Search

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.)

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. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Introduction: The presence of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in melanoma has been linked to survival. Their predictive capability for immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) response remains uncertain. Therefore, we investigated the association between treatment response and TILs in the largest cohort to date and analyzed if this association was independent of known clinical predictors., Methods: In this multicenter cohort study, patients who received first-line anti-PD1 ± anti-CTLA4 for advanced melanoma were identified. TILs were scored on hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) slides of primary melanoma and pre-treatment metastases using the validated TILs-WG, Clark and MIA score. The primary outcome was objective response rate (ORR), with progression free survival and overall survival being secondary outcomes. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard were performed, adjusting for known clinical predictors., Results: Metastatic melanoma specimens were available for 650 patients and primary specimens for 565 patients. No association was found in primary melanoma specimens. In metastatic specimens, a 10-point increase in the TILs-WG score was associated with a higher probability of response (aOR 1.17, 95 % CI 1.07-1.28), increased PFS (HR 0.93, 95 % CI 0.87-0.996), and OS (HR 0.94, 95 % CI 0.89-0.99). When categorized, patients in the highest tertile TILs-WG score (15-100 %) compared to the lowest tertile (0 %) had a longer median PFS (13.1 vs. 7.3 months, p = 0.04) and OS (49.4 vs. 19.5 months, p = 0.003). Similar results were noted using the MIA and Clark scores., Conclusion: In advanced melanoma patients, TIL patterns on H&E slides of pre-treatment metastases, regardless of measurement method, are independently associated with ICI response. TILs are easily scored on readily available H&Es, facilitating the use of this biomarker in clinical practice., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Karijn P.M. Suijkerbuijk reports financial support was provided by Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development. Karijn P.M. Suijkerbuijk reports financial support was provided by Hanarth Fund Foundation. Karijn P.M. Suijkerbuijk reports financial support was provided by Philips. Dr. de Groot reports a relationship with Bristol Myers Squibb Co that includes: consulting or advisory. Dr. De Groot has advisory board relationships with BMS. Dr. Aarts has advisory board / consultancy honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD-Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Astellas, Bayer and received research grants from Merck-Pfizer and all were paid to the institution and not related to current work. Dr. Hospers has consultancy/advisory relationships with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, MSD, Pfizer, Novartis, Sanofi and Pierre Fabre and has received research grants from Bristol Myers Squibb and Seerave and all were paid to the institution. Dr. Kapiteijn has consultancy/advisory relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck, Pierre Fabre, Lilly and Bayer not related to current work and paid to institute, and received research grants not related to this paper from Bristol Myers Squibb, Delcath and Pierre-Fabre. Dr. Piersma had advisory board relationships with BMS, Novartis and Pierre Fabre, honoraria were paid to institution. Dr. Suijkerbuijk has consulting/advisory relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dome, Abbvie, Pierre Fabre Novartis, Sairopa, received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Merck Sharp and Dome and received research funding from TigaTx, Bristol Myers Squibb and Philips and all were paid to institution and not related to the study. Dr. Schrader received honoraria/research funding from Kyowa Kirin paid to the institution and not related to the study. The remaining authors of this manuscript have no conflicts of interest to disclose. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Melanocytic neoplasms with spitzoid histomorphology are often difficult to classify without identifying genetic drivers such as kinase fusions. Traditional diagnostic methods, such as immunohistochemistry, can yield inconclusive results, and advanced techniques such as the Archer fusion assay are often inaccessible and costly. The Idylla GeneFusion Assay might offer a rapid and cost-effective alternative. This study compared Idylla and Archer in identifying ALK, pan-NTRK, RET, and ROS1 gene fusions. Of the 147 samples where next-generation sequencing did not detect genetic drivers, 89 (60.5%) meeting the tissue requirements were further analyzed using Idylla (Cohort A). Idylla demonstrated a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 100% in detecting these fusions. Additionally, among 27 randomly selected cases (Cohort B) that failed to meet the inclusion criteria, Idylla maintained the same levels of sensitivity and specificity. Our findings also show that Idylla can be effectively conducted with isolated RNA, broadening its applicability beyond tissue samples. Although the Idylla assay may not replace more comprehensive molecular assays such as Archer, it could serve as a valuable initial screening tool in diagnosing spitzoid melanocytic tumors., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Long-term survival data from clinical trials show that survival curves of patients with advanced melanoma treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) gradually reach a plateau, suggesting that patients have a chance of achieving long-term survival., Objective: To investigate long-term survival in patients with advanced melanoma treated with ICIs outside clinical trials., Design, Setting, and Participants: Cohort study using prospectively collected data from the nationwide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry, including patients in the Netherlands with advanced melanoma treated with first-line ICIs from 2012 to 2019. Data were analyzed from January to September 2023., Exposures: Patients were treated with first-line ipilimumab-nivolumab, antibodies that target programmed cell death (anti-PD-1), or ipilimumab., Main Outcomes and Measures: Progression-free survival (PFS) and melanoma-specific survival were analyzed, and a Cox proportional hazards model was used to investigate factors associated with PFS after reaching partial response (PR) or complete response (CR)., Results: A total of 2490 patients treated with first-line ICIs were included (median [IQR] age, 65.0 [55.3-73.0] years; 1561 male patients [62.7%]). Most patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status of 1 or lower (2202 patients [88.5%]) and normal lactate dehydrogenase levels (1715 patients [68.9%]). PFS for all patients was 23.4% (95% CI, 21.7%-25.2%) after 3 years and 19.7% (95% CI, 18.0%-21.4%) after 5 years. Overall survival for all patients was 44.0% (95% CI, 42.1%-46.1%) after 3 years and 35.9% (95% CI, 33.9%-38.0%) after 5 years. Patients with metastases in 3 or more organ sites had a significantly higher hazard of progression after reaching PR or CR (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.11-1.69)., Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study of patients with advanced melanoma treated with ICIs in clinical practice showed that their survival reached a plateau, comparable with patients participating in clinical trials. These findings can be used in daily clinical practice to guide long-term surveillance strategies and inform both physicians and patients regarding long-term treatment outcomes.

Background: The predictive value of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in immune-related adverse event (irAE) development remains unknown, although an association between tumor immunogenicity and irAEs has been suggested. We investigated the association between TIL abundance in pretreatment primary and metastasis specimens and the subsequent development of severe irAEs., Patients and Methods: We retrospectively identified patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma who received first-line anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) with or without anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein 4 (anti-CTLA-4) from 10 hospitals in the Netherlands. TILs were scored on representative hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stains of the primary melanoma and pretreatment melanoma metastasis as 'absent', 'nonbrisk', or 'brisk'. A univariable logistic regression analysis was carried out to assess the association between the TIL scores and the development of severe irAEs. Fine and Gray subdistribution hazard models were used to estimate the cumulative incidence of severe irAEs., Results: Of the 1346 eligible patients, 536 patients had primary melanoma specimens available, and 613 patients had metastasis specimens available. Severe irAEs occurred in 15% of anti-PD-1-treated patients and 49% of anti-PD-1 + anti-CTLA-4-treated patients. The presence of TILs was not associated with the occurrence of grade ≥3 irAEs in primary melanoma specimens ( P  = 0.70) nor pretreatment metastasis specimens ( P  = 0.91). In the univariable analysis, patients with brisk TILs did not have a higher chance of developing severe irAEs compared with patients with absent TILs, for both primary specimen (odds ratio 1.15, 95% confidence interval 0.60-2.18) and metastasis specimen (odds ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.37-1.59). There was also no significant difference in the lifetime risk or timing of the development of severe irAEs in patients with TILs present compared with patients with TILs absent., Conclusion: There was no association between the TIL scores on H&E-stained slides from the primary melanoma or pretreatment metastasis and the development of grade 3 or higher irAEs. Additionally, no correlation was found between the presence of TILs and the timing of irAEs., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is increasingly being utilized as an ancillary tool for diagnostically challenging melanocytic neoplasms. It is incumbent upon the pathology community to perform studies assessing the benefits and limitations of these tools in specific diagnostic scenarios. One of the most challenging diagnostic scenarios faced by skin pathologists involves accurate diagnosis of desmoplastic melanocytic neoplasms (DMNs). In this study, 20 expert melanoma pathologists rendered a diagnosis on 47 DMNs based on hematoxylin and eosin sections with demographic information. After submitting their diagnosis, the experts were given the same cases, but this time with comprehensive genomic sequencing results, and asked to render a diagnosis again. Identification of desmoplastic melanoma (DM) improved by 7%, and this difference was statistically significant ( P <0.05). In addition, among the 15 melanoma cases, in the pregenomic assessment, only 12 were favored to be DM by the experts, while after genomics, this improved to 14 of the cases being favored to be DM. In fact, some cases resulting in metastatic disease had a substantial increase in the number of experts recognizing them as DM after genomics. The impact of the genomic findings was less dramatic among benign and intermediate-grade desmoplastic tumors (BIDTs). Interobserver agreement also improved, with the Fleiss multirater Kappa being 0.36 before genomics to 0.4 after genomics. NGS has the potential to improve diagnostic accuracy in the assessment of desmoplastic melanocytic tumors. The degree of improvement will be most substantial among pathologists with some background and experience in bioinformatics and melanoma genetics., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding: P.G. has served as a consultant for Castle Biosciences and has received an honorarium for this, he has also received royalties for textbooks from Elsevier. For the remaining authors, none were declared., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

