Search

Background: Melanoma is increasingly recognized as a heterogeneous disease, with conflicting evidence regarding whether cutaneous head and neck melanoma (CHNM) represents a distinct entity., Objective: Comparison of clinicopathological features and treatment outcomes of CHNM and cutaneous melanomas of other sites (CMOS)., Methods: Patients with CHNM and CMOS diagnosed between 2000-2018 were included. Locoregional control (LRC), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), melanoma-specific survival (MSS), and overall survival (OS) were described using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox regression analyses were performed to examine associations between prognostic factors and outcomes. Additional analyses of survival from time of stage IV disease diagnosis were undertaken, stratified by receipt of BRAF-targeted therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) immunotherapy., Results: Of 3007 CHNM and 10637 CMOS patients, CHNM had more adverse pathological features (median age 65.9 vs. 58.5, p<0.001, median Breslow thickness 1.7mm vs. 1.2mm, p<0.001, ulceration 21.2% vs. 18.2%, p<0.001). CHNM had worse LRC (HR 1.17, p<0.001) and DMFS (HR 1.25, p<0.001) but there were no significant differences in MSS or OS. Amongst stage IV patients who received ICI, CHNM had better MSS (HR 0.56, p=0.001) and OS (HR 0.57, p<0.001) on multivariable analyses., Limitations: Retrospective study, offset by prospective data collection., Conclusion: CHNM is associated with a distinct clinicopathological and prognostic profile., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Following major achievements seen with drug therapies for the treatment of advanced melanoma in the last decade, they now also have an ever-increasing role for the treatment of earlier stage disease. This review outlines the current drugs used to treat melanoma, and how general practitioners (GPs) can assist in the management of patients with melanoma and the associated toxicities with treatment., Objective: This review summarises the evolving status of melanoma care, emphasising when to refer patients to medical oncologists as part of the multidisciplinary team. It provides guidance into recognising and managing immune-related adverse events (irAEs) associated with immunotherapy, and provides insights into the future changes in clinical practice., Discussion: Drug therapies are increasingly used for the treatment of many patients with melanoma. Early referral is crucial, and clinical trials remain the best choice for most patients. Recognition and prompt management of irAEs is vital, and collaboration between GPs and oncologists is essential for best care.

Background: In the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 1325-MG/KEYNOTE-054 study, adjuvant pembrolizumab improved recurrence-free survival and distant-metastasis-free survival in patients with resected stage III melanoma. Earlier results showed no effect of pembrolizumab on health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Little is known about HRQOL after completion of treatment with pembrolizumab, an important research area concerning patients who are likely to become long-term survivors. This study reports long-term HRQOL results., Methods: This double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial compared adjuvant pembrolizumab with placebo in patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC resected cutaneous melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 1 or 0, recruited from 123 academic centres and community hospitals in 23 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a minimisation technique stratified for stage and geographical region to receive 200 mg of intravenous pembrolizumab or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 18 doses. Investigators, patients, and those collecting or analysing data were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint of the trial was recurrence-free survival (reported elsewhere). HRQOL was a prespecified exploratory endpoint, measured with the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30. All patients with a baseline HRQOL evaluation available who were alive 108 weeks from randomisation were included in this analysis of long-term HRQOL. Long-term HRQOL included assessments measured every 6 months between 108 weeks and 48 months after randomisation. The threshold of clinical relevance for all HRQOL scales used was an average change of 5 points. The trial is ongoing, recruitment is completed, and HRQOL data collection is finalised. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02362594, and EudraCT, 2014-004944-37., Findings: Between Aug 26, 2015, and Nov 14, 2016, 1019 patients were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab (n=514) or placebo (n=505). Completion of the HRQOL evaluation at baseline exceeded 90% (481 [94%] patients in the pembrolizumab group and 467 [92%] in the placebo group), and ranged between 60% and 90% for post-baseline timepoints. Among patients with a baseline HRQOL evaluation, 365 (39%) were female and 583 (61%) were male. The mean change from baseline to long-term HRQOL was -0·56 (95% CI -2·33 to 1·22) in the pembrolizumab group and 1·63 (-0·12 to 3·38) in the placebo group. The difference between the two groups was -2·19 (-4·65 to 0·27, p=0·081). Differences for all other scales were smaller than 5 and not statistically significant., Interpretation: Adjuvant pembrolizumab did not have a significant impact on long-term HRQOL compared with placebo in patients with resected stage III melanoma. These findings, together with earlier results on efficacy and HRQOL, support the use of pembrolizumab in this setting., Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests EB's spouse and daughter hold shares in Sandoz, Galenica, Alcon, Roche, and Novartis. MK reports study funding paid to the institution by Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD) since the initial planning of the work, and study funding paid to the institution from Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Immunocore, Johnson & Johnson, and Pierre Fabre in the past 36 months. MM reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, and Sun Pharma. GVL reports consulting fees from Agenus, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BioNTech, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Evaxion, Hexal AG (Sandoz Company), Highlight Therapeutics, IOBiotech, Immunocore, Innovent Biologics USA, MSD, Novartis, PHMR, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Scancell, and SkylineDX BV. VA reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from BMS, MSD, Novartis; support from BMS for attending meetings or travel; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for BMS, MSD, Novartis, and Immunocore; CUB reports personal fees from MSD, grants and personal fees from Novartis and BMS, personal fees from Roche, GSK, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Lilly, GenMAB, Pierre Fabre, and Third Rock ventures, grants from NanoString and 4SC, during the conduct of the study. CUB has patents pending (WO 2021/177822 A1 and WO 2023/022596 A1), and reports stock ownership: co-founder of Immagene BV and Signature Oncology. AH reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS, MSD, and Novartis; payments for participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board with BMS, MSD, and Novartis. SD reports research funding from BMS, MSD, and Pierre Fabre to the institution; payment or honoraria to the institution for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS and MSD; support for attending meetings or travel from BMS and MSD; trim 24 patent pending; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board at BMS and MSD, with payments made to the institution; spouse being a Sanofi employee. AK reports consulting fees for an advisory role at Moderna and speaker honorarium from MSD. MSC reports honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from BMS, MSD and Novartis; having served on advisory boards for Amgen, BMS, Eisai, Ideaya, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Oncosec, Pierre-Fabre, Qbiotics, Regeneron, Roche, Merck, and Sanofi. AM reports support of scientific and educational conference from Janssen. SS reports grants or contracts from Novartis/Advanced Accelerator Applications (AAA), AstraZeneca, MSD, Genentech, Senhwa, and Pfizer; funding goes to the institution to undertake investigator initiated clinical trial and translational research. SS reports participation on advisory boards for MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca—fees for attending go to research funds at the institution. SS is the chair of DSMB for two Novartis/AAA sponsored phase 3 trials—no fee accepted for chair role. SP reports payment or honoraria to her and her institution for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS, MSD, and Novartis, and to her partner and her institution from Amgen and Phylogen; payments to her institution for participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board with MSD; leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee, or advocacy group, paid or unpaid from GEM, EORTC melanoma group, and ASEICA. DS reports research grants to his institution from Amgen, Array/Pfizer, BMS, MSD, Novartis, and Roche; consulting fees paid personally from 4SC, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Haystack, Immunocore, InFlarX, Innovent, Labcorp, Merck Serono, MSD, Nektar, Neracare, Novartis OncoSec, Pfizer, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Replimune, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi/Regeneron, and Sun Pharma; personal payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS, MSD, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and SunPharma; personal support for attending meetings or travel from BMS, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi, and Pierre Fabre; personal payments for participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board at 4SC, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Haystack, Immunocore, InFlarX, Merck Serono, MSD, Nektar, Neracare, Novartis, OncoSec, Pfizer, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Replimune, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi/Regeneron, and Sun Pharma; leadership or fiduciary role, paid or unpaid, at Dermatologic Cooperative Oncology Group, German Cancer Society, Hiege Stiftung, Deutsche Hautkrebsstiftung, Nationale Versorgungskonferenz Hautkrebs eV, and European Melanoma Registry; drug supply (nivolumab, ipilimumab) from BMS. RJ reports research funding from Iovance Biotherapeutics; honoraria for advisory role or speaker presentation from Merck, BMS, Medison, Pfizer, and Novartis. PR reports consulting fees paid to himself from MBS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Philogen, and Pfizer; honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureau, manuscript writing, or educational events paid to himself from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, MSD, and AstraZeneca; speakers bureau Pfizer, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, MSD, and BMS paid to himself; support for attending meetings or travel from Orphan Europe and Pierre Fabre paid to himself; research funding to his institution from Novarits, Pfizer, Roche, and BMS. AJMvdE reports study grants from BMS and Idera; travel expenses from Ipsen; advisory board from BMS, MSD Oncology, Ipsen, Pierre Fabre, and Janssen Cilag BV. CC reports support for attending meetings or travel from Orphan Europe and Pierre Fabre. DG reports stock or stock options from Merck & Co. CK reports stock or stock options from Merck & Co and being an employee of Merck & Co. CR reports consulting fees (payments made to her) from BMS, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Sanofi, Pfizer, MSD, Merck, Sunpharma, Ultimovacs, Regeneron, Egle, Philogen, Maat Pharma, and IO Biontech; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events (payments made to her) from Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, BMS, MSD, and Novartis; support for attending meetings or travel from Pierre Fabre; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board (payments made to her) with BMS, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Sanofi, Pfizer, MSD, Merck, Sunpharma, Ultimovacs, Regeneron, Egle, Philogen, and Maat Pharma. AMME reports honoraria for scientific advisory board or independent data monitoring committee functions from Agenus, BioInvent, BioNTech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Brenus, CatalYm, Ellipses, EikonTX, Eurobio, Galecto, IO Biotech, IQVIQ, ISA Pharmaceuticals, Merck & Co, MSD, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Scorpion TX, Sairopa, Sellas, SkylineDX, TigaTx, and Trained Therapeutics Discovery; honoraria from Acetra, GenOway, GSK, Moderna, and Trained Immunity Tx; equity from IO Biotech, Sairopa, and SkylineDx; being the Editor in Chief of the European Journal of Cancer. