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Eisai, and Sanofi. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Melanoma of unknown primary (MUP) is considered different from melanoma of known primary (MKP), and it is unclear whether these patients benefit equally from novel therapies. In the current study, characteristics and overall survival (OS) of patients with advanced and metastatic MUP and MKP were compared in the era of novel therapy. Patients were selected from the prospective nation-wide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR). The following criteria were applied: diagnosis of stage IIIc unresectable or IV cutaneous MKP (cMKP) or MUP between July 2012 and July 2017 and treatment with immune checkpoint inhibition and/or targeted therapy. OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The stratified multivariable Cox regression model was used for adjusted analysis. A total of 2706 patients were eligible including 2321 (85.8%) patients with cMKP and 385 (14.2%) with MUP. In comparative analysis, MUP patients more often presented with advanced and metastatic disease at primary diagnosis with poorer performance status, higher LDH, and central nervous system metastases. In crude analysis, median OS of cMKP or MUP patients was 12 months (interquartile range [IQR] 5 - 44) and 14 months (IQR 5 - not reached), respectively (P = 0.278). In adjusted analysis, OS in MUP patients was superior (hazard rate 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.58-0.85; P < 0.001). As compared to patients with advanced and metastatic cMKP, MUP patients have superior survival in adjusted analysis, but usually present with poorer prognostic characteristics. In crude analysis, OS was comparable indicating that patients with MUP benefit at least equally from treatment with novel therapies., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: The incidence of metastatic melanoma is increasing in all ages. Multiple trials with targeted drugs and immune checkpoint inhibitors showed improved survival in metastatic melanoma. However, patients aged ≥75 years are often under-represented in clinical trials, therefore raising questions on safety and efficacy of treatment., Patients and Methods: We analyzed a real-world cohort of 3054 patients with metastatic melanoma stratified for age (≤65 years, 66-74 years and ≥ 75 years), and BRAF status, providing data on treatment strategies, toxicity, and survival. Kaplan Meier curves and Cox Proportional Hazard Models were used to present overall survival (OS) and Melanoma Specific Survival (MSS)., Results: Overall, 52.2% of patients were ≤ 65 years and 18.4% of patients ≥75 years. BRAF mutated tumors were found less often in patients ≥75 years: 34.5% versus 65% in patients ≤65 years. Patients ≥75 years received systemic therapy less frequently compared to their younger counterparts independent of the BRAF status. When receiving treatment, no statistical significant difference in grade 3 or 4 toxicity was observed. Three year Overall Survival rate was 13.7% (9.1-19.3) in patients ≥75 years versus 26.7% (23.1-30.4) in patients ≤65 years, with a Hazard Ratio (HR) of 1.71 (95%CI 1.50-1.95), p < 0.001. Three year Melanoma Specific Survival was 30.4% (22.0-39.2) versus 34.0% (29.7-38.2), HR 1.26 (95% CI 1.07-1.49), p = 0.005 with an adjusted HR of 1.21 (1.00-1.47), p = 0.049., Conclusion: Patients with metastatic melanoma ≥75 years are less frequently treated, but when treated there is no statistical significant increase in toxicity and only a borderline statistical significant difference in Melanoma Specific Survival was seen, compared to younger patients., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: In patients with metastatic melanoma, progression of a single tumour lesion (solitary progression) after response to immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) is increasingly treated with local therapy. We evaluated the role of local therapy for solitary progression in melanoma., Patients and Methods: Patients with metastatic melanoma treated with ICI between 2010 and 2019 with solitary progression as first progressive event were included from 17 centres in 9 countries. Follow-up and survival are reported from ICI initiation., Results: We identified 294 patients with solitary progression after stable disease in 15%, partial response in 55% and complete response in 30%. The median follow-up was 43 months; the median time to solitary progression was 13 months, and the median time to subsequent progression after treatment of solitary progression (TTSP) was 33 months. The estimated 3-year overall survival (OS) was 79%; median OS was not reached. Treatment consisted of systemic therapy (18%), local therapy (36%), both combined (42%) or active surveillance (4%). In 44% of patients