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: Effectivity of BRAF(/MEK) inhibitor rechallenge has been described in prior studies. However, structured data are largely lacking., Methods: Data from all advanced melanoma patients treated with BRAFi(/MEKi) rechallenge were retrieved from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. The authors analyzed objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) for both first treatment and rechallenge. They performed a multivariable logistic regression and a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model to assess factors associated with response and survival., Results: The authors included 468 patients in the largest cohort to date who underwent at least two treatment episodes of BRAFi(/MEKi). Following rechallenge, ORR was 43%, median PFS was 4.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.1-5.2), and median OS was 8.2 months (95% CI, 7.2-9.4). Median PFS after rechallenge for patients who discontinued first BRAFi(/MEKi) treatment due to progression was 3.1 months (95% CI, 2.7-4.0) versus 5.2 months (95% CI, 4.5-5.9) for patients who discontinued treatment for other reasons. Discontinuing first treatment due to progression and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels greater than two times the upper limit of normal were associated with lower odds of response and worse PFS and OS. Symptomatic brain metastases were associated with worse survival, whereas a longer treatment interval between first treatment and rechallenge was associated with better survival. Responding to the first BRAFi(/MEKi) treatment was not associated with response or survival., Conclusions: This study confirms that patients benefit from rechallenge. Elevated LDH levels, symptomatic brain metastases, and discontinuing first BRAFi(/MEKi) treatment due to progression are associated with less benefit from rechallenge. A prolonged treatment interval is associated with more benefit from rechallenge., (© 2024 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.)

Drivers of Spitz neoplasms include activating point mutations in HRAS and Spitz-associated genomic fusions. It has become evident that some BRAF -mutated melanocytic neoplasms can morphologically mimic Spitz tumors (STs). These have been termed BRAF mutated and morphologically spitzoid (BAMS). In this study, 17 experts from the International Melanoma Pathology Study Group assessed 54 cases which included 40 BAMS and 14 true STs. The participants reviewed the cases blinded to the genomic data and selected among several diagnostic options, including BAMS, ST, melanoma, and other. A total of 38% of all diagnostic selections in the BAMS cases were for BAMS, whereas 32% were for ST. In 22 of the BAMS cases, the favored diagnosis was BAMS, whereas in 17 of the BAMS cases, the favored diagnosis was ST. Among the 20 cases in the total group of 54 with the highest number of votes for ST, half were BAMS. Of BAMS, 75% had a number of votes for ST that was within the SD of votes for ST seen among true ST cases. There was poor interobserver agreement for the precise diagnosis of the BAMS (kappa = 0.16) but good agreement that these cases were not melanoma (kappa = 0.7). BAMS nevi/tumors can closely mimic Spitz neoplasms. Expert melanoma pathologists in this study favored a diagnosis of ST in nearly half of the BAMS cases. There are BAMS cases that even experts cannot morphologically distinguish from true Spitz neoplasms., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding: P.G. has served as a consultant for Castle Biosciences and has received royalties for textbooks from Elsevier. For the remaining authors, none were declared., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: A substantial proportion of patients with macroscopic stage III melanoma do not benefit sufficiently from adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy, as they either recur despite therapy or would never have recurred. To better inform adjuvant treatment selection, we have performed translational analyses to identify prognostic and predictive biomarkers., Patients and Methods: Two cohorts of patients with macroscopic stage III melanoma from an ongoing biobank study were included. Clinical data were compared between an observation cohort (cohort 1) and an adjuvant intention cohort (cohort 2). RNA sequencing for translational analyses was performed and treatment subgroups (cohort 1A and cohort 2A) were compared for possible biomarkers, using a cut-off based on the treatment-naïve patients. In addition, two validation cohorts (Melanoma Institute Australia (MIA) and University Medical Centre Utrecht (UMCU)) were obtained., Results: After a median follow-up of 26 months of the 98 patients in our discovery set, median recurrence-free survival (RFS) was significantly longer for the adjuvant intention cohort (cohort 2, n=49) versus the observation cohort (cohort 1, n=49). Median overall survival was not reached for either cohort, nor significantly different. In observation cohort 1A (n=24), RFS was significantly longer for patients with high interferon-gamma (IFNγ) score (p=0.002); for adjuvant patients of cohort 2A (n=24), a similar trend was observed (p=0.086). Patients with high B cell score had a longer RFS in cohort 1A, but no difference was seen in cohort 2A. The B cell score based on RNA correlated with CD20 + cells in tumor area but was not independent from the IFNγ score. In the MIA validation cohort (n=44), longer RFS was observed for patients with high IFNγ score compared with low IFNγ score (p=0.046), no difference in RFS was observed according to the B cell score. In both the observation (n=11) and the adjuvant (n=11) UMCU validation cohorts, no difference in RFS was seen for IFNγ and B cell., Conclusions: IFNγ has shown to be a prognostic marker in both patients who were and were not treated with adjuvant therapy. B cell score was prognostic but did not improve accuracy over IFNγ. Our study confirmed RFS benefit of adjuvant anti-PD-1 for patients with macroscopic stage III melanoma., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PD reported financial interest in Signature Oncology and will receive some possible revenues if the IFN-γ signature is being developed as a clinical companion diagnostic. AMM is a consultant advisor for BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pierre-Fabre, and QBiotics. RAS has received fees for professional services from MetaOptima Technology Inc., F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Evaxion, Provectus Biopharmaceuticals Australia, QBiotics, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, NeraCare, AMGEN Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Myriad Genetics, GlaxoSmithKline. KPMS is consult advisor for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dome, Abbvie, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, and Sairopa; has received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Merck Sharp, and Dome; and has received research funding from TigaTx, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Philips; all paid to the institute. GVL is a consultant advisor for Agenus, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Evaxion, Hexal AG (Sandoz Company), Highlight Therapeutics S.L., Innovent Biologics USA, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, OncoSec, PHMR Ltd, Pierre Fabre, Provectus, QBiotics, and Regeneron. ACJvA has received advisory board and consultancy honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD-Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Provectus, Sanofi, and 4SC, all paid to the institute; and research grants received from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck-Pfizer, and Novartis, all paid to the institute. CB received compensation (all paid to the institute except TRV) for advisory roles for Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, Novartis, GSK, AZ, Pfizer, Lilly, GenMab, Pierre Fabre, and Third Rock Ventures; received research funding (all paid to the institute) from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, and NanoString, and declares stockownership in Immagene BV, where he is cofounder. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The prognosis of advanced melanoma patients has significantly improved over the years. We aimed to evaluate the survival per year of diagnosis., Methods: All systemically treated patients diagnosed with advanced melanoma from 2013 to 2021 were included from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Baseline characteristics and overall survival (OS) were compared between the different years of diagnosis. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the association between year of diagnosis and OS., Findings: For this cohort study, we included 6260 systemically treated advanced melanoma patients. At baseline, there was an increase over the years in age, the percentage of patients with an ECOG PS ≥ 2, with brain metastases, and a synchronous diagnosis of primary and unresectable melanoma. Median OS increased from 11.2 months (95% CI 10.0-12.4) for patients diagnosed in 2013 to 32.0 months (95% CI 26.6-36.7) for patients diagnosed in 2019. Median OS was remarkably lower for patients diagnosed in 2020 (26.6 months; 95% CI 23.9-35.1) and 2021 (24.0 months; 95% CI 20.4-NR). Patients diagnosed in 2020 and 2021 had a higher hazard of death compared to patients diagnosed in 2019, although this was not significant. The multivariable Cox regression showed a lower hazard of death for the years of diagnosis after 2013. In contrast, patients diagnosed in 2020 and 2021 had a higher hazard of death compared to patients diagnosed in 2019., Interpretation: After a continuous survival improvement for advanced melanoma patients between 2013 and 2019, outcomes of patients diagnosed in 2020 and 2021 seem poorer. This trend of decreased survival remained after correcting for known prognostic factors and previous neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment, suggesting that it is explained by unmeasured factors, which-considering the timing-could be COVID-19-related., Funding: For the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR), the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing foundation received a start-up grant from governmental organization The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMW, project number 836002002). The DMTR is structurally funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, and Roche Pharma. Roche Pharma stopped funding in 2019, and Pierre Fabre started funding the DMTR in 2019. For this work, no funding was granted., 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, Bristol Myers Squibb, Idera and TEVA and has received travel expenses from MSD Oncology, Roche, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi. JH has advisory relationships with AstraZeneca, Achilles Therapeutics, BioNTech, BMS, CureVac, Iovance Bio, Eisai, Instil Bio, Imcyse, MSD, Neogene Therapeutics, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sastra Cell Therapy, TRV, and T-Knife. And has received research grants not related to this paper from Asher Bio, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, BioNTech, Novartis, and Sastra Cell Therapy. All grants were paid to the institutions. MA has advisory board/consultancy honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD-Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Astellas, Bayer. She received travel expenses from Astella, BMS, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sanofi and a research grant from Merck-Pfizer. Not related to current work and paid to institute. GH consultancy/advisory relationships with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, MSD, Pfizer, Novartis, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre and has received research grants not related to this paper from Bristol Myers Squibb and Seerave. All payments were paid to the institution. RI has no declarations of interest for this research, but is employed at MSD since January 2022. DP has advisory relationships/consultancy honororia with Pierre Fabre and Novartis and received travel expenses from Pierre Fabre. AvdV has consultancy relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Sanofi, Ipsen, Eisai all paid to the institute. KS has consulting/advisory relationship with Abbvie, Pierre Fabre, and Sairopa. She received honoraria received from Novartis, Roche, Merck Sharp and Dome and research funding not related to this paper from Genmab, TigaTx, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Philips. All paid to institution. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

