Search

Discrimination; Gender equity; Oncology Discriminació; Equitat de gènere; Oncologia Discriminación; Equidad de género; Oncología Background Following a European Society for Medical Oncology Women for Oncology (ESMO W4O) survey in 2016 showing severe under-representation of female oncologists in leadership roles, ESMO launched a series of initiatives to address obstacles to gender equity. A follow-up survey in October 2021 investigated progress achieved. Materials and methods The W4O questionnaire 2021 expanded on the 2016 survey, with additional questions on the impact of ethnicity, sexual orientation and religion on career development. Results were analysed according to respondent gender and age. Results The survey sample was larger than in 2016 (n = 1473 versus 482), especially among men. Significantly fewer respondents had managerial or leadership roles than in 2016 (31.8% versus 51.7%). Lack of leadership development for women and unconscious bias were considered more important in 2021 than in 2016. In 2021, more people reported harassment in the workplace than in 2016 (50.3% versus 41.0%). In 2021, ethnicity, sexual orientation and religion were considered to have little or no impact on professional career opportunities, salary setting or related potential pay gap. However, gender had a significant or major impact on career development (25.5% of respondents), especially in respondents ≤40 years of age and women. As in 2016, highest ranked initiatives to foster workplace equity were promotion of work–life balance, development and leadership training and flexible working. Significantly more 2021 respondents (mainly women) supported the need for culture and gender equity education at work than in 2016. Conclusions Gender remains a major barrier to career progression in oncology and, although some obstacles may have been reduced since 2016, we are a long way from closing the gender gap. Increased reporting of discrimination and inappropriate behaviour in the workplace is a major, priority concern. The W4O 2021 survey findings provide new evidence and highlight the areas for future ESMO interventions to support equity and diversity in oncology career development. This work was supported by the European Society for Medical Oncology (no grant number).

Background Patients with resected stage III and IV melanoma have a high risk of recurrence. As the outcomes for patients with metastatic disease have improved dramatically over the past decade due to systemic therapy, more recently so too have the outcomes of patients with resected stage III and IV melanoma with the introduction of checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy and targeted therapy in the adjuvant setting. Materials and methods This review outlines the latest clinical trial data, the current adjuvant treatment landscape and its application to clinical practice and expected future progress for the management of early-stage melanoma. Results Anti-programmed cell death protein 1 monotherapy and BRAF/MEK inhibitors are currently deemed standard of care for resected stage III melanoma. For patients with stage IIIB [American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system version 7 (AJCCv7)] melanoma, 2-year and 3-year recurrence-free survival is approximately 72% and 65% for nivolumab, 70% and 65.7% for pembrolizumab and 68% and 60% for dabrafenib/trametinib, respectively. For stage IIIC (AJCCv7) melanoma, 2-year and 3-year recurrence-free survival is 60% and 53.5% for nivolumab, 60% and 54.3% for pembrolizumab and 59% and 47% for dabrafenib/trametinib, respectively. Adjuvant treatment is recommended for patients with stage IIIB-IIID [AJCC staging system version 8 (AJCCv8)] melanoma, and may be considered for patients with stage IIIA melanoma. For resected stage IV, nivolumab is the only approved agent; however, recent results from a phase II clinical trial show promising efficacy for combined ipilimumab and nivolumab as well. Long-term data are required to determine which therapy has the greatest impact on overall survival. Schedules, delivery and toxicity are also important factors to consider when selecting adjuvant treatment. Conclusions Randomized studies of patients with resected high-risk melanoma have shown that immunotherapy or targeted therapy improve recurrence-free survival compared with placebo/ipilimumab. In order to optimize these treatments, prognostic and predictive biomarkers, as well as strategies to reduce treatment-related toxicities and overcome resistance, are required.

Neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab showed high pathologic response rates (pRRs) in patients with macroscopic stage III melanoma in the phase 1b OpACIN ( NCT02437279 ) and phase 2 OpACIN-neo ( NCT02977052 ) studies1,2. While the results are promising, data on the durability of these pathologic responses and baseline biomarkers for response and survival were lacking. After a median follow-up of 4 years, none of the patients with a pathologic response (n = 7/9 patients) in the OpACIN study had relapsed. In OpACIN-neo (n = 86), the 2-year estimated relapse-free survival was 84% for all patients, 97% for patients achieving a pathologic response and 36% for nonresponders (P

Background We have previously shown that 75% of patients treated with programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) with or without CTLA4 who have not progressed by 1 year have complete metabolic response (CMR), including two-thirds of patients with partial response (PR). We now report 5-year outcomes. Patients and methods Retrospective analysis of 104 patients with baseline and 1-year positron emission tomography (PET) and computed tomography (CT). The 1-year response was determined using RECIST for CT and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) criteria for PET. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were determined from the 1-year landmark. Results At the median follow-up of 61 months (range 58-64 months) from 1-year PET, 94% remained alive and all but one had discontinued treatment after a median treatment duration of 23 months (range 1-59 months). Disease progression occurred in 19 patients (18%): 10 (53%) while on treatment and 12 (63%) in solitary sites for which 8 (67%) received local treatment. RECIST PFS rate at 5 years after PET was higher in complete response (CR) compared with PR/stable disease (SD) (93% versus 76%, respectively) and CMR compared with non-CMR (90% versus 54%, respectively). In patients with PR, 5-year PFS rate was superior in CMR (88% and 59%). A total of 35 (34%) patients (14/29 in CR, 31/78 in CMR) discontinued treatment within 12 months, largely due to toxicity, with no impact on PFS rate compared with those that continued (84% versus 78%). Despite progression events, OS rate at 5 years was excellent and similar in patients with CR and PR/SD (100% versus 91%, respectively) as well as in those with CMR and non-CMR (96% versus 87%, respectively). Conclusions Five years after the 1-year PET, sustained responses are observed in the majority of patients, particularly in those with CMR. PET continues to predict progression better than CT, particularly in those with residual disease on CT. In the minority that progress, often in solitary sites and managed locally, OS rate remains excellent. PET is effective in evaluating residual lesions on CT and can predict long-term benefit.

Background: Guidelines for pathological evaluation of neoadjuvant specimens and pathological response categories have been developed by the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium (INMC). As part of the Optimal Neo-adjuvant Combination Scheme of Ipilimumab and Nivolumab (OpACIN-neo) clinical trial of neoadjuvant combination anti-programmed cell death protein 1/anti-cytotoxic T-Iymphocyte-associated protein 4 immunotherapy for stage III melanoma, we sought to determine interobserver reproducibility of INMC histopathological assessment principles, identify specific tumour bed histopathological features of immunotherapeutic response that correlated with recurrence and relapse-free survival (RFS) and evaluate proposed INMC pathological response categories for predicting recurrence and RFS.Patients and methods: Clinicopathological characteristics of lymph node dissection specimens of 83 patients enrolled in the OpACIN-neo clinical trial were evaluated. Two methods of assessing histological features of immunotherapeutic response were evaluated: the previously described immune-related pathologic response (irPR) score and our novel immunotherapeutic response score (ITRS). For a subset of cases (n = 29), cellular composition of the tumour bed was analysed by flow cytometry.Results: There was strong interobserver reproducibility in assessment of pathological response (kappa = 0.879) and percentage residual viable melanoma (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.965). The immunotherapeutic response subtype with high fibrosis had the strongest association with lack of recurrence (P = 0.008) and prolonged RFS (P = 0.019). Amongst patients with criteria for pathological non-response (pNR, >50% viable tumour), all who recurred had >= 70% viable melanoma. Higher ITRS and irPR scores correlated with lack of recurrence in the entire cohort (P = 0.002 and P = 70% viable melanoma and incorporating additional criteria of

BACKGROUND: Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) typically occur within 4 months of starting anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)-based therapy [anti-PD-1 ± anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA4)], but delayed irAEs (onset >12 months after commencement) can also occur. This study describes the incidence, nature and management of delayed irAEs in patients receiving anti-PD-1-based immunotherapy.PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with delayed irAEs from 20 centres were studied. The incidence of delayed irAEs was estimated as a proportion of melanoma patients treated with anti-PD-1-based therapy and surviving >1 year. Onset, clinical features, management and outcomes of irAEs were examined.RESULTS: One hundred and eighteen patients developed a total of 140 delayed irAEs (20 after initial combination with anti-CTLA4), with an estimated incidence of 5.3% (95% confidence interval 4.0-6.9, 53/999 patients at sites with available data). The median onset of delayed irAE was 16 months (range 12-53 months). Eighty-seven patients (74%) were on anti-PD-1 at irAE onset, 15 patients (12%) were 3 months from the last dose of anti-PD-1. The most common delayed irAEs were colitis, rash and pneumonitis; 55 of all irAEs (39%) were ≥grade 3. Steroids were required in 80 patients (68%), as well as an additional immunosuppressive agent in 27 patients (23%). There were two irAE-related deaths: encephalitis with onset during anti-PD-1 and a multiple-organ irAE with onset 11 months after ceasing anti-PD-1. Early irAEs (CONCLUSIONS: Delayed irAEs occur in a small but relevant subset of patients. Delayed irAEs are often different from previous irAEs, may be high grade and can lead to death. They mostly occur in patients still receiving anti-PD-1. The risk of delayed irAE should be considered when deciding the duration of treatment in responding patients. However, patients who stop treatment may also rarely develop delayed irAE.