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Background: The safety profile of adjuvant pembrolizumab was evaluated in a pooled analysis of 4 phase 3 clinical trials., Methods: Patients had completely resected stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC melanoma per American Joint Committee on Cancer, 7th edition, criteria (AJCC-7; KEYNOTE-054); stage IIB or IIC melanoma per AJCC-8 (KEYNOTE-716); stage IB, II, or IIIA non-small cell lung cancer per AJCC-7 (PEARLS/KEYNOTE-091); or postnephrectomy/metastasectomy clear cell renal cell carcinoma at increased risk of recurrence (KEYNOTE-564). Patients received adjuvant pembrolizumab 200 mg (2 mg/kg up to 200 mg for pediatric patients) or placebo every 3 weeks for approximately 1 year. Adverse events (AEs) were summarized for patients who received ≥ 1 dose of treatment., Results: Data were pooled from 4125 patients treated with pembrolizumab (n = 2060) or placebo (n = 2065). Median (range) duration of treatment was 11.1 months (0.0-18.9) with pembrolizumab and 11.2 months (0.0-18.1) with placebo. Treatment-related AEs occurred in 78.6 % (1620/2060) of patients in the pembrolizumab group (grade 3-5, 16.3 % [336/2060]) and 58.7 % (1212/2065) in the placebo group (grade 3-5, 3.5 % [72/2065]). Immune-mediated AEs (e.g. adrenal insufficiency, hypophysitis, and thyroiditis) occurred in 36.2 % (746/2060) of patients in the pembrolizumab group (grade 3-5, 8.6 % [177/2060]) and 8.4 % (174/2065) in the placebo group (grade 3-5, 1.1 % [23/2065]). Of patients with ≥ 1 immune-mediated AE or infusion reaction, systemic corticosteroids were required for 35.2 % (268/761) and 20.2 % (39/193) of patients in the pembrolizumab and placebo groups, respectively., Conclusions: Adjuvant pembrolizumab demonstrated a manageable safety profile that was comparable to prior reports in advanced disease., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Jason J. Luke reports grants or contracts from AbbVie, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Corvus, Day One, EMD Serono, Fstar, Genmab, Ikena, Immatics, Incyte, Kadmon, KAHR, Macrogenics, MSD, Moderna, Nektar, Next Cure, Numab, Palleon, Pfizer, Replimmune, Rubius, Servier, Scholar Rock, Synlogic, Takeda, Trishula, Tizona, and Xencor; consulting fees from 7 Hills, Bright Peak, Exo, Fstar, Inzen, RefleXion, Xilio, Actym, Alphamab Oncology, Arch Oncology, Duke Street Bio, Kanaph, Mavu, NeoTx, Onc.AI, OncoNano, Pyxis, Saros, STipe, Tempest, AbbVie, Alnylam, Atomwise, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Castle, Checkmate, Codiak, Crown, Cugene, Curadev, Day One, Eisai, EMD Serono, Endeavor, Flame, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech, Gilead, Glenmark, HotSpot, Kadmon, KSQ, Janssen, Ikena, Inzen, Immatics, Immunocore, Incyte, Instil, IO Biotech, Macrogenics, MSD, Mersana, Nektar, Novartis, Partner, Pfizer, Pioneering Medicines, PsiOxus, Regeneron, Ribon, Roivant, Servier, STINGthera, Synlogic, and Synthekine; patents planned, issued, or pending for Serial #15/612,657 (Cancer Immunotherapy) and PCT/US18/36052 (Microbiome Biomarkers for Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Responsiveness: Diagnostic, Prognostic and Therapeutic Uses Thereof) (both provisional); participation in a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AbbVie, Immutep, and Evaxion; a leadership or fiduciary role at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer; and stock or stock options in Actym, Alphamab Oncology, Arch Oncology, Duke Street Bio, Kanaph, Mavu, NeoTx, Onc.AI, OncoNano, Pyxis, Saros, STipe, and Tempest. Georgina V. Long reports consulting fees and participating on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Agenus Inc, Amgen Inc, Array Biopharma, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Bristol Myers Squibb, Evaxion Biotech A/S, Hexal AG (Sandoz Company), Highlight Therapeutics S.L., Innovent Biologics USA Inc, MSD, Novartis Pharma AG, OncoSec Medical Australia, Pierre Fabre, Provectus Australia, Qbiotics Group Limited, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Bristol Myers Squibb and Pierre Fabre. Caroline Robert reports support for medical writing for the present manuscript from MSD; consulting fees from BMS, Roche, MSD, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, Sunpharma, Pfizer, and Regeneron; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from Ultimovacs and Regeneron; and stock or stock options in Ribonexus. Matteo S. Carlino reports consulting fees from Amgen, BMS, Eisai, Ideaya, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Oncosec, Pierre Fabre, Qbiotics, Regeneron, Roche, SMD, and Sanofi; and honoraria for lectures from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi. Toni K. Choueiri reports support from Alkermes, AstraZeneca, Aravive, Aveo, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Circle Pharma, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, IQVA, Infiniti, Ipsen, Kanaph, Lilly, MSD, Nikang, Novartis, Nuscan, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, Surface Oncology, Takeda, Tempest, Up-To-Date, and CME events (Peerview, PER, MJH Life Sciences, Research to Practice, France Foundation, Springer, WebMed, ASiM Ce, Caribou Publishing, and others); grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, Aveo, Arcus, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, MSD, Nikang, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, and Takeda; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Aravive, Aveo, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Circle Pharma, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, IQVIA, Infiniti, Ipsen, Kanaph, Lilly, MSD, Nikang, Novartis, Nuscan, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, Surface Oncology, Takeda, Tempest, Up-To-Date, and CME events (Peerview, PER, MJH Life Sciences, Research to Practice, France Foundation, Springer, WebMed, ASiM Ce, Caribou Publishing); payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, Aravive, Aveo, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, IQVIA, Infiniti., Ipsen, Kanaph, Lilly, MSD, Nikang, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, Takeda, Tempest, Up-To-Date, CME events (Peerview, PER, MJH Life Sciences, Research to Practice, France Foundation, Springer, WebMed, ASiM Ce, Caribou Publishing); a patent planned, issued, or pending related to ctDNA and biomarkers of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors; participation in a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Aravive; a leadership or fiduciary role with KidneyCan, ASCO, ESMO, NCCN, GU, and NCI; stock or stock options in Pionyr, Tempest, Precede Bio, Osel, Curesponse, Immdura, and Primium; and other financial or non-financial interests including support from the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center Kidney SPORE (2P50CA101942–16) and Program 5P30CA006516–56, the Kohlberg Chair at Harvard Medical School and the Trust Family, Michael Brigham, Pan-Mass Challenge, Hinda and Arthur Marcus Fund and Loker Pinard Funds for Kidney Cancer Research at DFC. Naomi B. Haas reports participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for MSD, Eisai, and Exelixis. Mary O’Brien reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca and MSD; support for attending ESMO from AstraZeneca; and participation on an IDMC. Luis Paz-Ares reports grants or contracts from MSD, AstraZeneca, BMS, Pfizer, and PharmaMar; consulting fees from Lilly, MSD, Roche, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Bayer, BMS, Mirati, GSK, Janssen, Takeda, and Regeneron; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Lilly, MSD, Roche, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Bayer, BMS, Mirati, GSK, Janssen, Takeda, and Regeneron; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Lilly, MSD, Roche, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Bayer, BMS, Mirati, GSK, Janssen, Takeda, and Regeneron; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Altum Sequencing and Stab Therapeutics; and stock or stock options in Altum Sequencing and Stab Therapeutics. Solange Peters reports support for the present manuscript from MSD; grants or contracts from Amgen, Arcus, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, iTeos, MSD, Mirati, Pharma Mar, Promontory Therapeutics, Roche/Genentech, and Seattle Genetics; consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Arcus, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, BerGenBio, Biocartis, BioInvent, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eli Lilly, F-Star, Fishawack, Foundation Medicine, Genzyme, Gilead, GSK, Hutchmed, Illumina, Incyte, Ipsen, iTeos, Janssen, MSD, Merrimack, Mirati, Nykode Therapeutics, Novartis, Novocure, Pharma Mar, Promontory Therapeutics, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, and Takeda; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Foundation Medicine, GSK, Illumina, Ipsen, MSD, Mirati, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, and Takeda; support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, and Takeda; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AbbVie, Amgen, Arcus, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, BerGenBio, Biocartis, BioInvent, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eli Lilly, F-Star, Fishawack, Foundation Medicine, Genzyme, Gilead, GSK, Hutchmed, Illumina, Incyte, Ipsen, iTeos, Janssen, MSD, Merrimack, Mirati, Nykode Therapeutics, Novartis, Novocure, Pharma Mar, Promontory Therapeutics, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, and Takeda; and a leadership or fiduciary role with Galenica SA. Thomas Powles reports support for the present manuscript from Astellas and Open Health; grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Ipsen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Astellas, Johnson & Johnson, and Eisai; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Ipsen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Astellas, Johnson & Johnson, Eisai, and Mashup Ltd; and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Roche, Pfizer, MSD, AstraZeneca, and Ipsen. Melanie A. Leiby, Jianxin Lin, Clemens Krepler, Rodolfo F. Perini, M. Catherine Pietanza, Todd Gruber, and Nageatte Ibrahim report employment at Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, and stock ownership in Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. Ayman Samkari and Yujie Zhao reports employment at Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. Alexander M. M. Eggermont reports support for the present manuscript from Merck & Co; consulting fees from Alcetra, Agenus, BioInvent, Brenus, CatalYm, Ellipses, Epics, GSK, IO Biotech, IQVIA, ISA Pharmaceuticals, Merck & Co., Inc., MSD, Oncimmune, Pierre Fabre, Sairopa, Scorpion, Sellas, Skyline, TigaTX, and Trained Immunity TTC; payment or honoraria for lectures from IO Biotech, BMS, Merck & Co., Inc./MSD; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board for BioNTech, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer; and stock or stock options in IO Biotech, Sairopa, and SkylineDX., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: The combination of anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 has been associated with improvement in response and survival over anti-PD-1 monotherapy in unselected patients with advanced melanoma. Whether patients with liver metastases also benefit from the combination of anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 over anti-PD-1, is unclear. In this study, we sought to assess whether the combination of anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 leads to better response, progression-free survival and overall survival, compared with anti-PD-1 monotherapy for patients with liver metastases., Methods: We have conducted an international multicentre retrospective study. Patients with advanced melanoma with liver metastases treated with 1st line anti-PD1 monotherapy or with anti-CTLA-4 were included. The endpoints of this study were: objective response rate, progression-free survival and overall survival., Results: With a median follow-up from commencement of anti-PD-1 monotherapy or in combination with anti-CTLA-4 of 47 months (95% CI, 42-51), objective response rate was higher with combination therapy (47%) versus anti-PD-1 monotherapy (35%) (p = 0.0027), while progression-free survival and overall survival were not statistically different between both treatment groups. However, on multivariable analysis with multiple imputation for missing values and adjusting for predefined variables, combination of anti-PD1 and anti-CTLA-4 was associated with higher objective response (OR 2.21, 1.46 - 3.36; p < 0.001), progression-free survival (HR 0.73, 0.57 - 0.92; p = 0.009) and overall survival (HR 0.71, 0.54 - 0.94; p = 0.018) compared to anti-PD1 monotherapy., Conclusions: Findings from this study will help guide treatment selection for patients who present with liver metastases, suggesting that combination therapy should be considered for this group of patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: IPS had travel support by BMS and MSD, speaker fee by Pierre Fabre, Roche, BMS and MSD, and has served as consultant on advisory boards from MSD. SU had research support from BMS and Merck Serono; speakers and advisory board honoraria from BMS, MSD, Merck Serono, and Novartis; and meeting and travel support from Almirall, BMS, IGEA Clinical Biophysics, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Sun Pharma. FA had travel support by Novartis and MSD. AA has served on advisory boards and received travel funding from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Pfizer and Almirall. DBJ has served on advisory boards or as a consultant for BMS, Catalyst Biopharma, Iovance, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Mosaic ImmunoEngineering, Novartis, Oncosec, Pfizer, Targovax, and Teiko, and has received research funding from BMS and Incyte. MSC is consultant advisor for Amgen, BMS, Eisai, Ideaya, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Oncosec, Pierre-Fabre, Qbiotics, Regeneron, Roche, Merck and Sanofi, and received honoraria from BMS, MSD, Sanofi and Novartis. PM is consultant advisor Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Sun Pharma, Roche, Bayersdorf, Sanofi and Regeneron. Speaker fee by Pierre Fabre, Roche, BMS, MSD, Amgen, Sun Pharma, Sanofi and Novartis. Research funding from Novartis, MSD and BMS. RG received honoraria for advice and lectures from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche Pharma, MerckSharpDohme, Novartis, Merck-Serono, Amgen, Almirall Hermal, Pierre-Fabre, Sun Pharma, Immunocore, 4SC, Delcath, Sanofi/Regeneron; travel and meeting support from SUN Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim and PierreFabre; project support (to institution) from Novartis, Sanofi/Regeneron, Merck Serono, Amgen, SUN Pharma, KyowaKirin, Almirall Hermal. AMM is a consultant advisor for BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pierre-Fabre and QBiotics.MW received honoraria from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi; is consult advisor for Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre; research Funding from Merck Sharp & Dohme (Inst), Millennium (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Johnson & Johnson (Inst), Novartis (Inst). PL received honoraria from Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Merck, BMS, MSD, NeraCare GmbH, Amgen, Roche, Oncology Education, Nektar; is consultant advisor for Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Nektar; Speakers’ Bureau from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre; Research Funding from BMS, Pierre Fabre; Travel, Accommodations, Expenses from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb. D.S.: Reports personal fees and non-financial support from Roche/Genentech, grants, personal fees, non-financial support and other from BMS, personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, personal fees and non-financial support from Merck Serono, grant, personal fees and non-financial support from Amgen, personal fees from Immunocore, personal fees from Incyte, personal fees from 4SC, personal fees from Pierre Fabre, personal fees and non-financial support from Sanofi/Regeneron, personal fees from Array BioPharma, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Philogen, personal fees from Regeneron, personal fees from Nektar, personal fees from Sandoz, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, personal fees and non-financial support from SunPharma, Neracare, Replimune, Helsinn, OncoSec and InFlaRx outside the submitted work. GVL is 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, PHMR Ltd, Pierre Fabre, Provectus, Qbiotics, Regeneron., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Immune checkpoint inhibitors and BRAF-targeted therapy each improve survival in melanoma. Immune changes early during targeted therapy suggest the mechanisms of each drug class could work synergistically. In the non-comparative, randomized, phase 2 NeoTrio trial, we investigated whether targeted therapy could boost the proportion of patients achieving long-term recurrence-free survival with neoadjuvant immunotherapy in resectable stage III BRAF V600 -mutant melanoma. Sixty patients (42% females) were randomized to pembrolizumab alone (n = 20), sequential therapy (dabrafenib plus trametinib followed by pembrolizumab; n = 20) or concurrent (triple) therapy (n = 20), followed by surgery and adjuvant therapy. The primary outcome was pathological response; secondary outcomes included radiographic response, recurrence-free survival, overall survival, surgical outcomes, peripheral blood and tumor analyses and safety. The pathological response rate was 55% (11/20; including six pathological complete responses (pCRs)) with pembrolizumab, 50% (10/20; three pCRs) with sequential therapy and 80% (16/20; ten pCRs) with concurrent therapy, which met the primary outcome in each arm. Treatment-related adverse events affected 75-100% of patients during neoadjuvant treatment, with seven early discontinuations (all in the concurrent arm). At 2 years, event-free survival was 60% with pembrolizumab, 80% with sequential therapy and 71% with concurrent therapy. Recurrences after major pathological response were more common in the targeted therapy arms, suggesting a reduction in response 'quality' when targeted therapy is added to neoadjuvant immunotherapy. Risking the curative potential of immunotherapy in melanoma cannot be justified. Pending longer follow-up, we suggest that immunotherapy and targeted therapy should not be combined in the neoadjuvant setting for melanoma. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT02858921 ., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

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

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. Pembrolizumab adjuvant therapy was shown to significantly improve recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) in patients with resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma in earlier analyses of the randomized, double-blind, phase III KEYNOTE-716 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03553836). We report results of the protocol-specified final analysis of DMFS for KEYNOTE-716. Overall, 976 patients were randomly allocated to pembrolizumab (n = 487) or placebo (n = 489). As of January 4, 2023, median follow-up was 39.4 months (range, 26.0-51.4 months). The median DMFS was not reached in either treatment group, and the estimated 36-month DMFS was 84.4% for pembrolizumab and 74.7% for placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.59 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.79]). The median RFS was not reached in either treatment group, and the estimated 36-month RFS was 76.2% for pembrolizumab and 63.4% for placebo (HR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.49 to 0.79]). DMFS and RFS results were consistent across most prespecified subgroups, including stage IIB and stage IIC melanoma. The safety profile of pembrolizumab was manageable and consistent with previous reports. These results continue to support the use of pembrolizumab adjuvant therapy in patients with resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma.

Objective: To conduct a multicenter case series characterizing the clinical characteristics at presentation and pancreatic volume changes of patients with checkpoint inhibitor-associated autoimmune diabetes (CIADM)., Research Design and Methods: Electronic medical records were reviewed with 36 consecutive patients identified with CIADM, as defined by (1) previous immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy, (2) new-onset hyperglycemia (blood glucose level ≥ 11.1 mmol/L and/or glycosylated hemoglobin ≥ 6.5%), and (3) insulin deficiency [C-peptide <0.4 nmol/L or diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA)] within 1 month of presentation. Pancreatic volume was available and measured using computed tomography volumetry for 17 patients with CIADM and 3 sets of control patients: 7 with ICI-related pancreatitis, 13 with asymptomatic ICI-related lipase elevation, and 11 ICI-treated controls for comparison., Results: All patients had either anti-programmed cell death protein 1 or anti-programmed cell death ligand 1 therapy. Median time from ICI commencement to CIADM diagnosis was 15 weeks. At presentation, 25 (69%) had DKA, 27 (84%) had low C-peptide, and, by 1 month, 100% had low C-peptide. Traditional type 1 diabetes autoantibodies were positive in 15/35 (43%). Lipase was elevated in 13/27 (48%) at presentation. In 4 patients with longitudinal lipase testing, elevated levels peaked 1 month prior to CIADM diagnosis. Pancreatic volume was lower pre-ICI in CIADM patients compared with controls and demonstrated a mean decline of 41% from pretreatment to 6 months post-CIADM diagnosis., Conclusion: Pronounced biochemical and radiologic changes occur during CIADM pathogenesis. Rapid loss of C-peptide is a distinct characteristic that can be used to aid diagnosis as autoantibodies are often negative., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Endocrine Society.)

The biological underpinnings of therapeutic resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in adolescent and young adult (AYA) melanoma patients are incompletely understood. Here, we characterize the immunogenomic profile and spatial architecture of the tumor microenvironment (TME) in AYA (aged ≤ 30 years) and older adult (aged 31-84 years) patients with melanoma, to determine the AYA-specific features associated with ICI treatment outcomes. We identify two ICI-resistant spatiotypes in AYA patients with melanoma showing stroma-infiltrating lymphocytes (SILs) that are distinct from the adult TME. The SIL high subtype was enriched in regulatory T cells in the peritumoral space and showed upregulated expression of immune checkpoint molecules, while the SIL low subtype showed a lack of immune activation. We establish a young immunosuppressive melanoma score that can predict ICI responsiveness in AYA patients and propose personalized therapeutic strategies for the ICI-resistant subgroups. These findings highlight the distinct immunogenomic profile of AYA patients, and individualized TME features in ICI-resistant AYA melanoma that require patient-specific treatment strategies., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Pain is common in patients with cancer. The World Health Organisation recommends paracetamol or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for mild pain and combined with other agents for moderate/severe pain. This study estimated associations of NSAIDs with recurrence-free survival (RFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in high-risk patients with resected melanoma in the EORTC 1325/KEYNOTE-054 phase III clinical trial., Patients and Methods: Patients with AJCC7 stage IIIA, IIIB or IIIC resected melanoma were randomized to receive 200 mg of adjuvant pembrolizumab (N = 514) or placebo (N = 505) 3-weekly for one year or until recurrence. As previously reported, pembrolizumab prolonged RFS and DMFS. NSAID use was defined as administration between 7 days pre-randomization and starting treatment. Multivariable Cox and Fine and Gray models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for associations of NSAIDs with RFS, DMFS and irAEs., Results: Of 1019 patients randomized, 59 and 44 patients in the pembrolizumab and placebo arms, respectively, used NSAIDs. NSAIDs were not associated with RFS (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.58-1.43) or DMFS in the pembrolizumab (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.65-1.66) or placebo arms (for RFS, HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.48-1.20; for DMFS, HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49-1.31). NSAIDs were associated with the incidence of irAEs in the placebo arm (HR 3.06, 95% CI 1.45-6.45) but not in the pembrolizumab arm (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.58-1.53)., Conclusion: NSAIDs were not associated with efficacy outcomes nor the risk of irAEs in patients with resected high-risk stage III melanoma receiving adjuvant pembrolizumab., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Oliver John Kennedy. None declared. Nina Glassee. Grants or contracts from any entity: MSD. Michal Kicinski. Grants or contracts from any entity: Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Pierre Fabre. Christian Blank. Grants or contracts from any entity: BMS, Novartis, NanoString, 4SC. Consulting fees - consultant advisor for: BMS, MSD, Roche, Novartis, GSK, AZ, Pfizer, Lilly, GenMab, Pierre Fabre- Payments were made to my institution, Third Rock Venture - Payments were made to me. Stock or stock options: Immagene BV and Signature Oncology - Co-founder. Georgina V Long. Consultant advisor for Agenus, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Evaxion, Hexal AG (Sandoz Company), Highlight Therapeutics S.L., Innovent Biologics USA, MSD Australia, MSD, Novartis, OncoSec Australia, PHMR Ltd, Pierre Fabre, Provectus Australia, Qbiotics, Regeneron. Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: BMS - Personal 1 h lecture of my own slides, Pierre Fabre, Personal 1 h lecture of my own slides. Victoria Atkinson. Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre- Speakers bureaus fees. Support for attending meetings and/or travel: BMS, Travel support. Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: BMS, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Q Biotics, Roche, Limbic - Advisory boards. Stéphane Dalle. Grants or contracts from any entity: BMS, MSD - My Institution. Support for attending meetings and/or travel: BMS, Pierre Fabre, MSD. Other financial or non-financial interests: Sanofi Pasteur - My wife is an employee of Sanofi Pasteur. Andrew M. Haydon. Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus: BMS, MSD, Novartis. Participation to Advisory Board: BMS, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, MSD. Andrey Meshcheryakov. Grants or contracts from any entity: Sanofi, AstraZeneca, MSD - My institution, me. Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Amgen, Bayer AG, BIOCAD, BMS, Eli Lilly, Merck, SERVIER, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Aventis - Honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus. Support for attending meetings and/or travel: BIOCAD, SERVIER, MSD, Sanofi-Aventis, Merck - Attending meetings and/or travel. Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: Amgen, Bayer AG, BIOCAD, BMS, Eli Lilly, Merck, Servier, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Aventis - Advisory Board. Adnan Khattak. None declared. Matteo S. Carlino. Participation on Advisory Board for Amgen, BMS, Eisai, Ideaya, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Oncosec, Pierre-Fabre, Qbiotics, Regeneron, Roche. Consulting fees: BMS, MSD, Novartis. Shahneen Sandhu. Grants or contracts from any entity: Advanced Accelerators Applications (a Novartis company), Amgen, MSD, Senwha, Genentech, AstraZeneca - Funding to the institution. Participation on an Advisory Board: AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Advanced Accelerators Applications (a Novartis company). - Funding to the institution. James Larkin. Grants or contracts from any entity: Achilles, BMS, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Immunocore, Aveo, Pharmacyclics. Institutional research support: BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Achilles Therapeutics, Roche, Nektar Therapeutics, Covance, Immunocore, Pharmacyclics, Aveo. Consulting fees from iOnctura, Apple Tree, Merck, BMS, Eisai, Debipharm, Incyte. Honorariums from Eisai, Novartis, Incyte, Merck, touchIME, touchEXPERTS, Pfizer, Royal College of Physicians, Cambridge Healthcare Research, Royal College of General Practitioners, VJOncology, Agence Unik, BMS. Speaker fee from Pierre Fabre, BMS, Ipsen, Roche, EUSA Pharma, Novartis, Aptitude, AstraZeneca, GSK, Eisai, Calithera, Ultimovacs, Seagen, Merck, eCancer, Inselgruppe, Pfizer, Goldman Sachs, MSD. Susana Puig. Grants or contracts from any entity: Almirall, ISDIN, La Roche Posay - To My Institution. Consulting fees: ISDIN, Almirall, La Roche Posay, MSD, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, Pfizer, Roche, Regeneron. Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: ISDIN, La Roche Posay, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, Roche, Regeneron, BMS, Sun Pharma. Support for attending meetings and/or travel: Almirall. Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: Roche, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, Almirall, ISDIN, Pfizer, Novartis. Paolo A. Ascierto. Grants or contracts from any entity: BMS, Roche-Genentech, Pfizer/Array, Sanofi. Consulting fees: BMS, Roche-Genentech, MSD, Novartis, Merck Serono, Pierre-Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Sandoz, 4SC, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Pfizer/Array, Lunaphore, Medicenna, Bio-Al Health, ValoTx, Replimmune, Bayer. Support for attending meetings and/or travel: Pfizer, Bio-Al Health, Replimmune. Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: BMS, Roche-Genentech, MSD, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Immunocore, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Oncosec, Nouscom, Seagen, iTeos. Piotr Rutkowski. Consulting fees: Amgen, Blueprint Medicine, BMS, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi - Advisory Role - Personal fees. Payment or honoraria for lectures: BMS, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi Pasteur. Dirk Schadendorf. Grants or contracts from any entity: Amgen, Array BioPharma, Novartis. Consulting fees: 4SC, Angenus, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, EMD Serano, Roche, Genentech, InFlarX, Merck, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Sandoz, Sanofi, UltimoVacs. Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board: Immunocore. Honoraria for lectures: Amgen, Novartis. Support for attending meetings and/or travel: Amgen, Novartis. Marye Boers-Sonderen. None declared. Anna Maria di Giacomo. Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: BMS, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi. Support for attending meetings and/or travel: BMS, Pierre Fabre. Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: BMS, MSD, Nektar, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, GSK, Novartis. Alfonsus J.M. van den Eertwegh. Grants or contracts from any entity: Roche, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Idera. Consulting fees: BMS. Support for attending meetings and/or travel: MSD Oncology, Roche, Pfizer, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre. Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: BMS, MSD Oncology, Amgen, Roche, Novartis, Sanofi, Pfizer, Ipsen, Merck, Pierre Fabre. Jean-Jacques Grob. Payment for participation to an advisory board: Amgen, BMS, Hoffmann-La Roche. Consulting fees: MSD, Novartis, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi Pasteur. Ralf Gutzmer. Grants or contracts from any entity: Pfizer, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, Amgen, Merck Serono, Sun Pharma Industries, Sanofi. Consulting fees: BMS, MSD, Roche, Genentech, Novartis, Merck Serono, Almirall, Amgen, Sun Pharma Industries, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Bayer AG, Immunocore. Support for attending meetings and/or travel: Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma Industries. Rahima Jamal. Grants or contracts from any entity: MSD, BMS, Iovance Biotherapeutics. Consulting fees: BMS. Alexander C.J. van Akkooi. Grants or contracts from any entity: Amgen, Merck, Pfizer. Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: Amgen, BMS, Novartis, MSD, Merck, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Provectus, Sanofi, Sirius Medical, 4SC. Sara Gandini. None declared. Emanuel Buhrer. None declared. Stefan Suciu. Grants or contracts from any entity: MSD. Caroline Robert. Consulting fees: AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Merck, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi. Co-founder: Ribonexus. Alexander Eggermont. Consulting fees: Agenus, BioInvent, BMS, Brenus, CatalYm, Ellipses, Galecto, IO Biotech, IQVIA, ISA Pharmaceuticals, Merck, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Sairopa, Sellas, SkylineDX, TigeTx, Trained Immunity TX. Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board: BioNTech, GSK, and Pfizer. Lectures: BMS, MSD. Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid: European Academy Cancer Sciences, German Cancer Aid. Stock or stock options: IO Biotech, SkylineDx and SaiRoPA. Mario Mandala. Participation to Advisory Board: BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre Pharmaceuticals. Paul Lorigan. Grants or contracts from any entity: BMS, Pierre Fabre. Consulting fees: Amgen, BMS, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Pierre Fabre. Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Amgen, BMS, Merck, MSD, Nektar, NeraCare GmbH, Novartis, Oncology Education, Pierre Fabre, Roche. Support for attending meetings and/or travel: BMS, MSD. Sara Valpione. Receipient of an Institutional Amgen Research Grant., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) versus placebo in the phase 3 KEYNOTE-716 study of resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma. At the prespecified third interim analysis (data cut-off, January 4, 2022), the HR for RFS in the overall population was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.50 to 0.84) and the HR for DMFS was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.47 to 0.88). We present a post hoc analysis of efficacy by subtypes defined by histopathologic characteristics., Methods: Patients aged ≥12 years with newly diagnosed, resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks (2 mg/kg up to 200 mg for pediatric patients) or placebo. The primary end point was RFS per investigator review; DMFS per investigator review was secondary. Subgroups of interest were melanoma subtype (nodular vs non-nodular), tumor thickness (≤4 mm vs >4 mm), presence of ulceration (yes vs no), mitotic rate (<5 per mm 2 (median) vs ≥5 per mm 2 ), and presence of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs; absent vs present)., Results: Between September 23, 2018, and November 4, 2020, 976 patients were assigned to pembrolizumab (n=487) or placebo (n=489). Median follow-up was 27.4 months (range, 14.0-39.4). The HR (95% CI) for RFS was 0.54 (0.37 to 0.79) for nodular and 0.77 (0.53 to 1.11) for non-nodular melanoma; 0.57 (0.37 to 0.89) for thickness ≤4 mm and 0.69 (0.50 to 0.96) for >4 mm; 0.66 (0.50 to 0.89) for ulceration and 0.57 (0.32 to 1.03) for no ulceration; 0.57 (0.35 to 0.92) for mitotic rate <5 per mm 2 and 0.57 (0.40 to 0.80) for ≥5 per mm 2 ; and 0.89 (0.52 to 1.54) for TILs absent and 0.51 (0.34 to 0.76) for TILs present. DMFS results were similar. In a Cox multivariate analysis, treatment arm, tumor thickness, and mitotic rate were significant independent factors for RFS, and treatment arm and mitotic rate were significant independent factors for DMFS., Conclusions: In this post hoc analysis, the benefit of pembrolizumab was largely consistent with the overall study population regardless of histopathologic characteristics. These results support the use of adjuvant pembrolizumab in patients with resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma., Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03553836., Competing Interests: Competing interests: DS reports being an invited speaker for BMS, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi; having advisory board roles with BMS, Immunocore, MSD, Neracare, Novartis, Pfizer, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi/Regeneron; research grants from BMS and MSD; being a steering committee member for BMS, MSD, and Novartis; being a coordinating PI for BMS, MSD, Novartis, and Pierre Fabre; being a local PI for Philogen and Sanofi; and being member of the board of directors for EORTC-MG (non-financial). JJL reports grants or contracts from AbbVie, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Corvus, Day One, EMD Serono, Fstar, Genmab, Ikena, Immatics, Incyte, Kadmon, KAHR, Macrogenics, Merck, Moderna, Nektar, Next Cure, Numab, Palleon, Pfizer, Replimune, Rubius, Servier, Scholar Rock, Synlogic, Takeda, Trishula, Tizona, and Xencor; consulting fees from 7 Hills, Bright Peak, Exo, Fstar, Inzen, RefleXion, Xilio, Actym, Alphamab Oncology, Arch Oncology, Duke Street Bio, Kanaph, Mavu, NeoTx, Onc.AI, OncoNano, Pyxis, Saros, STipe, Tempest, AbbVie, Alnylam, Atomwise, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Castle, Checkmate, Codiak, Crown, Cugene, Curadev, Day One, Eisai, EMD Serono, Endeavor, Flame, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech, Gilead, Glenmark, HotSpot, Kadmon, KSQ, Janssen, Ikena, Inzen, Immatics, Immunocore, Incyte, Instil, IO Biotech, Macrogenics, Merck, Mersana, Nektar, Novartis, Partner, Pfizer, Pioneering Medicines, PsiOxus, Regeneron, Ribon, Roivant, Servier, STINGthera, Synlogic, and Synthekine; having two provisional patents (serial #15/612,657 (Cancer Immunotherapy) and PCT/US18/36052 (Microbiome Biomarkers for Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Responsiveness: Diagnostic, Prognostic and Therapeutic Uses Thereof)); participating on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AbbVie, Immutep, and Evaxion; having leadership or a fiduciary role in the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer; and having stock or stock options in Actym, Alphamab Oncology, Arch Oncology, Duke Street Bio, Kanaph, Mavu, NeoTx, Onc.AI, OncoNano, Pyxis, Saros, STipe, and Tempest. PAA reports grants or contracts from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Pfizer, and Sanofi; consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Sandoz, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Pfizer, Lunaphore, Medicenna. Bio-Al Health, ValoTx, Replimmune, and Bayer; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Pfizer, Bio-Al Health, and Replimmune; and participating on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Oncosec, Nouscom, Seagen, iTeos, and Erasca. GVL is consultant advisor for Agenus, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, BioNTech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Evaxion, Hexal AG (Sandoz Company), Highlight Therapeutics S.L., IO Biotech, Immunocore, Innovent Biologics USA, MSD, Novartis, PHMR Ltd, Pierre Fabre, and Regeneron. PR reports consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Merck, Philogen, and Blueprint Medicine; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureau, manuscript writing, or educational events from Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Merck, AstraZeneca, Philogen and Blueprint Medicine. AK reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureau, manuscript writing or educational events from MSD and support for attending meetings and/or travel from MSD. MDV reports consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Immunocore; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureau, manuscript writing, or educational events from Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Immunocore. LdlC-M reports grants or contracts from Roche, Celgene, and MSD; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureau, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS, MSD-Merck, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca, Incyte, and Gilead; and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Gilead. JM reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureau, manuscript writing, or educational events from MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Novartis; support for attending meetings and/or travel from MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Novartis; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Novartis. VCS reports consulting fees from Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Merck-Serono, and Bristol Myers Squibb; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Pierre Fabre and Bristol Myers Squibb; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Merck Sharp and Dohme and Pierre Fabre. JMK reports consulting fees from Amgen Inc., Ankyra Therapeutics, Applied Clinical Intelligence LLC, Becker Pharmaceutical Consulting, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cancer Network, Cancer Study Group, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, DermTech, Fenix Group International, Harbour BioMed, Immunocore LLC, iOnctura, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Istari Oncology, Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc., Magnolia Innovation LLC, Merck, Natera Inc, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, OncoCyte Corporation, OncoSec Medical Inc, PathAI Inc, Pfizer Inc, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc, Replimune Inc, Scopus BioPharma Inc, SR One Capital Management LP, and Takeda; research trial support to institution from Amgen Inc, Bristol Myers Squibb, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, Harbour BioMed, Immvira Pharma Co, Immunocore Ltd, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Lion Biotechnologies Inc, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, and Verastem Inc; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureau, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, BMS, Regeneron, Ankyra Therapeutics, and Iovance Biotherapeutics; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Axio Research and IQVIA. CR reports consulting fees from BMS, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Sanofi, Merck, MSD, Sun Pharma, and AstraZeneca; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for BMS, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Merck, MSD, and