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.)

Since the introduction of BRAF(/MEK) inhibition and immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI), the prognosis of advanced melanoma has greatly improved. Melanoma is known for its remarkably long time to first distant recurrence (TFDR), which can be decades in some patients and is partly attributed to immune-surveillance. We investigated the relationship between TFDR and patient outcomes after systemic treatment for advanced melanoma. We selected patients undergoing first-line systemic therapy for advanced melanoma from the nationwide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. The association between TFDR and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was assessed by Cox proportional hazard regression models. The TFDR was modeled categorically, linearly, and flexibly using restricted cubic splines. Patients received anti-PD-1-based treatment (n = 1844) or BRAF(/MEK) inhibition (n = 1618). For ICI-treated patients with a TFDR <2 years, median OS was 25.0 months, compared to 37.3 months for a TFDR >5 years (P = .014). Patients treated with BRAF(/MEK) inhibition with a longer TFDR also had a significantly longer median OS (8.6 months for TFDR <2 years compared to 11.1 months for >5 years, P = .004). The hazard of dying rapidly decreased with increasing TFDR until approximately 5 years (HR 0.87), after which the hazard of dying further decreased with increasing TFDR, but less strongly (HR 0.82 for a TFDR of 10 years and HR 0.79 for a TFDR of 15 years). Results were similar when stratifying for type of treatment. Advanced melanoma patients with longer TFDR have a prolonged PFS and OS, irrespective of being treated with first-line ICI or targeted therapy., (© 2023 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

Background: Sinonasal mucosal melanoma (MM) is a rare, aggressive melanoma subtype. Complete surgical excision, with or without adjuvant radiotherapy, remains the cornerstone of treatment and yields adequate locoregional control. Metastatic MM is managed similarly to metastatic cutaneous melanoma but with poorer survival. PReferentially expressed Antigen in MElanoma (PRAME) has been identified as a potential diagnostic marker and therapeutic target in the treatment of cutaneous melanoma., Methods: Retrospective analysis of the clinical characteristics and immunohistochemical features of all sinonasal MM patients referred to the department of Head and Neck Surgical Oncology, UMC Utrecht Cancer Center, between 2011 and 2021 was performed. Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array and next-generation sequencing (NGS) were performed in selected cases., Results: A total of 26 patients with an MM were included. The median follow-up duration was 15 months. At the end of follow-up, 13 patients had died due to progression of their disease, and one patient died of intercurrent disease. PRAME immunohistochemistry was performed in 23 out of 26 cases, all displaying PRAME expression. In two cases PRAME expression was present both within the melanoma cells and in melanocytes in adjacent mucosa. SNP array showed ≥ 5 copy number variants (CNV) in all tested cases, with a median of 29.5 CNVs (IQR 23.25-40). The three most common mutations identified by NGS were NRAS (7 cases) and NF1 (2 cases)., Conclusion: We show that expression of PRAME is common in sinonasal MM, making PRAME a useful ancillary diagnostic tool and a potential therapeutic target in sinonasal MM. The demonstrated occurrence of extensive presence of PRAME-positive melanocytes in the surrounding mucosa of sinonasal MM might explain the multifocal nature of melanoma in the (sinonasal) mucosa, and would be an extra argument for a PRAME targeting treatment in preventing local disease recurrence., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Patients diagnosed with haematologic malignancies (HMs) have a higher risk of developing subsequent solid tumours, such as melanoma. Patients with HM were mostly excluded from clinical trials but potentially derive less benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) due to disease- or treatment-related T- or B-cell dysfunction., Methods: All advanced melanoma patients treated with anti-PD-1-based treatment or targeted therapy between 2015 and 2021 were included from the prospective nationwide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Progression-free survival (PFS) and melanoma-specific survival (MSS) were analysed for patients with HM (HM+) and without HM (HM-). A cox model was used to account for confounders associated with PFS and MSS., Results: In total, 4638 advanced melanoma patients received first-line anti-PD-1 monotherapy (n = 1763), ipilimumab-nivolumab (n = 800), or BRAF(/MEK) inhibitors (n = 2075). Concurrent HMs were present for 46 anti-PD1-treated patients, 11 ipilimumab-nivolumab-treated patients and 43 BRAF(/MEK)-inhibitor-treated patients. In anti-PD-1-treated patients, the median PFS was 2.8 months for HM+ and 9.9 months for HM- (p = 0.01). MSS was 41.2 months for HM+ and 58.1 months for HM- (p = 0.00086). In multivariable analysis, the presence of an HM was significantly associated with higher risk of melanoma progression (HR adj 1.62; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.15-2.29; p = 0.006) and melanoma-related death (HR adj 1.74; 95% CI 1.09-2.78; p = 0.020). Median PFS and MSS for first-line BRAF(/MEK-) inhibitor-treated HM+ and HM- patients were not significantly different., Conclusions: Patients with HM and advanced melanoma show significantly worse melanoma-related outcomes when treated with ICI, but not targeted therapy, compared to patients without HM. Clinicians should be aware of potentially altered effectiveness of ICI in patients with active HM., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: A.vdE. 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. J.H. has advisory relationships with Achilles Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, BioNTech, Immunocore, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Instil Bio, Ipsen, MSD, Merck Serono, Molecular Partners, Novartis, Neogene Therapeutics, Pfizer, PokeAcel, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, 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. C.B. has/had advisory role: BMS, MSD, Roche, Novartis, GSK, AZ, Pfizer, Lilly, GenMab, Pierre Fabre, Third Rock Ventures, received research funding: BMS, Novartis, NanoString, 4SC, stockownership: co-founder Immagene BV and Signature Oncology, patents (incl. submitted): WO 2021/177822 A1, N2027907, P091040NL2. M.A. 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. J.dG. has consultancy/advisory relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Servier, MSD, Novartis. G.H. 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. E.K. 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 and Pierre-Fabre. Not related to current work and paid to institute. R.vR. has advisory board/consultancy honoraria from Pfizer and an expert meeting fee from Roche. A.vdV. has consultancy relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Sanofi, Ipsen, Eisai, Merck. M.B.S. has consultancy/advisory relationships with Pierre Fabre, MSD and Novartis. K.S. has advisory relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD, Pierre Fabre, AbbVie, received honoraria from Novartis, MSD and Roche and received research funding from BMS, Philips and TigaTx. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with advanced melanoma that develop brain metastases (BM) remains unpredictable. In this study, we aimed to identify prognostic factors in patients with melanoma BM who are treated with ICIs. Data from advanced melanoma patients with BM treated with ICIs in any line between 2013 and 2020 were obtained from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Patients were included from the time of the treatment of BM with ICIs. Survival tree analysis was performed with clinicopathological parameters as potential classifiers and overall survival (OS) as the response variable. In total, 1278 patients were included. Most patients were treated with ipilimumab-nivolumab combination therapy (45%). The survival tree analysis resulted in 31 subgroups. The median OS ranged from 2.7 months to 35.7 months. The strongest clinical parameter associated with survival in advanced melanoma patients with BM was the serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level. Patients with elevated LDH levels and symptomatic BM had the worst prognosis. The clinicopathological classifiers identified in this study can contribute to optimizing clinical studies and can aid doctors in giving an indication of the patients' survival based on their baseline and disease characteristics.