Background The previous OpACIN and OpACIN-neo studies investigating neoadjuvant IPI plus NIVO have demonstrated high pathologic response rates (74–78%) and favorable long-term outcomes for patients (pts) with a pathological response; at 36 and 18 months follow up only 1/71 (1.4%) responders has relapsed. In contrast, pathological non-responders have a poor prognosis; 15/23 (65.2%) have relapsed so far. This emphasizes the need for baseline biomarkers predictive of non-response and new neoadjuvant treatment combinations for these pts. In our previous studies, baseline IFN-γ signature high pts were more likely to respond to IPI plus NIVO. The DONIMI study tests the combination of NIVO ± IPI combined with a class 1 histone deacetylase inhibitor, domatinostat (DOM), according to the pts IFN-γ signature. We have developed a neoadjuvant IFN-γ signature, based on the signature previously described by Ayers et al., that will be used for the first time to classify pts in this prospective trial. Trial design This two-center investigator-initiated phase 1b study aims to assess the safety and feasibility of neoadjuvant NIVO ± DOM ± IPI in 45 stage III melanoma pts with macroscopic de-novo or recurrent disease. IFN-γ signature high pts (n=20) will be randomized (stratified by center) to Arm A (2 cycles NIVO 240 mg q3wk) or Arm B (2 cycles NIVO 240 mg q3wk + DOM 200 mg twice daily (BID), d1-14, q3wk). IFN-γ signature low pts (n=25) will be randomized to Arm C (2 cycles NIVO 240 mg q3wk + DOM 200 mg BID, d1-14, q3wk) or Arm D (2 cycles NIVO 240 mg q3wk + IPI 80 mg q3wk + DOM 200 mg once daily (OD), d1-14, q3wk). Based on safety data of the first 5 pts in arm D, the remaining pts will be treated with either a higher dosing scheme (200 mg BID, d1-14, q3wks), a lower dosing scheme (100 mg OD, d1-14, q3wks) or the same dosing scheme (200 mg OD, d1-14, q3wks). The primary endpoint is safety and feasibility. A treatment arm will be declared as not feasible if 2/5 or 3/10 patients cannot adhere to the planned time of surgery (week 6 ± 1week) due to treatment-related adverse events. Biopsies (week 0, 3), blood samples (week 0, 3, 6, 12) and feces (week 0, 3, 6) will be collected for translational research. To date, 7 patients have been enrolled. Clinical trial information NCT04133948 Disclosure Information I.L.M. Reijers: None. E.A. Rozeman: None. P. Dimitriadis: None. O. Krijgsman: C. Other Research Support (supplies, equipment, receipt of drugs or other in-kind support); Modest; BMS. L.J.W. Bosch: None. S. Cornelissen: None. J. Bouwman: None. J.M. Versluis: None. D. Rao: None. B. van de Wiel: None. A.J. Spillane: None. R.A. Scolyer: F. Consultant/Advisory Board; Modest; MSD, Neracare, Myriad, Novartis. A.M. Menzies: F. Consultant/Advisory Board; Modest; BMS, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche. A.C.J. van Akkooi: B. Research Grant (principal investigator, collaborator or consultant and pending grants as well as grants already received); Modest; Amgen, BMS, Novartis. F. Consultant/Advisory Board; Modest; Amgen, BMS, Novartis, MSD, Merck, Merck-Pfizer, 4SC. G.V. Long: F. Consultant/Advisory Board; Modest; Aduro, Amgen, BMS, Mass-Array, Pierre-Fabre, Novartis, Merck MSD, Roche. C.U. Blank: B. Research Grant (principal investigator, collaborator or consultant and pending grants as well as grants already received); Modest; BMS, Novartis, Nanostring. F. Consultant/Advisory Board; Modest; BMS, MSD, Roche, Novartis, GSK, AZ, Pfizer, Lilly, Genmab, Pierre Fabre.