treated for solitary progression, no subsequent progression occurred. For solitary progression during ICI (n = 143), the median TTSP was 29 months. Both TTSP and OS were similar for local therapy, ICI continuation and both combined. For solitary progression post ICI (n = 151), the median TTSP was 35 months. TTSP was higher for ICI recommencement plus local therapy than local therapy or ICI recommencement alone (p = 0.006), without OS differences., Conclusion: Almost half of patients with melanoma treated for solitary progression after initial response to ICI had no subsequent progression. This study suggests that local therapy can benefit patients and is associated with favourable long-term outcomes., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement All authors declare no direct conflict with this work. For unrelated conflicts, K.P.M.S. has an advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, AbbVie and Pierre Fabre and has received honoraria from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis and Roche. L.Z. has an advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi and Sun Pharma; has received research funding from Novartis; has received honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Roche and has received travel support from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi and Sun Pharma. E.W.K. has an advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis and Pierre Fabre; has received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb and has received travel support from Roche. C.A. has received travel support from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb and Roche. D.B.J. has an advisory role for Array BioPharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Incyte, Merck and Novartis; has received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb and Incyte and has received travel support from Genentech. Adriana H. is an employee of AstraZeneca with stock options in the company, has received honoraria from Novartis; has an advisory role for L.E.K. Consulting and has received travel support from Roche. J.M. has received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck-Pfizer, MSD, Novartis and Pierre Fabre; has an advisory role for Amgen, Merck-Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis and Pierre Fabre and has received travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, L'Oreal, MSD, Pierre Fabre and Ultrasun. P.B. has received travel support from MSD. Y.J.L.J. has received travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD and Pfizer. V.A. has received honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis and Pierre Fabre; has an advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Roche and has received travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, OncoSec and Pierre Fabre. P.A.A. has an advisory role for 4SC, Alkermes, Amgen, Array BioPharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Genmab, Idera, Immunoscore, Incyte, Italfarmaco, MedImmune, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Nektar, NewLink Genetics, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sandoz, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, Syndax and Ultimovacs; has received research funding from Array BioPharma, Bristol Myers Squibb and Genentech; has received travel support from Merck Sharp & Dohme and is a stockowner of PrimeVax. Andrew H. has received honoraria from Merck and Novartis and has an advisory role for Novartis and Pierre Fabre. A.M.M. has an advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Roche. G.V.L. is a consultant advisor for Aduro Biotech, Inc., Amgen Inc., Array BioPharma Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Bristol Myers Squibb, Highlight Therapeutics S.L., Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis Pharma AG, QBiotics Group Limited, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and SkylineDX B.V. C.L. had received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Incyte, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre and Roche; has an advisory role for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche and Sanofi; has received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb and Roche and has received travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Sharp & Dohme. A.A.M.v.d.V. has an advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, MSD Oncology, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche and Sanofi and has received research funding from Bayer and travel support from Bayer, MSD Oncology, Novartis and Roche. M.S.C. has an advisory role for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, IDEAYA Biosciences, Merck and Co, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Nektar, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi and QBiotics and has received honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Novartis. S.S. has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck and Merck Serono; has an advisory role for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis and Roche outside the submitted work and has received research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Endocyte, Genentech and Merck Sharp & Dohme. E.G.E.d.V. has an advisory role for Daiichi Sankyo, NSABP and Sanofi; has received research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Chugai Pharma, CytomX Therapeutics, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech, Nordic Nanovector, Radius Health, Regeneron, Roche, Servier and Synthon and is the chair of ESMO Cancer Medicines Working Group, chair of RECITS committee and member of the ESMO-MCBS working group. C.U.B. has received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis and NanoString; has an advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Lilly, Genmab and Pierre Fabre and is a stockowner of Uniti Cars. M.J. has an advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Tesaro and Pierre Fabre., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Clinicopathological and Gene Expression Profile (CP-GEP) model was developed to accurately identify patients with T1-T3 primary cutaneous melanoma at low risk for nodal metastasis., Objectives: To validate the CP-GEP model in an independent Dutch cohort of patients with melanoma., Methods: Patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with primary cutaneous melanoma who underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) between 2007 and 2017 at the Erasmus Medical Centre Cancer Institute were eligible. The CP-GEP model combines clinicopathological features (age and Breslow thickness) with the expression of eight target genes involved in melanoma metastasis (ITGB3, PLAT, SERPINE2, GDF15, TGFBR1, LOXL4, CXCL8 and MLANA). Using the pathology result of SLNB as the gold standard, performance measures of the CP-GEP model were calculated, resulting in CP-GEP high risk or low risk for nodal metastasis., Results: In total, 210 patients were included in the study. Most patients presented with T2 (n = 94, 45%) or T3 (n = 70, 33%) melanoma. Of all patients, 27% (n = 56) had a positive SLNB, with nodal metastasis in 0%, 30%, 54% and 16% of patients with T1, T2, T3 and T4 melanoma, respectively. Overall, the CP-GEP model had a negative predictive value (NPV) of 90·5% [95% confidence interval (CI) 77·9-96.2], with an NPV of 100% (95% CI 72·2-100) in T1, 89·3% (95% CI 72·8-96·3) in T2 and 75·0% (95% CI 30·1-95·4) in T3 melanomas. The CP-GEP indicated high risk in all T4 melanomas., Conclusions: The CP-GEP model is a noninvasive and validated tool that accurately identified patients with primary cutaneous melanoma at low risk for nodal metastasis. In this validation cohort, the CP-GEP model has shown the potential to reduce SLNB procedures in patients with melanoma., (© 2020 The Authors. British Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

Background: Checkpoint inhibitor-induced hepatitis is an immune-related adverse event of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibition, cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated 4 (CTLA-4) inhibition or the combination of both. Aim of this study was to assess whether checkpoint inhibitor-induced hepatitis is related to liver metastasis and outcome in a real-world nationwide cohort., Methods: Data from the prospective nationwide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR) was used to analyze incidence, risk factors of checkpoint inhibitor-induced grade 3-4 hepatitis and outcome., Results: 2561 advanced cutaneous melanoma patients received 3111 treatments with checkpoint inhibitors between May 2012 and January 2019. Severe hepatitis occurred in 30/1620 (1.8%) patients treated with PD-1 inhibitors, in 29/1105 (2.6%) patients treated with ipilimumab and in 80/386 (20.7%) patients treated with combination therapy. Patients with hepatitis had a similar prevalence of liver metastasis compared to patients without hepatitis (32% vs. 27%; p = 0.58 for PD-1 inhibitors; 42% vs. 29%; p = 0.16 for ipilimumab; 38% vs. 43%; p = 0.50 for combination therapy). There was no difference in median progression free and overall survival between patients with and without hepatitis (6.0 months vs. 5.4 months progression-free survival; p = 0.61; 17.0 vs. 16.2 months overall survival; p = 0.44)., Conclusion: Incidence of hepatitis in a real-world cohort is 1.8% for PD-1 inhibitor, 2.6% for ipilimumab and 20.7% for combination therapy. Checkpoint inhibitor-induced hepatitis had no relation with liver metastasis and had no negative effect on the outcome.