Introduction: Predicting checkpoint inhibitors treatment outcomes in melanoma is a relevant task, due to the unpredictable and potentially fatal toxicity and high costs for society. However, accurate biomarkers for treatment outcomes are lacking. Radiomics are a technique to quantitatively capture tumour characteristics on readily available computed tomography (CT) imaging. The purpose of this study was to investigate the added value of radiomics for predicting clinical benefit from checkpoint inhibitors in melanoma in a large, multicenter cohort., Methods: Patients who received first-line anti-PD1±anti-CTLA4 treatment for advanced cutaneous melanoma were retrospectively identified from nine participating hospitals. For every patient, up to five representative lesions were segmented on baseline CT, and radiomics features were extracted. A machine learning pipeline was trained on the radiomics features to predict clinical benefit, defined as stable disease for more than 6 months or response per RECIST 1.1 criteria. This approach was evaluated using a leave-one-centre-out cross validation and compared to a model based on previously discovered clinical predictors. Lastly, a combination model was built on the radiomics and clinical model., Results: A total of 620 patients were included, of which 59.2% experienced clinical benefit. The radiomics model achieved an area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.607 [95% CI, 0.562-0.652], lower than that of the clinical model (AUROC=0.646 [95% CI, 0.600-0.692]). The combination model yielded no improvement over the clinical model in terms of discrimination (AUROC=0.636 [95% CI, 0.592-0.680]) or calibration. The output of the radiomics model was significantly correlated with three out of five input variables of the clinical model (p < 0.001)., Discussion: The radiomics model achieved a moderate predictive value of clinical benefit, which was statistically significant. However, a radiomics approach was unable to add value to a simpler clinical model, most likely due to the overlap in predictive information learned by both models. Future research should focus on the application of deep learning, spectral CT-derived radiomics, and a multimodal approach for accurately predicting benefit to checkpoint inhibitor treatment in advanced melanoma., 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. JdG has consultancy/advisory relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Servier, MSD, Novartis. PJ has a research collaboration with Philips Healthcare and Vifor Pharma. MBS has consultancy/advisory relationships with Pierre Fabre, MSD, and Novartis. EK has consultancy/advisory relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck, Pierre Fabre, Lilly, Bayer, EISAI, and Ipsen, and received research grants not related to this paper from Bristol Myers Squibb and Pierre Fabre. PD has consultancy/advisory relationships with Paige, Pantarei, and Samantree paid to the institution, and research grants from Pfizer, none related to current work, and paid to institute. KS has advisory relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD, Pierre Fabre, AbbVie and received honoraria from Novartis, MSD, and Roche and research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, TigaTx, and Philips. TL has received research funding from Philips. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The WHO classification of melanocytic skin tumours published in 2018 describes a new classification with nine different pathways based on molecular driver mutations, localization, clinical context and solar damage. The dichotomous concept of benign (nevus) versus malignant (melanoma) is replaced by a gradual concept starting with a benign nevus with progression into low to high grade intermediate melanocytic lesions, called melanocytoma, and ending at melanoma. The current European recommendation is (re-)excision with 2-5mm margin of low grade melanocytoma and with 5-10mm margin of high grade melanocytoma. Low grade melanocytoma needs no follow-up. For high grade melanocytoma a follow-up for at least 5 years every 6 months is recommended. Routine sentinel node procedure is not indicated. If diagnosis melanoma cannot be ruled out the lesions have to be treated as melanoma. Correct classification of a melanocytoma is a diagnostic challenge, but of high importance for therapeutic choices and prognosis.

Background: Melanocytic tumor of uncertain malignant potential (MELTUMP) and superficial atypical melanocytic proliferation of uncertain significance (SAMPUS) are descriptive and provisional terms for melanocytic tumors with ambiguous histopathological features that are not easily classified as either benign or malignant., Objective: To investigate the incidence and clinical outcome of MELTUMP and SAMPUS in the Netherlands., Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we reviewed all diagnoses of MELTUMP and SAMPUS from the Dutch Nationwide Pathology Databank from 1991 to October 1, 2021. Clinical outcome was studied for cases diagnosed until October 1, 2018., Results: A total of 1685 MELTUMP and 1957 SAMPUS were identified with an annual incidence of 150 to 300 cases. Metastatic behavior was seen in 0.7% of all initially diagnosed MELTUMP. All SAMPUS remained free of metastases., Limitations: Reassessment of pathology slides and confirmation of clonality between primary and metastatic lesions remained outside the scope of this study., Conclusion: Despite the 'uncertainty' in the nomenclature, our results demonstrate a low malignant potential for MELTUMP and no malignant potential for SAMPUS. We emphasize the importance of consultation for ambiguous melanocytic lesions and to limit the MELTUMP/SAMPUS terminology to legitimately uncertain or unclassifiable cases., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest None disclosed., (Copyright © 2022 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Adjuvant BRAF/MEK- and anti-PD-1 inhibition have significantly improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) compared to placebo in resected stage III BRAF-mutant melanoma. However, data beyond the clinical trial setting are limited. This study describes the toxicity and survival of patients treated with adjuvant BRAF/MEK inhibitors and compares outcomes to adjuvant anti-PD-1. For this study, stage III BRAF V600 mutant cutaneous melanoma patients treated with adjuvant BRAF/MEK-inhibition or anti-PD-1 were identified from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. BRAF/MEK- and anti-PD-1-treated patients were matched based on propensity scores, and RFS at 12 and 18 months were estimated. Between 1 July 2018 and 31 December 2021, 717 patients were identified. Of these, 114 patients with complete records were treated with BRAF/MEK therapy and 532 with anti-PD-1. Comorbidities (p = 0.04) and geographical region (p < 0.01) were associated with treatment choice. In 45.6% of BRAF/MEK-treated patients, treatment was prematurely discontinued. Grade ≥ 3 toxicity occurred in 11.5% of patients and was the most common cause of early discontinuation (71.1%). At 12 and 18 months, RFS in BRAF/MEK-treated patients was 85% and 70%, compared to 68% and 68% in matched anti-PD-1-treated patients (p = 0.03). In conclusion, comorbidities and geographical region determine the choice of adjuvant treatment in patients with resected stage III BRAF-mutant melanoma. With the currently limited follow-up, BRAF/MEK-treated patients have better RFS at 12 months than matched anti-PD-1-treated patients, but this difference is no longer observed at 18 months. Therefore, longer follow-up data are necessary to estimate long-term effectiveness.