Background Before adjuvant checkpoint inhibition the 5-year overall survival (OS) rate was poor ( Materials and Methods The phase 1b OpACIN trial included 20 stage IIIB/IIIC melanoma patients, which were randomized to receive IPI 3 mg/kg plus NIVO 1 mg/kg either adjuvant 4 cycles or split 2 cycles neoadjuvant and 2 adjuvant. In the phase 2 OpACIN-neo trial, 86 patients were randomized to 2 cycles neoadjuvant treatment, either in arm A: 2x IPI 3 mg/kg plus NIVO 1 mg/kg q3w (n=30), arm B: 2x IPI 1 mg/kg plus NIVO 3 mg/kg q3w (n=30), or arm C: 2x IPI 3 mg/kg q3w followed immediately by 2x NIVO 3 mg/kg q3w (n=26). Pathologic response was defined as Results Only 1 of 71 (1.4%) patients with a pathologic response on neoadjuvant therapy had relapsed, versus 16 of 23 patients (69.6%) without a pathologic response, after a median follow-up of 36 months for the OpACIN and 24 months for the OpACIN-neo trial. In the OpACIN trial, the estimated 3-year RFS rate for the neoadjuvant arm was 80% (95% CI: 59%-100%) versus 60% (95% CI: 36%-100%) for the adjuvant arm. Median RFS was not reached for any of the arms within the OpACIN-neo trial. Estimated 24-months RFS rate was 84% for all patients (95% CI: 76%-92%); 90% for arm A (95% CI: 80%-100%), 78% for arm B (95% CI: 63%-96%) and 83% for arm C (95% CI: 70%-100%). Baseline interferon-γ gene expression score and tumor mutational burden predict response. Conclusions OpACIN for the first time showed a potential benefit of neoadjuvant IPI plus NIVO versus adjuvant immunotherapy, whereas the OpACIN-neo trial confirmed the high pathologic response rates that can be achieved by neoadjuvant IPI plus NIVO. Both trials show that pathologic response can function as a surrogate markers for RFS. Clinical trial information NCT02437279, NCT02977052 Disclosure Information J.M. Versluis: None. E.A. Rozeman: None. A.M. Menzies: F. Consultant/Advisory Board; Modest; BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pierre-Fabre. I.L.M. Reijers: None. O. Krijgsman: B. Research Grant (principal investigator, collaborator or consultant and pending grants as well as grants already received); Modest; BMS. E.P. Hoefsmit: None. B.A. van de Wiel: None. K. Sikorska: None. C. Bierman: None. P. Dimitriadis: None. M. Gonzalez: None. A. Broeks: None. R.M. Kerkhoven: None. A.J. Spillane: None. J.B.A.G. Haanen: B. Research Grant (principal investigator, collaborator or consultant and pending grants as well as grants already received); Modest; BMS, MSD, Neon Therapeutics, Novartis. F. Consultant/Advisory Board; Modest; BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, AZ/MedImmune, Rocher/Genentech, Ipsen, Bayer, Immunocore, SeattleGenetics, Neon Therapeutics, Celsius Therapeutics, Gadet, GSK. W.J. van Houdt: None. R.P.M. Saw: None. H. Eriksson: None. A.C.J. van Akkooi: B. Research Grant (principal investigator, collaborator or consultant and pending grants as well as grants already received); Modest; Amgen, BMS, Novartis. F. Consultant/Advisory Board; Modest; Amgen, BMS, Novartis, MSD Merck, Merck-Pfizer, 4SC. R.A. Scolyer: F. Consultant/Advisory Board; Modest; MSD, Neracare, Myriad, Novartis. T.N. Schumacher: B. Research Grant (principal investigator, collaborator or consultant and pending grants as well as grants already received); Modest; MSD, BMS, Merck. E. Ownership Interest (stock, stock options, patent or other intellectual property); Modest; AIMM Therapeutics, Allogene Therapeutics, Amgen, Merus, Neogene Therapeutics, Neon Therapeutics. F. Consultant/Advisory Board; Modest; Adaptive Biotechnologies, AIMM Therapeutics, Allogene Therapeutics, Amgen, Merus, Neon Therapeutics, Scenic Biotech. Other; Modest; Third Rock Ventures. G.V. Long: F. Consultant/Advisory Board; Modest; Aduro, Amgen, BMS, Mass-Array, Pierre-Fabre, Novartis, Merck MSD, Roche. C.U. Blank: B. Research Grant (principal investigator, collaborator or consultant and pending grants as well as grants already received); Modest; BMS, Novartis, NanoString. E. Ownership Interest (stock, stock options, patent or other intellectual property); Modest; Uniti Cars, Neon Therapeutics, Forty Seven. F. Consultant/Advisory Board; Modest; BMS, MSD, Roche, Novartis, GSK, AZ, Pfizer, Lilly, GenMab, Pierre-Fabre.

Mucosal‐associated invariant T (MAIT) cells are activated in the gastrointestinal tissue of patients with combination ipilimumab and nivolumab therapy‐related colitis in a pathology distinct from ulcerative colitis., Summary The aim of this study was to investigate the pathogenesis of combination ipilimumab and nivolumab‐associated colitis (IN‐COL) by measuring gut‐derived and peripheral blood mononuclear cell (GMNC; PBMC) profiles. We studied GMNC and PBMC from patients with IN‐COL, IN‐treated with no adverse‐events (IN‐NAE), ulcerative colitis (UC) and healthy volunteers using flow cytometry. In the gastrointestinal‐derived cells we found high levels of activated CD8+ T cells and mucosal‐associated invariant T (MAIT) cells in IN‐COL, changes that were not evident in IN‐NAE or UC. UC, but not IN‐C, was associated with a high proportion of regulatory T cells (Treg). We sought to determine if local tissue responses could be measured in peripheral blood. Peripherally, checkpoint inhibition instigated a rise in activated memory CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, regardless of colitis. Low circulating MAIT cells at baseline was associated with IN‐COL patients compared with IN‐NAE in one of two cohorts. UC, but not IN‐COL, was associated with high levels of circulating plasmablasts. In summary, the alterations in T cell subsets measured in IN‐COL‐affected tissue, characterized by high levels of activated CD8+ T cells and MAIT cells and a low proportion of Treg, reflected a pathology distinct from UC. These tissue changes differed from the periphery, where T cell activation was a widespread on‐treatment effect, and circulating MAIT cell count was low but not reliably predictive of colitis.