Background: The introduction of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blockers (i.e. nivolumab and pembrolizumab) has significantly improved the prognosis of patients with advanced melanoma. However, the long treatment duration (i.e. two years or longer) has a high impact on patients and healthcare systems in terms of (severe) toxicity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), resource use, and healthcare costs. While durable tumour responses have been observed and PD-1 blockade is discontinued on an individual basis, no consensus has been reached on the optimal treatment duration. The objective of the Safe Stop trial is to evaluate whether early discontinuation of first-line PD-1 blockade is safe in patients with advanced and metastatic melanoma who achieve a radiological response., Methods: The Safe Stop trial is a nationwide, multicentre, prospective, single-arm, interventional study in the Netherlands. A total of 200 patients with advanced and metastatic cutaneous melanoma and a confirmed complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) according to response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) v1.1 will be included to early discontinue first-line monotherapy with nivolumab or pembrolizumab. The primary objective is the rate of ongoing responses at 24 months after discontinuation of PD-1 blockade. Secondary objectives include best overall and duration of response, need and outcome of rechallenge with PD-1 blockade, and changes in (serious) adverse events and HRQoL. The impact of treatment discontinuation on healthcare resource use, productivity losses, and hours of informal care will also be assessed. Results will be compared to those from patients with CR or PR who completed 24 months of treatment with PD-1 blockade and had an ongoing response at treatment discontinuation. It is hypothesised that it is safe to early stop first-line nivolumab or pembrolizumab at confirmed tumour response while improving HRQoL and reducing costs., Discussion: From a patient, healthcare, and economic perspective, shorter treatment duration is preferred and overtreatment should be prevented. If early discontinuation of first-line PD-1 blockade appears to be safe, early discontinuation of PD-1 blockade may be implemented as the standard of care in a selected group of patients., Trial Registration: The Safe Stop trial has been registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR), Trial NL7293 (old NTR ID: 7502), https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7293 . Date of registration September 30, 2018.

Postapproval trials and patient registries have their pros and cons in the generation of postapproval data. No direct comparison between clinical outcomes of these data sources currently exists for advanced melanoma patients. We aimed to investigate whether a patient registry can complement or even replace postapproval trials. Postapproval single-arm clinical trial data from the Medicines Evaluation Board and real-world data from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry were used. The study population consisted of advanced melanoma patients with brain metastases treated with targeted therapies (BRAF- or BRAF-MEK inhibitors) in the first line. A Cox hazard regression model and a propensity score matching (PSM) model were used to compare the two patient populations. Compared to patients treated in postapproval trials (n = 467), real-world patients (n = 602) had significantly higher age, higher ECOG performance status, more often ≥3 organ involvement and more symptomatic brain metastases. Lactate dehydrogenase levels were similar between both groups. The unadjusted median overall survival (mOS) in postapproval clinical trial patients was 8.7 (95% CI, 8.1-10.4) months compared to 7.2 (95% CI, 6.5-7.7) months (P < 0.01) in real-world patients. With the Cox hazard regression model, survival was adjusted for prognostic factors, which led to a statistically insignificant difference in mOS for trial and real-world patients of 8.7 (95% CI, 7.9-10.4) months compared to 7.3 (95% CI, 6.3-7.9) months, respectively. The PSM model resulted in 310 matched patients with similar survival (P = 0.9). Clinical outcomes of both data sources were similar. Registries could be a complementary data source to postapproval clinical trials to establish information on clinical outcomes in specific subpopulations., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Purpose: BRAF/MEK inhibition is a standard of care for patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutated metastatic melanoma. For patients with less frequent BRAF mutations, however, efficacy data are limited., Methods: In the current study, 103 patients with metastatic melanoma with rare, activating non-V600E/K BRAF mutations that were treated with either a BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi), MEK inhibitor (MEKi), or the combination were included. BRAF mutation, patient and disease characteristics, response, and survival data were analyzed., Results: Fifty-eight patient tumors (56%) harbored a non-E/K V600 mutation, 38 (37%) a non-V600 mutation, and seven had both V600E and a rare BRAF mutation (7%). The most frequent mutations were V600R (43%; 44 of 103), L597P/Q/R/S (15%; 15 of 103), and K601E (11%; 11 of 103). Most patients had stage IV disease and 42% had elevated lactate dehydrogenase at BRAFi/MEKi initiation. Most patients received combined BRAFi/MEKi (58%) or BRAFi monotherapy (37%). Of the 58 patients with V600 mutations, overall response rate to BRAFi monotherapy and combination BRAFi/MEKi was 27% (six of 22) and 56% (20 of 36), respectively, whereas median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.7 months and 8.0 months, respectively ( P = .002). Of the 38 patients with non-V600 mutations, overall response rate was 0% (zero of 15) to BRAFi, 40% (two of five) to MEKi, and 28% (five of 18) to combination treatment, with a median PFS of 1.8 months versus 3.7 months versus 3.3 months, respectively. Multivariable analyses revealed superior survival (PFS and overall survival) with combination over monotherapy in rare V600 and non-V600 mutated melanoma., Conclusion: Patients with rare BRAF mutations can respond to targeted therapy, however, efficacy seems to be lower compared with V600E mutated melanoma. Combination BRAFi/MEKi seems to be the best regimen for both V600 and non-V600 mutations. Yet interpretation should be done with care because of the heterogeneity of patients with small sample sizes for some of the reported mutations.