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.)

Importance: Management of checkpoint inhibitor-induced immune-related adverse events (irAEs) is primarily based on expert opinion. Recent studies have suggested detrimental effects of anti-tumor necrosis factor on checkpoint-inhibitor efficacy., Objective: To determine the association of toxic effect management with progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and melanoma-specific survival (MSS) in patients with advanced melanoma treated with first-line ipilimumab-nivolumab combination therapy., Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based, multicenter cohort study included patients with advanced melanoma experiencing grade 3 and higher irAEs after treatment with first-line ipilimumab and nivolumab between 2015 and 2021. Data were collected from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Median follow-up was 23.6 months., Main Outcomes and Measures: The PFS, OS, and MSS were analyzed according to toxic effect management regimen. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to assess factors associated with PFS and OS., Results: Of 771 patients treated with ipilimumab and nivolumab, 350 patients (median [IQR] age, 60.0 [51.0-68.0] years; 206 [58.9%] male) were treated with immunosuppression for severe irAEs. Of these patients, 235 received steroids alone, and 115 received steroids with second-line immunosuppressants. Colitis and hepatitis were the most frequently reported types of toxic effects. Except for type of toxic effect, no statistically significant differences existed at baseline. Median PFS was statistically significantly longer for patients treated with steroids alone compared with patients treated with steroids plus second-line immunosuppressants (11.3 [95% CI, 9.6-19.6] months vs 5.4 [95% CI, 4.5-12.4] months; P = .01). Median OS was also statistically significantly longer for the group receiving steroids alone compared with those receiving steroids plus second-line immunosuppressants (46.1 months [95% CI, 39.0 months-not reached (NR)] vs 22.5 months [95% CI, 36.5 months-NR]; P = .04). Median MSS was also better in the group receiving steroids alone compared with the group receiving steroids plus second-line immunosuppressants (NR [95% CI, 46.1 months-NR] vs 28.8 months [95% CI, 20.5 months-NR]; P = .006). After adjustment for potential confounders, patients treated with steroids plus second-line immunosuppressants showed a trend toward a higher risk of progression (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.00-1.97]; P = .05) and had a higher risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.03-2.30]; P = .04) compared with those receiving steroids alone., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, second-line immunosuppression for irAEs was associated with impaired PFS, OS, and MSS in patients with advanced melanoma treated with first-line ipilimumab and nivolumab. These findings stress the importance of assessing the effects of differential irAE management strategies, not only in patients with melanoma but also other tumor types.

The developments in targeted therapies and molecular pathology have changed the classification of tumors and precision oncology. Pathologists and clinical scientists in molecular pathology and oncologists have regular multidisciplinary meetings and are responsible for translating molecular results into an appropriate treatment plan. This requires expertise and skills to be effective team players. Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is essential for professionals in medicine; however, learning opportunities in current resident training are limited. This narrative study explores the collaborative output and learning mechanisms of interprofessional learning (IPL) of residents of different disciplines in the Morphology & Molecular PLUS workshop and its preparation. Topics that were discussed in the workshop were technologies for the detection of mutations, copy number variations, tumor mutational burden, and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis in the context of differential diagnosis and precision oncology. Data were collected by analyzing pre- and post-workshop questionnaires and interviews. An interprofessional team of three residents of each hospital had to be formed by one of the residents, which was challenging as not all residents from a hospital knew each other. Residents reported to have got to know each other and have learned about each other's roles and perspectives. They gained knowledge of molecular pathology and the added value of IPC, in particular, for residents early in their training. Enabling meetings for medical residents of different disciplines to get acquainted was perceived as the most facilitating factor for IPL. Time constraints as the biggest barrier in daily practice. We recommend offering IPL activities as early as possible in residency programs., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest, no disclosures. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article., (© 2022 The Author(s).)

Purpose: Little is known about the effect of specific gene mutations on efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced melanoma., Materials and Methods: All patients with advanced melanoma treated with first-line anti-PD-1 or ipilimumab-nivolumab between 2012 and 2021 in the nationwide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry were included in this cohort study. Objective response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed according to BRAF and NRAS status. A multivariable Cox model was used to analyze prognostic factors associated with PFS and OS., Results: In total, 1764 patients received anti-PD-1 and 759 received ipilimumab-nivolumab. No significant differences in PFS were found in the anti-PD-1 cohort. In the ipilimumab-nivolumab cohort, median PFS was significantly higher for BRAF -mutant melanoma (9.9 months; 95% CI, 6.8 to 17.2) compared with NRAS -mutant (4.8 months; 95% CI, 3.0 to 7.5) and double wild-type (5.3 months; 95% CI, 3.6 to 7.1). In multivariable analysis, BRAF -mutant melanoma was significantly associated with a lower risk of progression or death in the ipilimumab-nivolumab cohort. Median OS was significantly higher for BRAF -mutant melanoma compared with NRAS -mutant and double wild-type melanoma for both immune checkpoint inhibitor regimens., Conclusion: Ipilimumab-nivolumab-treated patients with BRAF -mutant melanoma display improved PFS and OS compared with patients with NRAS -mutant and double wild-type melanoma. BRAF mutation status is a factor to consider while choosing between mono and dual checkpoint inhibition in advanced melanoma.

Cutaneous deep penetrating melanocytic neoplasms frequently simulate melanoma and might occasionally progress to metastatic melanoma. Distinguishing deep penetrating nevi (DPN) and deep penetrating melanocytomas (DPM) from malignant deep penetrating tumors (MDPT) is difficult based on histopathology alone, and diagnostic criteria for MDPT are currently lacking. Using a molecular workup, we aimed to provide readily available diagnostic tools for classification of deep penetrating tumors. We used clinical follow-up and Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) array for tumor classification of 20 deep penetrating neoplasms to identify associations with histopathological, immunohistochemistry, and NGS findings. Ten neoplasms were classified as MDPT, four as DPM, and six as DPN. Two MDPT showed metastases. The following parameters were statistically significantly associated with MDPT: severe nuclear atypia (risk ratio [RR] 2.9, p < 0.05), absence of a nevus component (RR 10.0, p = 0.04), positive PRAME expression (RR 9.0, p = 0.02), complete loss of p16 expression (RR 3.5, p = 0.003), TERT-p and APC mutations (RR 11.0, p = 0.01 and RR 2.7, p = 0.002, respectively), and ≥1 additional pathogenic mutation (RR 9.0, p = 0.02). Ki-67 expression ≥ 5% was not significantly associated with MDPTs, although it was <5% in all DPNs. Three MDPT did not show nuclear β-catenin expression despite having a CTNNB1 (n = 2) or an APC mutation (n = 1). Our findings suggest that complete loss of p16 and positive PRAME expression, a driver mutation in APC, ≥ 1 additional pathogenic mutation, especially in TERT-p, support an MDPT diagnosis in deep penetrating neoplasms. Besides severe nuclear atypia and possibly severe inflammation, we did not identify specific histopathological criteria for malignancy. Non-aberrant nuclear β-catenin expression might not exclude a deep penetrating signature in MDPT., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to United States & Canadian Academy of Pathology.)