AstraZeneca; and stock or stock options in Ribonexus. J-JG reports grants or contracts from Pierre Fabre (institution); consulting fees from Novartis, BMS, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, Sanofi, and Philogen; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureau, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS, Novartis, and Pierre Fabre; support for attending meetings and/or travel from BMS, Novartis, MSD, and Pierre Fabre; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, and Philogen. RD reports consulting fees from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sun Pharma, Takeda, Sanofi, Caralym, Second-Genome, Regeneron, Alligator, T3 Pharma, MaxiVAX SA, Pfizer, and TouchIME; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureau, manuscript writing, or educational events from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sun Pharma, Takeda, Sanofi, Caralym, Second-Genome, Regeneron, Alligator, T3 Pharma, MaxiVAX SA, Pfizer, and touchIME. MSC reports consulting fees from MSD, BMS, Novartis, Amgen, Eisai, Ideaya, Nektar, Oncosec, Pierre-Fabre, Qbiotics, Regeneron, Roche, Merck, and Sanofi; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureau, manuscript writing, or educational events from MSD, BMS, and Novartis. YZ reports employment at Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, New Jersey, USA, and stock ownership in Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, New Jersey, USA. MK reports employment at Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, New Jersey, USA, and stock ownership in Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, New Jersey, USA. CK reports employment at Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, New Jersey, USA, and stock ownership in Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, New Jersey, USA. AE reports consulting fees from Agenus, BioInvent, BioNTech, Brenus, CatalYm, Clover Pharmaceuticals, Ellipses, Galecto, GenOway, IO Biotech, IQVIA, ISA Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Scorpion Pharmaceuticals, Sairopa, Sellas, SkylineDX, TigaTx, and Trained Therapeutics; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureau, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS and MSD; support for attending meetings and/or travel from BMS; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for BioNTeck, IQVIA, and Pfizer; and stock or stock options in IO Biotech, Sairopa, and SkylineDX. RAS reports consulting fees from MetaOptima Technology Inc., F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Evaxion, Provectus Biopharmaceuticals Australia, Qbiotics, Novartis, MSD, NeraCare, Amgen Inc., Bristol Myers Squibb, Myriad Genetics, and GlaxoSmithKline., (© 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.)

Aim: Investigate TKI sitravatinib plus anti-PD-1 antibody tislelizumab in patients with unresectable/advanced/metastatic melanoma with disease progression on/after prior first-line anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy. Methods: Open-label, multicenter, multicohort study (NCT03666143). Patients in the melanoma cohort (N = 25) received sitravatinib once daily plus tislelizumab every 3 weeks. The primary end point was safety and tolerability. Results: Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in all patients, with ≥grade 3 TEAEs in 52.0%. Most TEAEs were mild-or-moderate in severity, none were fatal, and few patients discontinued treatment owing to TEAEs (12.0%). Objective response rate was 36.0% (95% CI: 18.0-57.5). Median progression-free survival was 6.7 months (95% CI: 4.1-not estimable). Conclusion: Sitravatinib plus tislelizumab had manageable safety/tolerability in patients with anti-PD-(L)1 refractory/resistant unresectable/advanced/metastatic melanoma, with promising antitumor activity. Clinical Trial Registration : NCT03666143 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Background: Anti-PD-1 antibodies and BRAK/MEK inhibitors (BRAF/MEKi) reduce the risk of recurrence for patients with resected stage III melanoma. BRAFV600-mutated (BRAFmut) melanoma patients who recur with isolated disease following adjuvant therapy may be suitable for 'second adjuvant' treatment after local therapy. We sought to examine the efficacy and safety of 'second adjuvant' BRAF/MEKi., Patients and Methods: Patients with BRAFmut melanoma treated with adjuvant PD-1 based immunotherapy who recurred, underwent definitive local therapy and were then treated with adjuvant BRAF/MEKi were identified retrospectively from 13 centres (second adjuvant group). Demographics, disease and treatment characteristics and outcome data were examined. Outcomes were compared to BRAFmut patients who did not receive 'second adjuvant' therapy (no second adjuvant group)., Results: 73 patients were included; 61 who received 'second adjuvant' therapy and 12 who did not. Most initially recurred on PD-1 therapy (66%). There were no differences in characteristics between groups. 92% of second adjuvant group received dabrafenib and trametinib and median duration of therapy was 11.8 months (0.4, 34.5). 72% required dose adjustments, 23% had grade 3 + toxicity and 38% permanently discontinued drug due to toxicity. After median 26.1 months (1.9, 56.3) follow-up, recurrence-free survival (RFS) was improved in second adjuvant group versus no second adjuvant group (median 30.8 vs 4 months, HR 0.35; p = 0.014), largely driven by a delay in early recurrence, with no difference in overall survival (p = 0.59)., Conclusion: This is the first study examining outcomes of 'second adjuvant' targeted therapy for melanoma, after failure of adjuvant PD-1 based immunotherapy. Data suggest a short-term improvement in RFS, but at the cost of toxicity. Alternative strategies and more data on sequencing adjuvant therapies are required to improve outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Disclosures: AMM has served on advisory boards for BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pierre-Fabre. DBJ has served on advisory boards or as a consultant for BMS, Catalyst Biopharma, Iovance, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Mosaic ImmunoEngineering, Novartis, Oncosec, Pfizer, Targovax, and Teiko, and has received research funding from BMS and Incyte. LZ declares speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma, research support from Novartis and travel support from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma and Novartis; outside the submitted work. CH reports speaker and advisory board honoraria from Almirall, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi Aventis. GVL is 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, Regeneron. PAA has/had a consultant/advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Merck Serono, Pierre-Fabre, AstraZeneca, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Sandoz, Immunocore, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Oncosec, Nouscom, Lunaphore, Seagen, iTeos, Medicenna, Bio-Al Health, ValoTX, Replimmune, Bayer, Erasca. He also received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Pfizer, Sanofi. Travel support by Pfizer, Bio-Al Health, Replimmune. JP received travel support from Pierre Fabre, MSD, BMS, Novartis outside the scope of this study. JMR received speaker honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Amgen and Novartis and travel support by Sanofi, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb through institution. MSC is a consultant advisor for Amgen, BMS, Eisai, Ideaya, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Oncosec, Pierre-Fabre, Qbiotics, Regeneron, Roche, Merck and Sanofi, and received honoraria from BMS, MSD, Sanofi and Novartis. AH declares speakers and advisory board honoraria from Almirall, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermagnostix, Eisai, Highlight Therapeutics, Immunocore, Incyte, IO Biotech, KyowaKirin, MerckPfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Neracare, Novartis, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Replimune, Sanofi-Genzyme, Seagen, SunPharma, Xenthera; outside the submitted work. The remaining authors 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 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: In sentinel node-positive (SN+ve) melanoma patients, active surveillance with regular ultrasound examination of the node field has become standard, rather than completion lymph node dissection (CLND). A proportion of these patients now receive adjuvant systemic therapy and have routine cross-sectional imaging (computed tomography [CT] or positron emission tomography [PET]/CT). The role of concurrent ultrasound (US) surveillance in these patients is unclear. The purpose of our study was to describe the modality of detection of nodal recurrence in SN+ve node fields., Methods: SN+ve melanoma patients who did not undergo CLND treated at a single institution from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2020 were included., Results: A total of 225 SN+ve patients with a median follow-up of 23 months were included. Of these, 119 (53%) received adjuvant systemic therapy. Eighty (36%) developed a recurrence at any site; 24 (11%) recurred first in the SN+ve field, of which 12 (5%) were confirmed node field recurrence only at 2 months follow-up. The nodal recurrences were first detected by ultrasound in seven (3%), CT in seven (3%), and PET/CT in seven (3%) patients. All nodal recurrences evident on US were also evident on PET/CT and vice versa., Conclusions: The high rate of recurrences outside the node field and the identification of all US-detected nodal recurrences on concurrent cross-sectional imaging modalities suggest that routine concurrent ultrasound surveillance of the node-positive field may be unnecessary for SN+ve melanoma patients having routine cross-sectional imaging., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Importance: Acral (AM) and mucosal melanomas (MM) are rare subtypes with a poor prognosis. In those with advanced disease, anti-PD-1 (PD1) therapy has reduced activity compared to that seen in non-acral cutaneous melanoma., Objective: To determine the efficacy of adjuvant PD1 in resected AM or MM., Design: An international, retrospective cohort study SETTING: Data up to November 2021 collected from 20 centres across 10 countries., Participants: One hundred and ninety four patients with resected stage III or IV 1 AM or MM who received adjuvant PD1 were included and compared to matched patients from the Melanoma Institute Australia (MIA) database using a propensity score matching analysis., Main Outcomes and Measures: Recurrence-free survival (RFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS) were investigated., Results: Forty five of 139 (32%) AM and 9 of 55 (16%) MM patients completed adjuvant therapy. The main reason for early treatment cessation in both groups was disease recurrence: 51 (37%) and 30 (55%) in the AM and MM groups, respectively. In the AM group adjuvant PD1 was associated with a longer RFS [HR-0.69 (0.52-0.92, p = 0.0127)], DMFS [HR0.58 (0.38-0.89, p = 0.0134)] and OS [HR of 0.59 (0.38-0.92, p-value 0.0196)] when compared to the historical cohort. In the MM group there was no statistical difference in RFS [HR1.36 (0.69-2.68,p-value 0.3799], DMFS or OS., Conclusion and Relevance: After adjuvant PD1, both AM and MM have a high risk of recurrence. Our data suggests a benefit to using adjuvant PD1 therapy in resected AM but not in resected MM. Additional studies to investigate the efficacy of adjuvant PD1 for MM are needed., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: MSC: consultant advisor for Amgen, BMS, Eisai, Ideaya, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Oncosec, Pierre-Fabre, Qbiotics, Regeneron, Roche, Merck and Sanofi, and received honoraria from BMS, MSD, Sanofi and Novartis. DBJ: advisory boards or as a consultant for BMS, Catalyst Biopharma, Iovance, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Mosaic ImmunoEngineering, Novartis, Oncosec, Pfizer, Targovax, and Teiko, and has received research funding from BMS and Incyte. RJS: Advisory boards/consulting for BMS, Merck, Novartis, Marengo, Pfizer, and Replimune and received research funding from Merck. FD: receives/received honoraria and travel support from Pierre Fabre, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb and Sun Pharma.CL : consultant advisor for BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Merck and Sanofi YN: advisory boards/consulting for MSD and Novartis and received honoraria from Alexion Pharma, BMS, Maruho, MSD, Novartis, Ono Pharma, Sanofi, SunPharma, and Tanabe-Mitsubishi Pharma AMM: consultant advisor for BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pierre-Fabre, QBioticsKN: advisory board for Novartis and MSD, honoraria from Ono pharmaceutical, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and MSD.LZ: served as consultant and has received honoraria from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, and Sunpharma and travel support from MSD, BMS, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work.JS: Honoraria: Novartis; Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Amgen, Merck Sharp & DohmePB: conference sponsorship BMS, MSD, Novartis; speaker fees: Novartis, MSD.JP: Received travel support from Pierre Fabre, MSD, BMS, Novartis outside the scope of this study. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The authors present a striking case of a patient experiencing a lichenoid drug eruption secondary to immunotherapy, curiously sparing scarred skin from past burns. We observed vastly higher amounts of inflammatory lymphoid cells staining for PD-1; 70% in skin with a lichenoid drug reaction and 50% in scarred skin. The lack of a lichenoid reaction at sites of scarred skin may indicate that a basement membrane component may be causative for a lichenoid drug eruption., (© 2023 The Authors. Australasian Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australasian College of Dermatologists.)

Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) targeting programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and cytotoxic T lymphocyte protein 4 (CTLA-4) can induce remarkable, yet unpredictable, responses across a variety of cancers. Studies suggest that there is a relationship between a cancer patient's gut microbiota composition and clinical response to ICB; however, defining microbiome-based biomarkers that generalize across cohorts has been challenging. This may relate to previous efforts quantifying microbiota to species (or higher taxonomic rank) abundances, whereas microbial functions are often strain specific. Here, we performed deep shotgun metagenomic sequencing of baseline fecal samples from a unique, richly annotated phase 2 trial cohort of patients with diverse rare cancers treated with combination ICB (n = 106 discovery cohort). We demonstrate that strain-resolved microbial abundances improve machine learning predictions of ICB response and 12-month progression-free survival relative to models built using species-rank quantifications or comprehensive pretreatment clinical factors. Through a meta-analysis of gut metagenomes from a further six comparable studies (n = 364 validation cohort), we found cross-cancer (and cross-country) validity of strain-response signatures, but only when the training and test cohorts used concordant ICB regimens (anti-PD-1 monotherapy or combination anti-PD-1 plus anti-CTLA-4). This suggests that future development of gut microbiome diagnostics or therapeutics should be tailored according to ICB treatment regimen rather than according to cancer type., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Protein kinase C (PKC) is activated downstream of gain-of-function GNAQ or GNA11 (GNAQ/GNA11) mutations in over 90% of uveal melanoma (UM). Phase I clinical trials of PKC inhibitors have shown modest response rates with no survival benefit in metastatic UM. Although PKC inhibitors actively suppress mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signalling in UM, the effect on other UM signalling cascades is not well understood. We examined the transcriptome of UM biopsies collected pre- and post-PKC inhibitor therapy and confirmed that MAPK, but not PI3K/AKT signalling, was inhibited early during treatment with the second-generation PKC inhibitor IDE196. Similarly, in GNAQ/GNA11-mutant UM cell models, PKC inhibitor monotherapy effectively suppressed MAPK activity, but PI3K/AKT signalling remained active, and thus, concurrent inhibition of PKC and PI3K/AKT signalling was required to synergistically induce cell death in a panel of GNAQ/GNA11-mutant UM cell lines. We also show that re-activation of MAPK signalling has a dominant role in regulating PKC inhibitor responses in UM and that PI3K/AKT signalling diminishes UM cell sensitivity to PKC inhibitor monotherapy. Thus, combination therapies targeting PKC and PKC-independent signalling nodes, including PI3K/AKT activity, are required to improve responses in patients with metastatic UM., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Checkpoint inhibitors are standard adjuvant treatment for stage IIB-IV resected melanoma, but many patients recur. Our study aimed to evaluate whether mRNA-4157 (V940), a novel mRNA-based individualised neoantigen therapy, combined with pembrolizumab, improved recurrence-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival versus pembrolizumab monotherapy in resected high-risk melanoma., Methods: We did an open-label, randomised, phase 2b, adjuvant study of mRNA-4157 plus pembrolizumab versus pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients, enrolled from sites in the USA and Australia, with completely resected high-risk cutaneous melanoma. Patients with completely resected melanoma (stage IIIB-IV) were assigned 2:1 to receive open-label mRNA-4157 plus pembrolizumab or pembrolizumab monotherapy. mRNA-4157 was administered intramuscularly (maximum nine doses) and pembrolizumab intravenously (maximum 18 doses) in 3-week cycles. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This ongoing trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03897881., Findings: From July 18, 2019, to Sept 30, 2021, 157 patients were assigned to mRNA-4157 plus pembrolizumab combination therapy (n=107) or pembrolizumab monotherapy (n=50); median follow-up was 23 months and 24 months, respectively. Recurrence-free survival was longer with combination versus monotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] for recurrence or death, 0·561 [95% CI 0·309-1·017]; two-sided p=0·053), with lower recurrence or death event rate (24 [22%] of 107 vs 20 [40%] of 50); 18-month recurrence-free survival was 79% (95% CI 69·0-85·6) versus 62% (46·9-74·3). Most treatment-related adverse events were grade 1-2. Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 25% of patients in the combination group and 18% of patients in the monotherapy group, with no mRNA-4157-related grade 4-5 events. Immune-mediated adverse event frequency was similar for the combination (37 [36%]) and monotherapy (18 [36%]) groups., Interpretation: Adjuvant mRNA-4157 plus pembrolizumab prolonged recurrence-free survival versus pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with resected high-risk melanoma and showed a manageable safety profile. These results provide evidence that an mRNA-based individualised neoantigen therapy might be beneficial in the adjuvant setting., Funding: Moderna in collaboration with Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Rahway, NJ, USA., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JSW has been a consultant for AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, and Regeneron; has received research grants (to institution) from Merck and Moderna; has received travel support from Moderna; and is named on a PD-1 patent with Biodesix (not related to this trial). MSC has been a consultant for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ideaya, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Nektar, Novartis, Oncosec, Pierre-Fabre, Qbiotics, Regeneron, Roche, Merck Serono, and Sanofi; and has received honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Sanofi. AK has received honoraria from Merck Sharp & Dohme. TaM has received research grants (to institution) from Moderna; has been a consultant or served on a data safety monitoring–advisory board for AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Novartis; has received payment or honoraria from AstraZeneca; and has received travel support from AstraZeneca and Bristol Myers Squibb. MHT has received research grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, and Merck; has been a consultant for Cascade Prodrug, Incyte, and Immune-Onc; has received payment or honoraria from Array Biopharma, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Merck, Novartis, and Sanofi/Regeneron; and has served on a data safety monitoring or advisory board for Oncosec. KBK has received research grants from Merck and Moderna. MMc has received research grants (to institution) from Aadi Biosciences, Alpine Immune Sciences, Arcus Biosciences, Arvinas, Ascentage Pharma Group, ASCO, Astellas, Bayer, Bicycle Therapeutics, BioMed Valley Discoveries, BioNTech, C4 Therapeutics, Dragonfly Therapeutics, EMD Serono, Epizyme, Erasca, Exelixis, Foghorn Therapeutics, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech–Roche, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, IDEAYA Biosciences, Ikena Oncology, ImmVira Pharma, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Jacobio Pharmaceuticals, Kechow Pharma, Kezar Life Sciences, Kinnate BioPharma, MedImmune, Merck, Mereo BioPharma, Metabomed, Moderna, NBE Therapeutics, Nektar, Novartis, OncoC4, Oncorus, PACT Pharma, Pfizer, Plexxikon, Poseida, Prelude Therapeutics, Pyramid Biosciences, Regeneron, Sapience Therapeutics, Scholar Rock, Seattle Genetics, Synthrox, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Teneobio, Tempest Therapeutics, Tizona Therapeutics, TMUNITY Therapeutics, TopAlliance Biosciences, and Xilio; and has been a consultant (payment to institution) for Castle Biosciences, Eisai, IQVIA, Merck, Moderna, and Pfizer. GVL has been a consultant for Agenus, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Evaxion, Hexal (Sandoz Company), Highlight Therapeutics, Innovent Biologics USA, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, OncoSec, PHMR, Pierre Fabre, Provectus, Qbiotics, and Regeneron; has received honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Pierre Fabre; and has served on an advisory board for Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, OncoSec, Pierre Fabre, Provectus, Qbiotics, and Regeneron. RJS has received research grants from Merck; has royalties or licences from Up-to-Date; has been a consultant for Marengo, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Replimune; and has served on a data safety monitoring or advisory board for Duke University and Yale University. MF has received research grants from Moderna; and has served on an advisory board for Bristol Myers Squibb, Instil Bio, Merck, Novartis, and Regeneron. CLC has been a consultant for and has served on an advisory board for EMD Serono, Eisai, Iovance, Merck, Regeneron, and Replimune. AP has had a leadership position in Cota Healthcare and OMI; and holds stock options in Celularity and OMI. ThM has received research grants from Agenus, Anaveon, Bioatla, Bristol Myers Squibb, Day One, Genentech, InflaRx, Iovance, Merck, Regeneron, Replimune, Trisalus, and Ultimovacs; has received payment or honoraria from Honor Health; and has served on a data safety monitoring or advisory board for University of Colorado Cancer Center. VA has received speaker fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Pierre Fabre; has received travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Pierre Fabre; and has served on an advisory board for Bristol Myers Squibb, Immunocore, Limbic, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and QBiotics. GTG has received research grants (to institution) from Exelixis and Lucerno Dynamics; has been a consultant for Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exicure, Genentech, Immunocore, Incyte, Iovance, Lyell Immunopharma, Merck, Novartis, Regeneron, and Sapience Therapeutics; has received payment or honoraria from Immunocore; and has served on a data safety monitoring or advisory board for Huyabio. JJL has received research support (all to institution for clinical trials) from AbbVie, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Corvus, Day One, EMD Serono, Fstar, Genmab, Ikena, Immatics, Incyte, Kadmon, KAHR, Macrogenics, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Moderna, Nektar, Next Cure, Numab, Palleon, Pfizer, Replimmune, Rubius, Servier, Scholar Rock, Synlogic, Takeda, Trishula, Tizona, and Xencor; has been a consultant for 7 Hills, AbbVie, Actym, Alnylam, Alphamab Oncology, Arch Oncology, Atomwise, Bayer, Bright Peak, Bristol Myers Squibb, Castle, Checkmate, Codiak, Crown, Cugene, Curadev, Day One, Duke Street Bio, Eisai, EMD Serono, Endeavor, Exo, Flame, Fstar, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech, Gilead, Glenmark, HotSpot, Kadmon, Kanaph, KSQ, Janssen, Ikena, Inzen, Immatics, Immunocore, Incyte, Instil, Inzen, IO Biotech, Macrogenics, Mavu, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mersana, Nektar, NeoTx, Novartis, Onc.AI, OncoNano, Partner, Pfizer, Pioneering Medicines, PsiOxus, Pyxis, RefleXion, Regeneron, Ribon, Roivant, Saros, Servier, STINGthera, Stipe, Synlogic, Synthekine, Tempest, and Xilio; has served on an advisory board for AbbVie, Evaxion, and Immutep; is a board member of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer; holds stock options in Actym, Alphamab Oncology, Arch Oncology, Duke Street Bio, Kanaph, Mavu, NeoTx, Onc.AI, OncoNano, Pyxis, Saros, STipe, and Tempest; and has applied for patents (both provisional) for Serial 15/612,657 (Cancer Immunotherapy) and PCT/US18/36052 (Microbiome Biomarkers for Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Responsiveness: diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic uses thereof). ST has received speaker fees from Bristol Myers