Objective: To evaluate treatment strategies and survival of patients with unresectable stage IIIc or IV melanoma since the 2012 introduction of new drugs in the Netherlands., Design: Prospective cohort study., Method: We analysed data from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR) regarding patients diagnosed with unresectable stage IIIc or IV melanoma in the period of 1 July 2012 to 31 December 2015. We estimated survival times using the Kaplan-Meier method. The relationship between year of diagnosis and survival was estimated using Cox regression analysis, adjusted for age, WHO performance status, lactate dehydrogenase values, stage, brain metastases and distant metastases., Results: Out of 2,768 registered patients, approximately three-quarters received systemic therapy. This treatment was subject to change every year. Median survival was 10.7 months (95% CI: 9.6-13.2) in 2012 and 13.8 months (95% CI: 11.8-15.6) in 2015. Median survival for patients receiving systemic therapy was 17.1 months in 2015. 2-year survival in this period increased from 23% to 40%. Patients diagnosed in 2015 had better survival than patients of 2014 (hazard ratio (HR) 0.82; 95% CI: 0.73-0.93). This was also true for patients receiving systemic therapy (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.69-0.91)., Conclusion: Fast availability of new drugs, initiated by the then minister of VWS (health, welfare and sport) and the professional organisation, has thoroughly changed treatment of unresectable stage IIIc and IV melanoma. Data from the DMTR indicate safe use of these new drugs in daily practice and improved survival of advanced-melanoma patients in recent years.

Background: In light of the evolving landscape of adjuvant therapy in melanoma and the recently confirmed absent survival benefit of completion lymph node dissection (CLND), it becomes important to explore possible consequences of omitting CLND, and whether it is possible to adequately stratify positive sentinel node (SN) patients solely based on information retrieved from the melanoma up to the sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB)., Methods: A retrospective cohort from nine European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Melanoma Group centres was used. Patients were staged based on SLNB and CLND result according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) criteria and stratified by ulceration and SN tumour burden. These were incorporated in Cox regression models. Predictive ability was assessed using Harrell's concordance index (c-index) and the Akaike information criterion (AIC)., Results: In total, 1015 patients were eligible. CLND led to upstaging in N-category in 19% and in AJCC stage in 5-6%. The model incorporating only ulceration and SN tumour burden performed equally well as the model incorporating substages after CLND. The model incorporating substages based on SLNB had the lowest predictive ability. Stratifying by ulceration and SN tumour burden resulted in four positive SN groups from which low-, intermediate- and high-risk prognostic classes could be derived., Conclusions: Adequate stratification of positive SN patients was possible based on ulceration and SN tumour burden category. The identification of low-, intermediate- and high-risk patients could guide adjuvant therapy in clinical practice. Omitting CLND seems to have little consequences., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)