Background: Atypical fibroxanthoma (AFX) and pleomorphic dermal sarcoma (PDS) are rare cutaneous neoplasms forming a spectrum. Case reports with recurrences and metastasis have been published despite the current view that AFX is benign. The aim of this study was to identify clinical and histopathological features that predict tumor recurrence., Methods: A retrospective review of AFX and PDS cases was performed. Clinical characteristics were obtained from patient records., Results: A total of 29 AFX and 23 PDS cases were identified. Review led to re-classification of 12 cases (18%). In 14/50 (26.9%) cases a recurrence occurred. Recurrences were significantly more likely to occur when the tumor showed any infiltration in the subcutaneous fat (100% vs 43.2%, p = 0.000) or when the tumor diameter exceeded 2 cm (46.2% vs 16.2%, p = 0.030)., Conclusions: This study shows that histopathological distinction between AFX and PDS remains difficult with reclassification in 12 out of 52 (18%) cases upon review. All AFX cases solely confined to the dermis behaved benign. We therefore advocate to classify all cases with any form of subcutaneous extension as PDS, and only lesions without as AFX. This contrasts with the current general opinion in which superficial subcutaneous invasion is still accepted in AFX., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. 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.)

Mucosal melanomas are rare and only a small portion bear BRAF mutations while cutaneous melanomas have a much higher prevalence and often harbor BRAF mutations. We present two cases in which, after a malignant melanocytic mucosal lesion with a BRAF mutation was found, the primary cutaneous source was identified and clonality confirmed between the lesions. In both cases, primary lesions occurred on the scalp, an often-overlooked site. Both lesions showed signs of regression implying that in due time these lesions could have been fully regressed and might never have been detected. In that case, the metastatic mucosal lesion would erroneously be identified as a BRAF-mutated mucosal melanoma. These cases give warrant; a careful dermatological inspection should be instigated when confronted with a BRAF-mutated mucosal melanoma. We hypothesize that some BRAF-mutated mucosal melanomas might actually represent metastases of regressed cutaneous melanomas., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

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.)

An increasing number of pathology laboratories are now fully digitised, using whole slide imaging (WSI) for routine diagnostics. WSI paves the road to use artificial intelligence (AI) that will play an increasing role in computer-aided diagnosis (CAD). In melanocytic skin lesions, the presence of a dermal mitosis may be an important clue for an intermediate or a malignant lesion and may indicate worse prognosis. In this study a mitosis algorithm primarily developed for breast carcinoma is applied to melanocytic skin lesions. This study aimed to assess whether the algorithm could be used in diagnosing melanocytic lesions, and to study the added value in diagnosing melanocytic lesions in a practical setting. WSI's of a set of hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained slides of 99 melanocytic lesions (35 nevi, 4 intermediate melanocytic lesions, and 60 malignant melanomas, including 10 nevoid melanomas), for which a consensus diagnosis was reached by three academic pathologists, were subjected to a mitosis algorithm based on AI. Two academic and six general pathologists specialized in dermatopathology examined the WSI cases two times, first without mitosis annotations and after a washout period of at least 2 months with mitosis annotations based on the algorithm. The algorithm indicated true mitosis in lesional cells, i.e., melanocytes, and non-lesional cells, i.e., mainly keratinocytes and inflammatory cells. A high number of false positive mitosis was indicated as well, comprising melanin pigment, sebaceous glands nuclei, and spindle cell nuclei such as stromal cells and neuroid differentiated melanocytes. All but one pathologist reported more often a dermal mitosis with the mitosis algorithm, which on a regular basis, was incorrectly attributed to mitoses from mainly inflammatory cells. The overall concordance of the pathologists with the consensus diagnosis for all cases excluding nevoid melanoma ( n = 89) appeared to be comparable with and without the use of AI (89% vs. 90%). However, the concordance increased by using AI in nevoid melanoma cases ( n = 10) (75% vs. 68%). This study showed that in general cases, pathologists perform similarly with the aid of a mitosis algorithm developed primarily for breast cancer. In nevoid melanoma cases, pathologists perform better with the algorithm. From this study, it can be learned that pathologists need to be aware of potential pitfalls using CAD on H&E slides, e.g., misinterpreting dermal mitoses in non-melanotic cells.

Introduction: Because of different therapeutic regimens for superficial and non-superficial basal cell carcinomas (BCCs), accurate histopathological examination of a punch biopsy to determine its subtype is essential. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the additional yield of a more extensive step-section method to that of a standard histologic examination at 4 levels., Material and Methods: Data for this prospective study was obtained from the Pathology department of a Dutch tertiary hospital. Biopsy specimens of subsequent patients from March 2019 to June 2020 were sectioned to 8-levels instead of the regular 4-levels. Only patients with a superficial BCC subtype in the first 4-levels of sectioning were included (n = 100). After 8-level sectioning, it was recorded in which level (5-8) a more aggressive BCC component was found (i.e. nodular, infiltrative, or micronodular). Patients were followed-up to evaluate further treatment, and in case of excision, the excision specimen was reviewed to determine the BCC subtype. A logistic regression was performed to assess characteristics associated with a more aggressive BCC component in levels 5-8., Results: In 14 patients (14%) a more aggressive component was found in levels 5-8, all with a nodular component. Thirteen of these patients underwent excision, confirming a more aggressive BCC subtype. Of the 86 patients that had no deeper BCC component in levels 5-8, 26 (30.2%) underwent excision; In 4 patients no residual BCC was found, in 15 patients superficial BCC, and in 7 a more aggressive BCC subtype (1 nodular and 6 a combination of superficial/nodular/infiltrative). In multivariable analysis, head&neck localization was associated with finding a more aggressive BCC subtype in levels 5-8 (OR 6.41 (95%CI 1.56-26.30), p = 0.01))., Conclusions: More extensive sectioning of superficial BCC biopsy specimens, especially in the head&neck area, leads to a more accurate BCC subtype diagnosis requiring different clinical management strategies., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Little is known about outcomes of adjuvant-treated melanoma patients beyond the clinical trial setting. Since 2019, adjuvant-treated melanoma patients have been registered in the DMTR, a population-based registry to monitor the quality and safety of melanoma care in the Netherlands. This study aims to describe treatment patterns, relapse, and toxicity rates of adjuvant-treated melanoma patients beyond the clinical trial setting., Methods: Analyses were performed on adjuvant-treated melanoma patients included in the DMTR. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse patient-, and treatment characteristics. A baseline registration completeness analysis was performed, and an analysis on trial eligibility in clinical practice patients. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) at 12-months was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method., Results: A total of 641 patients were treated with adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy. RFS at 12-months was 70.6% (95% CI, 66.9-74.6) with a median follow-up of 12.8 months. Sex, stage of disease and Breslow thickness were associated with a higher hazard for RFS. Eighteen per cent of the anti-PD-1-treated patients developed grade ≥3 toxicity. Sixty-one per cent of patients prematurely discontinued anti-PD-1 therapy., Conclusion: Adjuvant anti-PD-1 treatment of resected stage III/IV melanoma in daily practice showed slightly higher toxicity rates and more frequent premature discontinuation but similar RFS rates compared to trials., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement 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. MBS has consultancy/advisory relationships with Pierre Fabre, MSD and Novartis. 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. EK has consultancy/advisory relationships with BristolMyers Squibb, Novartis, Merck, Pierre Fabre, and received research grants not related to this paper from Bristol Myers Squibb. KS has advisory relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Abbvie and received honoraria from Novartis, MSD and Roche. AvdV has consultancy relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Sanofi, Ipsen, Eisai, Merck. JH has advisory relationships with Achilles Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, BioNTech, Immunocore, Ipsen, MSD, Merck Serono, Molecular Partners, Novartis, Neogene Therapeutics, PokeAcel, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, T-Knife, Third Rock Ventures, and has received research grants not related to this paper from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, BioNTech, Neogene Therapeutics and Novartis. All grants were paid to the institutions. The funders had no role in the writing of this article or decision to submit it for publication. AvA has advisory board/consultancy honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD-Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sirius Medical, 4SC. Research grants from Amgen, Merck-Pfizer. All outside of current work and all paid to institute. 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. HMW has received travel expenses from Ipsen and Astellas and has received honoraria from Roche and Astellas. RvR has received expert meeting fees from Roche and advisory board fees from Pfizer. EE has received speaker honoraria from BMS, Pierre Fabre, Kyowa Kirin, and travel/conference expenses from MSD. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Cutaneous intermediate melanocytic neoplasms with ambiguous histopathological features are diagnostically challenging. Ancillary cytogenetic techniques to detect genome-wide copy number variations (CNVs) might provide a valuable tool to allow accurate classification as benign (nevus) or malignant (melanoma). However, the CNV cut-off value to distinguish intermediate lesions from melanoma is not well defined. We performed a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis to evaluate the use of CNVs to classify intermediate melanocytic lesions. A total of 31 studies and 431 individual lesions were included. The CNV number in intermediate lesions (median 1, interquartile range [IQR] 0-2) was significantly higher (p<0.001) compared to that in benign lesions (median 0, IQR 0-1) and lower (p<0.001) compared to that in malignant lesions (median 6, IQR 4-11). The CNV number displayed excellent ability to differentiate between intermediate and malignant lesions (0.90, 95% CI 0.86-0.94, p<0.001). Two CNV cut-off points demonstrated a sensitivity and specificity higher than 80%. A cut-off of ≥3 CNVs corresponded to 85% sensitivity and 84% specificity, and a cut-off of ≥4 CNVs corresponded to 81% sensitivity and 91% specificity, respectively. This individual patient data meta-analysis provides a comprehensive overview of CNVs in cutaneous intermediate melanocytic lesions, based on the largest pooled cohort of ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms to date. Our meta-analysis suggests that a cut-off of ≥3 CNVs might represent the optimal trade-off between sensitivity and specificity in clinical practice to differentiate intermediate lesions from melanoma., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