Squibb and honoraria from Pfizer; and has served as a paid expert witness for malpractice cases. EIB has received research grants (to institution) from Genentech; has been a consultant for Instilbio, Iovance, Merck, Nektar, Novartis, Sanofi, and Xilio; and has served on a data safety monitoring–advisory board for Asher. JAH is an employee of and holds stock options in Merck & Co, Rahway, NJ, USA. MH is an employee of Merck &Co, Rahway, NJ, USA. MaM, LZ, CR-T, PH, and PA are employees of and hold stock options in Moderna. IF is an employee of and holds stock options in Moderna; and was a co-inventor on the individualised neoantigen therapy Moderna patent. VS is an employee of Moderna; and holds stock options in AbbVie and Moderna. MB is an employee of Moderna; and holds stock options in Bristol Myers Squibb, Moderna, and Novartis. RSM is an employee of and holds stock and options in Moderna; and was a co-inventor on the individualised neoantigen therapy patent and other seminal Moderna patents. TZ is an employee of and holds stock options in Moderna; was a co-inventor on some seminal Moderna patents; and has served as a paid board member for Adaptimmune and Teva Pharmaceuticals. GA, TTT, MS, and JS declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors are frequently associated with the development of immunotherapy-related adverse events (irAEs). The exact etiology, including the role of environmental factors, remains incompletely understood., Methods: We analyzed the records of 394 melanoma patients from three centers (northern and southern hemisphere). Patients had received at least one cycle of anti-PD-1/anti-CTLA-4 with a minimum follow-up of 3 months. We study the distribution and time to irAEs onset throughout the calendar year., Results: 764 irAEs were recorded; the most frequent were skin rash (35%), hepatitis (32%) and colitis (30%). The irAEs incidence was the highest in autumn and winter, and the ratio for the 'number of irAEs' per 'therapies commenced' was the highest in winter and lowest in summer (2.4 and 1.7, respectively). Season-specific patterns in the time of irAEs onset were observed for pneumonitis (shorter time to onset in autumn, p = 0.025), hepatitis (shorter time to onset in spring, p = 0.016) and sarcoid-like immune reaction (shorter time to onset in autumn, p = 0.041). Season-specific patterns for early-onset irAEs were observed for hepatitis (spring, p = 0.023) and nephritis (summer, p = 0.017). Early-onset pneumonitis was more frequent in autumn-winter (p = 0.008) and early-onset nephritis in spring-summer (p = 0.004)., Conclusions: Environmental factors that are associated with particular seasons may contribute to the development of certain irAEs and suggest the potential effect of environmental triggers. The identification of these factors may enhance preventive and therapeutic strategies to reduce the morbidity of irAEs., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) gastrointestinal toxicity (gastritis, enteritis, colitis) is a major cause of morbidity and treatment-related death. Guidelines agree steroid-refractory cases warrant infliximab, however best management of infliximab-refractory ICI gastrointestinal toxicity (IRIGItox) is unknown., Methods: We conducted an international multicenter retrospective case series. IRIGItox was defined as failure of symptom resolution ≤grade 1 (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events V.5.0) following ≥2 infliximab doses or failure of symptom resolution ≤grade 2 after one dose. Data were extracted regarding demographics, steroid use, response to treatment, and survival outcomes. Toxicity was graded at symptom onset and time of infliximab failure. Efficacy of infliximab refractory therapy was assessed by symptom resolution, time to resolution and steroid wean duration. Survival outcomes were examined based on immunosuppressive therapy received., Results: 78 patients were identified: median age 60 years; 56% men; majority melanoma (N=70, 90%); 60 (77%) received anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 alone or in combination with anti-programmed cell death protein-1 and most had colitis (N=74, 95%). 106 post-infliximab treatments were given: 31 calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs); 27 antimetabolites (mycophenolate, azathioprine); 16 non-systemic immunomodulatory agents (eg, mesalazine or budesonide); 15 vedolizumab; 5 other biologics (anti-interleukin-12/23, 16, Janus kinase inhibitors) and 7 interventional procedures (including colectomy); 5 did not receive post-infliximab therapy. Symptom resolution was achieved in most (N=23/31, 74%) patients treated with CNIs; 12/27 (44%) with antimetabolites; 7/16 (44%) with non-systemic immunomodulation, 8/15 (53%) with vedolizumab and 5/7 (71%) with interventional procedures. No non-vedolizumab biologics resulted in toxicity resolution. CNIs had the shortest time to symptom resolution (12 days) and steroid wean (43 days); however, were associated with poorer event-free survival (6.3 months) and overall survival (26.8 months) than other agents. Conversely, vedolizumab had the longest time to toxicity resolution and steroid wean, 66 and 124 days, but most favorable survival data: EFS 24.5 months; median OS not reached. Six death occurred (three due to IRIGItox or management of toxicity; three with persisting IRIGItox and progressive disease)., Conclusions: IRIGItox causes major morbidity and mortality. Management is heterogeneous. CNIs appear most likely to result in toxicity resolution in the shortest time period, however, are associated with poorer oncological outcomes in contrast to vedolizumab., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JMQ – Advisory board for BMS, Roche, Merck. AA – Reported honoraria, advisory/consultancy, speaker bureau/expert testimony, travel/accommodation/expenses from Pierre-Fabre, Novartis, MSD, BMS, Amgen, Merck, Sanofi and Eisai Ltd. CB – Reports grants from Advisory role: BMS, MSD, Roche, Novartis, GSK, AZ, Pfizer, Lilly, GenMab, Pierre Fabre, Third Rock Ventures. Research funding: BMS, Novartis, NanoString. Stockownership: Uniti Cars, co-founder Immagene BV, all outside the submitted work. MSC - Advisory boards for BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pierre-Fabre, Amgen, Ideaya, Merck Serono and Sanofi. DBJ – Advisory boards for Array Biopharma, BMS, Iovance, Jansen, Merck, Novartis, and Oncosec; Receives research grants from BMS and Incyte. GVL - consultant advisor for Aduro Biotech Inc, Amgen Inc, Array Biopharma Inc, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Highlight Therapeutics S.L., Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis Pharma AG, Pierre Fabre, QBiotics Group Limited, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. AMM – Advisory boards for BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pierre-Fabre, QBiotics. BS – Honoraria from MSD, BMS, SUN Pharma, Allmiral, Novartis; Advisory Board for MSD, BMS, Pierre Fabre Pharma, Sanofi; travel support from BMS, Novartis, Pierre Fabre Pharma; Research Funding from Novartis; all outside the submitted work. LZ - served as consultant and has received honoraria from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, and Sunpharma and travel support from MSD, BMS, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work. KY- support from NIHR RM/ICR Biomedical Research Centre for Cancer, Institutional research support: AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Ultimovacs,Teaching/promotional meetings: BMS, Eisai, Ipsen. CH, JL, AM-E, JMK, SNL, LT, KJN, NY, AT, YW and RMH report no disclosures., (© 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: Anti-PD-1 therapy (PD1) either alone or with anti-CTLA-4 (CTLA4), has high initial response rates, however 20% of patients (pts) with complete response (CR) and 30% with partial response (PR) within 12 months of treatment experience subsequent disease progression by 6 years. The nature and optimal management of this acquired resistance (AR) remains unknown., Methods: Pts from 16 centres who responded to PD1-based therapy and who later progressed were examined. Demographics, disease characteristics and subsequent treatments were evaluated., Results: 299 melanoma pts were identified, median age 64y, 44% BRAFV600m. 172 (58%) received PD1 alone, 114 (38%) PD1/CTLA4 and 13 (4%) PD1 and an investigational drug. 90 (30%) pts had CR, 209 (70%) PR. Median time to AR was 12.6 mo (95% CI, 11.3, 14.2). Most (N = 193, 65%) progressed in a single organ site, and in a solitary lesion (N = 151, 51%). The most frequent sites were lymph nodes (38%) and brain (25%). Management at AR included systemic therapy (ST, 45%), local therapy (LT) +ST (31%), LT alone (21%), or observation (3%). There was no statistical difference in PFS2 or OS based on management, however, PFS2 was numerically superior for pts treated with ST alone who progressed off PD1 therapy than those who progressed on PD1 (2-year PFS2 42% versus 25%, p = 0.249). mOS from AR was 38.0 months (95% CI, 29.5-NR); longer in single-site versus multi-site progression (2-year OS 70% vs 54%, p < 0·001)., Conclusions: Acquired resistance to PD1 therapy in melanoma is largely oligometastatic, and pts may have a favorable survival outcome following salvage treatment., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: AH has received honoraria from Novartis and L.E.K, travel expenses from Roche, and is currently employed by Clinical Development, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, United States. YJ: conference sponsorship: Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD and Novartis. PB: conference sponsorship: Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis; paid speaker: Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb. BN: personal financial compensation from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Novartis for public speaking, consultancy and participation in advisory board meetings; my institution (UZ Brussel) received research funding related to research projects conducted by my team from Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Merck-Serono. JM has intermittent project focused consultant or advisory relationships with Merck/Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Amgen, Novartis, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb and Pierre Fabre and has received travel support from Ultrasun, L′oreal, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers and Squibb und Pierre Fabre outside of the submitted work. AS: Advisory Board Bristol-Myers Squibb, Immunocore, Novartis. Institutional Research Support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Immunocore, Novartis, Targovax, Polaris, Pfizer, Alkermes, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, Foghorn Therapeutics, Linnaeus Therapeutics, Prelude Therapeutics. ABW: has/had a consultant/advisory role for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Immatics, Instil Bio, Iovance, Lyell Immunopharma, Novartis, Pfizer. PAA: has/had a consultant/advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Merck Serono, Pierre-Fabre, AstraZeneca, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Sandoz, Immunocore, 4SC, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Oncosec, Nouscom, Lunaphore, Seagen, iTeos, Medicenna, Bio-Al Health, ValoTX, Replimmune. He also received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Pfizer, Sanofi. Travel support by Pfizer. MSC: consultant advisor: Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ideaya, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Nektar, Novartis, Oncosec, Pierre-Fabre, Qbiotics, Regeneron, Roche; honoraria: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis. LZ: declares speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma, research support from Novartis and travel support from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma and Novartis; outside the submitted work. CL: consultancy for BMS MSD Sanofi Pierre Fabre Novartis. DBJ has served on advisory boards or as a consultant for BMS, Catalyst Biopharma, Iovance, Jansen, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Mosaic ImmunoEngineering, Novartis, Oncosec, Pfizer, Targovax, and Teiko, and has received