9525 Background: The long-term benefit of adjuvant dab + tram in pts with resected stage III BRAF V600E/K–mutant melanoma was demonstrated in COMBI-AD where AEs led to permanent discontinuation of dab + tram in 26% of pts, most often due to pyrexia (9%). The COMBI-APlus trial (NCT03551626) is designed to evaluate whether an adapted pyrexia management algorithm could reduce high-grade pyrexia and other pyrexia-related adverse outcomes, such as treatment cessation and hospitalization. Methods: COMBI-APlus is an open-label, Phase IIIb trial evaluating an adapted pyrexia management algorithm in pts with high-risk resected stage III BRAF V600E/K–mutant melanoma treated with 12 mo of adjuvant dab + tram. In the adapted algorithm, both dab and tram were interrupted promptly at the onset of pyrexia (temperature ≥ 38°C). In the event of suspected recurrent pyrexia, treatment may be interrupted in the presence of pyrexia syndrome (ie, chills, rigors, night sweats, or influenza-like symptoms without temperature ≥ 38°C) at investigator discretion. Treatment with dab + tram was restarted at the same dose level once pts were symptom free for ≥ 24 hours. The primary endpoint is the composite rate of grade 3/4 pyrexia, hospitalization due to pyrexia, or permanent discontinuation due to pyrexia vs a historical control from COMBI-AD (20%; 95% CI, 16.3%-24.1%). Secondary endpoints include relapse-free survival (RFS) and safety. Results: A total of 552 pts were enrolled. At the data cutoff (5 Oct 2020), all pts had completed 12 mo of treatment; median duration of follow-up was 18.4 mo. COMBI-APlus met its primary endpoint of significant improvement in composite rate of pyrexia. The composite rate was 8.0% (95% CI, 5.9%-10.6%), with rates of 3.8% for grade 3/4 pyrexia, 4.3% for hospitalization due to pyrexia, and 2.4% for discontinuation due to pyrexia. The estimated 12-mo RFS rate was 91.8% (95% CI, 89.0%-93.9%). The most common AEs (≥ 20%) were pyrexia (67.8%), headache (31.7%), blood creatine phosphokinase increase (27.9%), diarrhoea (27.0%), chills (26.4%), fatigue (25.7%), asthenia (23.6%), nausea (23.4%), rash (21.4%), and arthralgia (21.0%). AEs of any type led to permanent dab + tram discontinuation in 14.7% of pts. Conclusions: This primary analysis suggests the new adapted pyrexia management algorithm is effective in reducing grade 3/4 pyrexia, pyrexia-related hospitalization, and treatment discontinuation in pts receiving adjuvant dab + tram. The early efficacy appears consistent with that observed in COMBI-AD. The growing experience of oncologists in managing pyrexia with this simple algorithm may reduce the need for hospitalization or visits to a healthcare provider, which is highly desirable during the current COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, more pts can remain on treatment and derive benefit. Clinical trial information: NCT03551626.

Background D+T has been approved for several indications, including BRAF V600–mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma and as adjuvant therapy following resected BRAF V600–mutant stage III melanoma. Pyrexia is a common adverse event but is generally low-grade and manageable; further characterization may optimize management and reduce permanent treatment (tx) discontinuation due to pyrexia. Methods Trial databases were queried for reports of pyrexia in pts treated with D and/or T, including adjuvant therapy. Indications included unresectable, metastatic, or resected stage III melanoma; non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); colorectal cancer, and other BRAF–mutation positive solid tumors. Data for D+T was compiled from the following trials: COMBI-AD (NCT01682083), COMBI-d (NCT01584648), COMBI-v (NCT01597908), and BRF113928 (NCT01336634). Pyrexia was graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. Results A total of 1991 pts were included from clinical trials (D+T, n=1076; D, n=586; T, n=329). Pyrexia was observed in 904 pts: D+T, 61% (660/1076); D, 33% (196/586); T, 15% (48/329). Of pts treated with D+T, 6% (62/1076) experienced grade 3 events and 1 of 1076 pts experienced a grade 4 event. The median time to onset was 27 d (range, 1-716 d). Recurrent any-grade pyrexia occurred in 41% (442/1076) of pts; 29% had ≥ 3 episodes. Of the 442 pts with recurrent pyrexia, 377 (85%) experienced a subsequent event within 3mo of the first pyrexia episode. No pyrexia-related deaths were reported. Outcomes were reported for 2252 of 2253 events in pts treated with D+T across trials. Pyrexia management strategies included: tx interruption (939/2253 events [42%]), dose reduction (225/2253 [10%]), and tx discontinuation (62/2253 [3%]); ≥ 98% of events were reported to be resolved following each of the aforementioned interventions. Conclusions Pyrexia in pts treated with D+T is typically low-grade, occurs early during tx exposure, and most pts experience ≤ 1 episode. Tx interruption was the most frequent intervention strategy used in clinical trials. Pyrexia can be effectively managed with nearly all events reported to have been resolved at the time of the analysis. Clinical trial identification Pooled analysis of data from the following trials: NCT01227889, NCT01153763, NCT01266967, NCT01072175, NCT00880321, NCT01336634, NCT01584648, NCT01597908, NCT01682083, NCT01245062, NCT01037127, NCT00687622. Editorial acknowledgement Allison Lytle, PhD, from ArticulateScience LLC, funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. Legal entity responsible for the study Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. Funding Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. Disclosure C. Robert: Non-remunerated activity/ies, Medical writing assistance: ArticulateScience LLC; Advisory / Consultancy: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre; Advisory / Consultancy: Array; Advisory / Consultancy: Sanofi; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck. D. Schadendorf: Non-remunerated activity/ies, Medical writing assistance: ArticulateScience LLC; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Roche/Genentech; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Novartis; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Merck Sharp & Dohme; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Merck Serono; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Amgen; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Immunocore; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Incyte; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: 4SC; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Pierre Fabre; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Mologen; Advisory / Consultancy: Sanofi/Regeneron; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Roche; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Merck; Honoraria (self): Sysmex; Honoraria (self): Grunenthal Group; Honoraria (self): Agenus; Honoraria (self): Array BioPharma; Honoraria (self): AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self): LEO Pharma; Honoraria (self): Pfizer; Honoraria (self): Philogen; Honoraria (self): Regeneron. R. Dummer: Non-remunerated activity/ies, Medical writing assistance: ArticulateScience LLC; Advisory / Consultancy, Intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationship: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy, Intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationship: Merck Sharp & Dhome; Advisory / Consultancy, Intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationship: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Advisory / Consultancy, Intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationship: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy, Intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationship: Amgen; Advisory / Consultancy, Intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationship: Takeda; Advisory / Consultancy, Intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationship: Pierre Fabre; Advisory / Consultancy, Intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationship: Sun Pharma; Advisory / Consultancy, Intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationship: Sanofi; Advisory / Consultancy, Intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationship: Catalym. K.T. Flaherty: Non-remunerated activity/ies, Medical writing assistance: ArticulateScience LLC; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Genentech; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck; Advisory / Consultancy: Lilly; Advisory / Consultancy: Amgen; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Sanofi; Advisory / Consultancy, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Oncoceutics; Advisory / Consultancy: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Advisory / Consultancy: Adaptimmune; Advisory / Consultancy: Aeglea Biotherapeutics; Advisory / Consultancy, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Loxo; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: Asana Biosciences; Advisory / Consultancy: Incyte; Advisory / Consultancy, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Shattuck Labs; Advisory / Consultancy: Tolero Pharmaceuticals; Advisory / Consultancy: Array BioPharma; Advisory / Consultancy, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: FOGPharma; Advisory / Consultancy: Neon Therapeutics; Advisory / Consultancy, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Tvardi; Advisory / Consultancy: Takeda; Advisory / Consultancy: Varestem; Advisory / Consultancy: Boston Biomedical; Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Pierre Fabre; Advisory / Consultancy: Cell Medica; Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Debiopharm Group; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Clovis Oncology; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: X4 Pharma; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: PIC Therapeutics; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Fount Therapeutics; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Apricity Health; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Vivid Biosciences; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Checkmate Pharmaceuticals; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Strata Oncology. H.A. Tawbi: Non-remunerated activity/ies, Medical writing assistance: ArticulateScience LLC; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Bristol-Myers Squibb; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck; Research grant / Funding (institution): GlaxoSmithKline; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: Array; Research grant / Funding (institution): Celgene. A.M. Menzies: Non-remunerated activity/ies, Medical writing assistance: ArticulateScience LLC; Advisory / Consultancy: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre. A. D'Amelio: Non-remunerated activity/ies, Medical writing assistance: ArticulateScience LLC; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Novartis; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: GlaxoSmithKline. E. de Jong: Non-remunerated activity/ies, Medical writing assistance: ArticulateScience LLC; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Novartis. E. Gasal: Non-remunerated activity/ies, Medical writing assistance: ArticulateScience LLC; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Novartis. G.V. Long: Non-remunerated activity/ies, Medical writing assistance: ArticulateScience LLC; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche/Genentech; Advisory / Consultancy: Amgen; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Merck; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Array BioPharma; Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre.