The molecular background of a significant proportion of spitzoid neoplasms is still unknown. Recently, activating mutations in MAP2K1 have been described in a few spitzoid lesions, but not in benign Spitz nevi. We report four cases of melanocytic tumors with spitzoid features in which a MAP2K1 mutation was detected. The lesions did not show a single distinct phenotype and ranged from benign to malignant. Two cases resembled desmoplastic Spitz nevi. Based on the combination of morphological, immunohistochemical, and molecular findings, one case was classified as benign, one as probably benign, possibly intermediate low-grade (MELTUMP-melanocytic tumor of unknown malignant potential), one case was classified as intermediate (MELTUMP), and one case was considered a superficial spreading melanoma with spitzoid features. Based on this, we conclude that MAP2K1 mutations can indicate a spitzoid genetic signature and can be found in both benign and malignant spitzoid neoplasms., (© 2020. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Although the prognosis of patients with thin primary cutaneous melanomas (T1, ≤ 1.0 mm) is generally excellent, some develop recurrence. We sought to develop and validate a model predicting recurrences in patients with thin melanomas., Methods: A Dutch population-based cohort (n = 25,930, development set) and a cohort from an Australian melanoma treatment center (n = 2,968, validation set) were analyzed (median follow-up 6.7 and 12.0 years, respectively). Multivariable Cox models were generated for local, regional, and distant recurrence-free survival (RFS). Discrimination was assessed using Harrell's C-statistic for each outcome. Each nomogram performance was evaluated using calibration plots defining low-risk and high-risk groups as the lowest and top 5% of the nomogram risk score, respectively. The nomograms' C-statistics were compared with those of a model including the current American Joint Committee on Cancer staging parameters (T-stage and sentinel node status)., Results: Local, regional, and distant recurrences were found in 209 (0.8%), 503 (1.9%), and 203 (0.8%) Dutch patients, respectively, and 23 (0.8%), 61 (2.1%), and 75 (2.5%) Australian patients, respectively. C-statistics of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.82) for local RFS, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.78) for regional RFS, and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.77 to 0.83) for distant RFS were obtained for the development model. External validation showed C-statistics of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.69 to 0.90), 0.76 (95% CI, 0.70 to 0.82), and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.69 to 0.80), respectively. Calibration plots showed a good match between predicted and observed rates. Using the nomogram, the C-statistic was increased by 9%-12% for the development cohort and by 11%-15% for the validation cohort, compared with a model including only T-stage and sentinel node status., Conclusion: Most patients with thin melanomas have an excellent prognosis, but some develop recurrence. The presented nomograms can accurately identify a subgroup at high risk. An online calculator is available at www.melanomarisk.org.au., Competing Interests: Alexander H. R. VareyConsulting or Advisory Role: MedtronicTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Synthes Karijn P. M. SuijkerbuijkConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD, Pierre FabreSpeakers' Bureau: Roche, NovartisTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, MSD Paul J. van DiestConsulting or Advisory Role: Pantarhei BiosciencePatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: DDX3 as a biomarker for cancer and methods related thereto Richard A. ScolyerEmployment: Royal Prince Alfred HospitalConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, NeraCare GmbH, Novartis Australia, Amgen, Myriad Genetics, MSD Sharp & Dohme (Australia) Pty Limited, Novartis, QBioticsResearch Funding: The Ainsworth Foundation, National Health and Medical Research CouncilTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis Australia Carla H. van GilsConsulting or Advisory Role: BayerSpeakers' Bureau: BayerResearch Funding: BayerTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bayer John F. ThompsonHonoraria: GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD Australia, ProvectusConsulting or Advisory Role: GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD Australia, ProvectusTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Provectus, GlaxoSmithKlineNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Background: Anti-PD-1 antibodies and BRAF/MEK inhibitors are the two main groups of systemic therapy in the treatment of BRAF V600 -mutant advanced melanoma. Until now, data are inconclusive on which therapy to use as first-line treatment. The aim of this study was to use propensity score matching to compare first-line anti-PD-1 monotherapy vs. BRAF/MEK inhibitors in advanced BRAF V600 -mutant melanoma patients., Methods: We selected patients diagnosed between 2014 and 2017 with advanced melanoma and a known BRAF V600 -mutation treated with first-line BRAF/MEK inhibitors or anti-PD-1 antibodies, registered in the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Patients were matched based on their propensity scores using the nearest neighbour and the optimal matching method., Results: Between 2014 and 2017, a total of 330 and 254 advanced melanoma patients received BRAF/MEK inhibitors and anti-PD-1 monotherapy as first-line systemic therapy. In the matched cohort, patients receiving anti-PD-1 antibodies as a first-line treatment had a higher median and 2-year overall survival compared to patients treated with first-line BRAF/MEK inhibitors, 42.3 months (95% CI: 37.3-NE) vs. 19.8 months (95% CI: 16.7-24.3) and 65.4% (95% CI: 58.1-73.6) vs. 41.7% (95% CI: 34.2-51.0)., Conclusions: Our data suggest that in the matched BRAF V600 -mutant advanced melanoma patients, anti-PD-1 monotherapy is the preferred first-line treatment in patients with relatively favourable patient and tumour characteristics.