Background Anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 immunotherapies have become the standard of care for metastatic melanoma. However, the majority of patients develop resistance to therapy. Macrophages are abundant cells in tumours, but their role in immunotherapy response and resistance is largely unknown. This study investigated the role of macrophages in anti-PD-1 +/- CTLA-4 response in stage IV melanoma patients. Methods Transcriptomic and multiplex immunohistochemistry (mIHC) immune profiling were performed on formalin-fixed paraffin embedded tissue pre-treatment biopsies from advanced melanoma patients treated with anti-PD-1 (n = 19) or anti-PD-1 + anti-CTLA-4 (n = 10). Response and progression-free survival were assessed using RECIST criteria. Using tumour dissociates, mass cytometry was used to characterize macrophages in detail. Results Although there was no significant difference in CD68+ macrophages between responding and non-responding patients, responding patients had a significantly higher intratumoral density of CD14+ CD68+ CD16+ macrophages compared to non-responders at baseline (median= 192 versus 23; p = 0.006). Using mIHC, patients were classified into high/low CD16+ macrophages and differential RNA expression analysis was performed. CD16+ high macrophage tumours displayed increased expression of genes related to T cell activation (TIGIT, LAG3, ICOS, PDCD1, FASLG and TBX21), MHC class I presentation (TAP1, UBD, PSMB10 and B2M) and chemokine + cytokine activity (CXCL13, CXCL10, CXCL11, CXCL9, CXCR6 and CXCR3). Using mass cytometry, we determined that CD16+ macrophages are CD13+ HLA-DR+, ICOS+ CD86+/- LAG3- GITR- TIGIT-. Multivariate analysis showed that low LDH, low melanoma substage and the presence of high CD16+ macrophages were associated with a significantly better overall response rate (OR = 14; p = 0.011) and progression free survival (HR = 0.15; p = 0.016), but not overall survival (HR = 0.22; p = 0.068). Conclusions Presence of CD68+ CD14+ CD16+ macrophages in pre-treatment melanoma combined with low LDH and low melanoma substage strongly correlates with response and survival of advanced melanoma patients treated with immunotherapy. Legal entity responsible for the study James Wilmott. Funding National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Disclosure M.S. Carlino: Advisory / Consultancy: Amgen; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre. A.M. Menzies: Advisory / Consultancy: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre. G.V. Long: Advisory / Consultancy: Amgen; Advisory / Consultancy: Array; Advisory / Consultancy: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Background In the multi-center investigator-initiated OpACIN-neo trial, patients (pts) with macroscopic stage III melanoma were randomized (stratified by center) to 3 different dosing schemes of neoadjuvant (neoadj) IPI+NIVO. Two cycles IPI 1mg/kg + NIVO3mg/kg was identified as the most favorable regimen with 20% grade 3-4 adverse events and a pathological response rate (pRR) of 77%. After a median follow-up (FU) of 8.3 months (mo) none (0/86) of the pts with a pathologic (path) response had relapsed, while 9/21 (43%) without a path response relapsed. Post-hoc analyses were conducted to investigate potential differences between pts treated in Europe (EU) and in Australia (AUS). Methods Baseline patient characteristics, safety and efficacy in terms of path response were evaluated in pts treated in EU (n=48) and AUS (n=38). Multivariate analyses were performed using logistic regression method. Median FU was 9.3mo for EU pts and 6.9mo for AUS pts. Results Baseline characteristics (AUS vs EU) differed in age (median 60 vs 53 year [yr], p=0.017) and AUS pts were more likely to be male (65.8 vs 50.0%, p=0.142) and have an unknown primary melanoma (36.8 vs 20.8%, p=0.100); no difference in PD-L1 expression was observed. There was a trend to a higher pRR for AUS pts than for EU pts (84.2% vs 68.1%, OR 2.50, p=0.092). pRR was also higher for pts >60yr compared to £60yr (91.2% vs 64.7%, OR 5.64, p=0.010) and males vs females (83.7% vs 63.9%, OR 2.90, p=0.041). Multivariate analysis including continent, age and gender showed an adjusted OR for path response of 1.85 (p=0.289) for AUS vs EU pts, an OR of 4.89 (p=0.021) for pts >60yrs vs £60yrs and an OR of 2.50 (p=0.095) for males vs females. The frequency of high grade toxicity was the same in pts 60yr (42.3% vs 32.4%, p=0.353). Conclusions The continental difference in path response appears mostly driven by differences in age and gender. It remains to be elucidated whether the higher pRRs in elderly pts and pts from AUS can be explained by differences in mutational burden (analysis in progress and will be presented). Our data also indicate that neoadj IPI+NIVO is safe and highly effective in the elderly. Clinical trial identification NCT02977052. Legal entity responsible for the study Netherlands Cancer Institute. Funding BMS. Disclosure E.A. Rozeman: Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: MSD; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: NanoString. A.M. Menzies: Advisory / Consultancy: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre. R.A. Scolyer: Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Neracare; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis. A.C.J. van Akkooi: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Amgen; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck-Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: 4SC. J. Hansson: Advisory / Consultancy: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis. G.V. Long: Advisory / Consultancy: Aduro; Advisory / Consultancy: Amgen; Advisory / Consultancy: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Mass-Array; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche. C.U. Blank: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Lilly; Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre; Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: GSK; Advisory / Consultancy: GenMab; Research grant / Funding (institution): NanoString. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Background Primary analysis of the OpACIN-neo study testing 3 dosing schedules of neoadj IPI+NIVO identified 2 cycles IPI 1 mg/kg + NIVO 3 mg/kg (IPI1+NIVO3; arm B) as most favourable, with 20% grade 3-4 irAEs and a pathologic response rate (pRR) of 77%. After a median FU of 8.3 mo none of the pts with a pathologic response versus 9/21 (43%) of the non-responders had relapsed. Here we present updated RFS and biomarker analyses. Methods OpACIN-neo is a multicentre, randomized phase II trial in resectable stage III melanoma pts with ≥1 measurable lymph node metastasis (RECIST 1.1). 86 pts were randomized to arm A: 2x IPI3+NIVO1 Q3W (n = 30); B: 2x IPI1+NIVO3 Q3W (n = 30); or C: 2x IPI3 Q3W followed by 2x NIVO3 Q2W (n = 26). Lymph node dissection was planned at wk 6. Primary endpoints were toxicity, radiologic RR and pRR; RFS and biomarker analyses were secondary endpoints. Mutational profiles, gene expression signatures (GES) and immune protein expression were examined in baseline biopsies by whole exome seq, RNA seq and digital spatial profiling (DSP) analysis. Pre- and post-treatment plasma samples were profiled for 92 proteins. Results After a median FU of 17.7 mo, the median RFS was not reached in any of the arms. Estimated 18-mo RFS was 85% for all pts (95% CI 78%-93%), 90% for arm A (95% CI, 80%-100%), 82% for arm B (95% CI, 70%-98%) and 83% for arm C (95% CI, 70%-100%). Relapses were observed in 1/64 (2%) pathological responders versus 13/21 (62%) of the non-responders. High tumour mutational burden (TMB) and high interferon-y (IFN-y) signature were associated with pathologic response and favourable RFS. Cytokine and PD-1 levels in plasma increased post-treatment irrespective of response. Additional GES and DSP analysis will be presented. Conclusions The 18-mo FU confirms that durable RFS can be achieved with 2 cycles of neoadj IPI+NIVO without any additional adjuvant therapy. Pathologic response remains the strongest marker for RFS. TMB and IFN-y signature might serve as baseline markers identifying pts benefiting from neoadj IPI+NIVO. Neoadj 2 cycles IPI1+NIVO3 should be tested in a randomized phase III study versus adjuvant therapy. Clinical trial identification NCT02977052. Legal entity responsible for the study Netherlands Cancer Institute. Funding BMS. Disclosure E.A. Rozeman: Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: NanoString; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: MSD. A.M. Menzies: Advisory / Consultancy: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre. O. Krijgsman: Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS. T.M. Van: Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: NanoString. A.C.J. van Akkooi: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Amgen; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD-Merck; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck-Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: 4SC. R.A. Scolyer: Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Neracare; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis. J. Hansson: Advisory / Consultancy: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis. G.V. Long: Advisory / Consultancy: Aduro; Advisory / Consultancy: Amgen; Advisory / Consultancy: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: Mass Array; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Oncosec; Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre-Fabre; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche. C.U. Blank: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Lilly; Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: GSK; Advisory / Consultancy: GenMap; Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre; Research grant / Funding (institution): NanoString. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Background: The Townsville Cancer Centre (TCC) has been delivering its medical oncology services closer to home for patients from 19 rural centres via teleoncology since 2007. Patients are satisfied with this model of care. The aim is to describe the services extended to rural patients and the resource improvements enjoyed by rural hospitals as a result of teleoncology over this period. Methods: Data for patients treated via teleoncology from 1st April 2007 to 31st March 2012 was extracted from the oncology information system of TCC. Demographic details and type of services provided are presented descriptively. Results: A total of 170 patients were seen in 800 consultations over 60 months. Median age was 58 years (20–89), males 46% and females 54%. 25 patients were from remote indigenous communities. Most common cancer types were breast (37%), colorectal (21%) and lung (22%). A total of 87 patients received chemotherapy in Mount Isa, supervised remotely from Townsville via video conference with curative intent in 30% and palliative intent in the rest. Examples of chemotherapy regimens included docetaxel, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (TAC), bleomycin, etoposide and cisplatin (BEP), methotreaxte and ifosfamide infusion. 15 patients were seen urgently and appropriate treatment initiated within 24 hours in Mount Isa, thus avoiding inter hospital transfer. Six admitted patients were seen on regular ward rounds. Severe toxicities included one death from pneumonia, one stroke and one resuscitated cardiac arrest. By improving the resources in Mount Isa hospital to accommodate these services, numbers of oncology specific medical and allied health practitioners and service capability have improved. Conclusion: Teleoncology model can enhance rural service capabilities and health resources so that comprehensive medical oncology services can be sustainably provided to rural areas by remote supervision.