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate treatment patterns and overall survival (OS) of patients with BRAFV600 wild-type and BRAFV600-mutant advanced melanoma in the Netherlands., Methods: We selected patients of 18 years and over, diagnosed between 2016 and 2017 with unresectable stage IIIC or IV melanoma, registered in the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. To assess the association of BRAFV600-mutation status with OS we used the Cox proportional-hazards model., Results: A total of 642 BRAFV600 wild-type and 853 mutant patients were included in the analysis. Median OS did not differ significantly between both groups, 15.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 13.2-19.2) versus 20.6 months (95% CI: 18.3-25.0). Survival rates at 6 and 12 months were significantly lower for BRAFV600 wild-type patients compared with BRAFV600-mutant patients, 72.0% (95% CI: 68.6-75.6) and 56.0% (95% CI: 52.2-60.0) versus 83.4% (95% CI: 80.9-85.9) and 65.7% (95% CI: 62.6-69.0). Two-year survival was not significantly different between both groups, 41.1% (95% CI: 37.2-45.3) versus 47.0% (95% CI: 43.6-60.6). Between 0 and 10 months, BRAFV600 wild-type patients had a decreased survival with a hazard ratio for OS of 2.00 (95% CI: 1.62-2.46) but this effect disappeared after 10 months. At 12 months, BRAFV600-mutant patients had started with second-line systemic treatment more often compared with BRAFV600 wild-type patients (50% vs. 19%)., Conclusion: These results suggest that advanced BRAFV600 wild-type melanoma patients have worse survival than BRAFV600-mutated patients during the first 10 months after diagnosis because of less available treatment options., Competing Interests: J.B.H. has advisory relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celsius Therapeutics, GSK, Immunocore, Ipsen, MSD, Merck Serono, Novartis, Neon Therapeutics, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics and has received research grants not related to this paper from Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Neon Therapeutics. All grants were paid to the institutions. C.U.B. has advisory relationships with, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genmab, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer and grant support by BMS, Novartis, and NanoString. J.-W.B.d.G. has received personal fees outside the submitted work from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Servier, MSD, Novartis. G.A.P.H. has consultancy/advisory relationships with Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, MSD, Pfizer, Novartis, BMS. She received honoraria from Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Roche and has received research grants not related to this paper from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Seerave. A.A.M.v.d.V. has consultancy relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Sanofi, Ipsen, Eisai. E.K. has consultancy/advisory relationships with Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Roche, Merck, Pierre Fabre, EISAI, Bayer, Genzyme-Sanofi and received research grants not related to this paper from Novartis and Bristol-Myers Squibb. K.P.M.S. has consulting/advisory relationships with BMS and MSD. She received honoraria from Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Roche. A.J.M.v.d.E. has consulting/advisory relationships with BMS, Roche, MSD, and Novartis. He received a study grant from Roche. The funders had no role in the writing of this article or decision to submit it for publication. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Topical methyl aminolevulinate photodynamic therapy (MAL-PDT) is highly effective for the treatment of superficial basal cell carcinoma (sBCC). Current European treatment protocol requires two hospital visits, which is costly and unpractical. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of fractionated MAL-PDT, using two light fractions at 3 and 4 h compared to illumination at 3 and 5 h after MAL-application., Methods: Thirty patients were randomized into two groups. The first group received illumination at 3 and 4 h (20 + 55 J/cm 2 ) after MAL-application (3/4 group). In the other group, two light fractions were performed at 3 and 5 h (20 + 55 J/cm 2 ) after MAL-application (3/5 group). The lesion response was evaluated at 3 and 12 months posttreatment., Results: In the 3/5 group, 70.0% showed a complete response (CR) at 3 months compared to 63.6% in the other group. At 12 months, 100% showed a CR in the 3/5 group compared to 80.0% in the other group. However, most failures/recurrences were eventually due to the presence of a more aggressive BCC subtype, mostly caused by sampling error of the primary punch biopsy., Conclusion: Single day protocol for MAL-PDT for sBCC is feasible and this study shows promising results.

Background: Accurate diagnosis of melanocytic lesions is challenging, even for expert pathologists. Nowadays, whole-slide imaging (WSI) is used for routine clinical pathology diagnosis in several laboratories. One of the limitations of WSI, as it is most often used, is the lack of a multiplanar focusing option. In this study, we aim to establish the diagnostic accuracy of WSI for melanocytic lesions and investigate the potential accuracy increase of z-stack scanning. Z-stack enables pathologists to use a software focus adjustment, comparable to the fine-focus knob of a conventional light microscope., Materials and Methods: Melanocytic lesions ( n = 102) were selected from our pathology archives: 35 nevi, 5 spitzoid tumors of unknown malignant potential, and 62 malignant melanomas, including 10 nevoid melanomas. All slides were scanned at a magnification comparable to use of a ×40 objective, in z-stack mode. A ground truth diagnosis was established on the glass slides by four academic dermatopathologists with a special interest in the diagnosis of melanoma. Six nonacademic surgical pathologists subspecialized in dermatopathology examined the cases by WSI., Results: An expert consensus diagnosis was achieved in 99 (97%) of cases. Concordance rates between surgical pathologists and the ground truth varied between 75% and 90%, excluding nevoid melanoma cases. Concordance rates of nevoid melanoma varied between 10% and 80%. Pathologists used the software focusing option in 7%-28% of cases, which in 1 case of nevoid melanoma resulted in correcting a misdiagnosis after finding a dermal mitosis., Conclusion: Diagnostic accuracy of melanocytic lesions based on glass slides and WSI is comparable with previous publications. A large variability in diagnostic accuracy of nevoid melanoma does exist. Our results show that z-stack scanning, in general, does not increase the diagnostic accuracy of melanocytic., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest.

The aim of this population-based study was to identify the factors associated with clinical outcomes in vemurafenib-treated patients and to evaluate outcomes across subgroups of patients with different risk profiles. Data were retrieved from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Time to next treatment (TTNT) and overall survival (OS) of all metastatic melanoma patients who received vemurafenib between 2012 and 2015 were assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimates. A risk score was developed on the basis of all prognostic factors associated with TTNT and OS derived from multivariable Cox regression analyses. Patients were stratified according to the presence of prognostic risk factors by counting the number of factors, ranging from 0 to 6. A total of 626 patients received vemurafenib with a median follow-up of 35.8 months. The median TTNT and OS were 4.7 months [95% confidence intervals (CI): 4.4-5.1] and 7.3 months (95% CI: 6.6-8.0). The strongest prognostic factors were serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score, number of organ sites involved and brain metastases. Patients with a favourable risk profile (no risk factors) had a median TTNT and OS of 7.1 (95% CI: 5.8-8.5) and 15.4 months (95% CI: 10.0-20.9). The median OS more than halved for patients with greater than or equal to 2 risk factors compared with patients with no risk factors. The clinical outcomes of vemurafenib in metastatic melanoma patients with a favourable risk profile are comparable with the results of the trials. Combining prognostic factors into a risk score could be valuable to stratify patients into favourable and poor-prognosis groups.

The intracellular proinflammatory mediator IL-32 is associated with tumor progression; however, the mechanisms remain unknown. We studied IL-32 mRNA expression as well as expression of other proinflammatory cytokines and mediators, including IL-1α, IL-1β, IL-6, IL-8, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, the proangiogenic and antiapoptotic enzyme cyclooxygenase-2, the IL-8 receptor C-X-C chemokine receptor (CXCR) 1, and the intracellular kinase focal adhesion kinase-1. The interaction of IL-32 expression with expression of IL-6, TNF-α, IL-8, and cyclooxygenase-2 was also investigated. Biopsy specimens of 11 HIV-related, 7 non-HIV-related Kaposi sarcoma (KS), and 7 normal skin tissues (NSTs) of Dutch origin were analyzed. RNA was isolated from the paraffin material, and gene expression levels of IL-32 α, β, and γ isoforms, IL1a, IL1b, IL6, IL8, TNFA, PTGS2, CXCR1, and PTK2 were determined using real-time quantitative PCR. Significantly higher expression of IL-32β and IL-32γ isoforms was observed in HIV-related KS biopsy specimens compared with non-HIV-related KS and NST. The splicing ratio of the IL-32 isoforms showed IL-32γ as the highest expressed isoform, followed by IL-32β, in HIV-related KS cases compared with non-HIV-related KS and NST. Our data suggest a possible survival mechanism by the splicing of IL-32γ to IL-32β and also IL-6, IL-8, and CXCR1 signaling pathways to reverse the proapoptotic effect of the IL-32γ isoform, leading to tumor cell survival and thus favoring tumor progression., (Copyright © 2018 American Society for Investigative Pathology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)