research funding from BMS and Incyte. SS: consultant advisor: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohma and AstraZeneca. Grant funding to undertake investigator-initiated trials: Advanced Accelerators Applications a Novartis company, Genentech, Amgen, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pfizer, Senwha, and AstraZeneca. CUB: Advisory role: BMS, MSD, Roche, Novartis, GSK, AZ, Pfizer, Lilly, GenMab, Pierre Fabre, Third Rock Ventures. Research funding: BMS, Novartis, NanoString, 4SC. Stockownership: co-founder Immagene BV and Signature Oncology. Patents (incl. submitted): WO 2021/177822 A1, N2027907, P091040NL2. GVL is 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, Regeneron. AMM has served on advisory boards for BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pierre-Fabre and QBiotics.All remaining authors had no disclosures to report., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic caused rapid implementation of telehealth for melanoma follow-up care in Australia. This study explores Australian melanoma patients and clinicians' level of satisfaction with telehealth., Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted across three specialist melanoma centres in Sydney, Australia. Melanoma patients (all stages) and clinicians completed mixed methods surveys seeking socio-demographic and clinical information and questionnaires to assess satisfaction with telehealth. Additionally, patients completed measures of quality of life, fear of cancer recurrence and trust in their oncologist. Patients and clinicians provided open-ended responses to qualitative questions about their perceptions of telehealth., Results: One hundred and fifteen patients and 13 clinicians responded to surveys. Telephone was used by 109 (95%) patients and 11 (85%) clinicians. Fifty-seven (50%) patients and nine (69%) clinicians preferred face-to-face consultations, 38 (33%) patients and 3 (23%) clinicians preferred a combination of face-to-face and telehealth consultations. Five (4%) patients and nil clinicians preferred telehealth consultations. Patients diagnosed with early-stage melanoma, using telehealth for the first time, who have lower trust in their oncologist, and having higher care delivery, communication and supportive care concerns were likely to report lower satisfaction with telehealth. Open-ended responses were consistent between patients and clinicians, who reported safety, convenience and improved access to care as major benefits, while identifying personal, interpersonal, clinical and system-related disadvantages., Discussion: While telehealth has been widely implemented during COVID-19, the benefits identified by patients and clinicians may extend past the pandemic. Telehealth may be considered for use in conjunction with face-to-face consultations to provide melanoma follow-up care., (© 2023 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Recent studies have shown that approximately 20% of patients have 4-5 year progression free survival (PFS) on BRAF/MEK inhibitors. The long-term safety and efficacy in these patients with more durable responses have not been studied., Methods: This retrospective multicenter cohort study assessed response, progression, and adverse events in patients from eight institutions in four countries with >4-year PFS following BRAF/MEK inhibitors., Results: Among 146 patients, 112 (76.7%) remained progression-free at median follow-up of 7.8 years from treatment start; 131 (89.7%) were alive. Among progressors (n = 34), 21 (62%) were on treatment at progression. Among those who discontinued treatment for reasons other than progression (toxicity, preference, etc.) (n = 68, with median 49 months treatment duration), 13 (19%) progressed (median 15.3 months from treatment cessation to progression). Surgery or radiation for single-organ progression resulted in durable benefit in 11 of 22 patients (50%). Subsequent systemic therapy included immune therapy (24% responded) and BRAF/MEK rechallenge (56% responded). Thirteen (8.9%) patients had ongoing toxicities at last follow-up, 10 (77%) of which remained on active treatment; all cardiac adverse events had resolved (n = 9). Twenty-four (16.4%) patients developed any new primary cancer, and 28 (19%) patients experienced other major health events., Conclusions: Over 75% of patients with 4-year PFS from BRAF/MEK inhibitors had continued durable antitumor responses after nearly 8-year median follow-up, with similar results in patients who discontinued therapy for reasons other than progression. Long-term toxicities were uncommon and low-grade. These findings highlight the often-favourable outcomes in patients with extended benefit from BRAF/MEK inhibitors., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: MSC has served on advisory boards or as a consultant for Amgen, BMS, Eisai, Ideaya, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Oncosec, Pierre-Fabre, Qbiotics, Regeneron, Roche, Merck and Sanofi, and received honoraria from BMS, MSD, and Novartis. AMM has served on advisory boards for BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pierre-Fabre and QBiotics. EL served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma, Takeda and travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre- Fabre, Sunpharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work. RJS has served on advisory boards or as a consultant for BMS, Marengo, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Replimune. GVL is 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, Regeneron. DS has served on advisory boards for BMS, Immunocore, MSD, Neracare, Novartis, Pfizer, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi/Regeneron. LW has served on advisory boards for BMS, MSD and Novartis. DBJ has served on advisory boards or as a consultant for BMS, Catalyst Biopharma, Iovance, Jansen, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Mosaic ImmunoEngineering, Novartis, Oncosec, Pfizer, Targovax, and Teiko, has received research funding from BMS and Incyte, and has patents pending for use of MHC-II as a biomarker for immune checkpoint inhibitor response, and abatacept as treatment for immune-related adverse events. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Liver metastases are associated with poor prognosis across cancers. Novel treatment strategies to treat patients with liver metastases are needed. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors in patients with liver metastases across cancers., Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Embase was performed between January 2000 and April 2023. Randomized controlled trials of patients with liver metastases comparing standard of care (systemic therapy or best supportive care) with or without vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors were included in the study. Outcomes reported included progression-free survival and overall survival., Results: A total of 4445 patients with liver metastases from 25 randomized controlled trials were included in this analysis. The addition of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors to standard systemic therapy or best supportive care was associated with superior progression-free survival (HR = 0.49; 95% CI, 0.40-0.61) and overall survival (HR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.93) in patients with liver metastases. In a subgroup analysis of patients with versus patients without liver metastases, the benefit with vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors was more pronounced in the group with liver metastases (HR = 0.44) versus without (HR = 0.57) for progression-free survival, but not for overall survival., Conclusion: The addition of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors to standard management improved survival outcomes in patients with liver metastasis across cancers.

Background: Tumor microenvironment (TME) characteristics are potential biomarkers of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic melanoma. This study developed a method to perform unsupervised classification of TME of metastatic melanoma., Methods: We used multiplex immunohistochemical and quantitative pathology-derived assessment of immune cell compositions of intratumoral and peritumoral regions of metastatic melanoma baseline biopsies to classify TME in relation to response to anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) monotherapy or in combination with anti-cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4 (ipilimumab (IPI)+PD-1)., Results: Spatial profiling of CD8+T cells, macrophages, and melanoma cells, as well as phenotypic PD-1 receptor ligand (PD-L1) and CD16 proportions, were used to identify and classify patients into one of three mutually exclusive TME classes: immune-scarce, immune-intermediate, and immune-rich tumors. Patients with immune-rich tumors were characterized by a lower proportion of melanoma cells and higher proportions of immune cells, including higher PD-L1 expression. These patients had higher response rates and longer progression-free survival (PFS) than those with immune-intermediate and immune-scarce tumors. At a median follow-up of 18 months (95% CI: 6.7 to 49 months), the 1-year PFS was 76% (95% CI: 64% to 90%) for patients with an immune-rich tumor, 56% (95% CI: 44% to 72%) for those with an immune-intermediate tumor, and 33% (95% CI: 23% to 47%) for patients with an immune-scarce tumor. A higher response rate was observed in patients with an immune-scarce or immune-intermediate tumor when treated with IPI+PD-1 compared with those treated with PD-1 alone., Conclusions: Our study provides an automatic TME classification method that may predict the clinical efficacy of immunotherapy for patients with metastatic melanoma., Competing Interests: Competing interests: GL 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, Regeneron. IPdS reports personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, personal fees from Merck Sharpe & Dohme, and personal fees from Roche. AMM is a consultant advisor for BMS, Merck MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pierre Fabre, and QBiotics. MSC is a consultant advisor for Amgen, BMS, Eisai, Ideaya, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Oncosec, Pierre Fabre, QBiotics, Regeneron, Roche, Merck, and Sanofi and received honoraria from BMS, MSD, and Novartis. RAS has received fees for professional services from Evaxion, Provectus Biopharmaceuticals Australia, QBiotics, Novartis, MSD, NeraCare, AMGEN, BMS, Myriad Genetics, and GlaxoSmithKline., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized the management of advanced melanoma (AM). However, data on ICI effectiveness have largely been restricted to clinical trials, thereby excluding patients with co-existing malignancies. Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is the most prevalent adult leukemia and is associated with increased risk of melanoma. CLL alters systemic immunity and can induce T-cell exhaustion, which may limit the efficacy of ICIs in patients with CLL. We, therefore, sought to examine the efficacy of ICI in patients with these co-occurring diagnoses., Patients and Methods: In this international multicenter study, a retrospective review of clinical databases identified patients with concomitant diagnoses of CLL and AM treated with ICI (US-MD Anderson Cancer Center, N = 24; US-Mayo Clinic, N = 15; AUS, N = 19). Objective response rates (ORRs), assessed by RECIST v1.1, and survival outcomes [overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS)] among patients with CLL and AM were assessed. Clinical factors associated with improved ORR and survival were explored. Additionally, ORR and survival outcomes were compared between the Australian CLL/AM cohort and a control cohort of 148 Australian patients with AM alone., Results: Between 1997 and 2020, 58 patients with concomitant CLL and AM were treated with ICI. ORRs were comparable between AUS-CLL/AM and AM control cohorts (53% versus 48%, P = 0.81). PFS and OS from ICI initiation were also comparable between cohorts. Among CLL/AM patients, a majority were untreated for their CLL (64%) at the time of ICI. Patients with prior history of chemoimmunotherapy treatment for CLL (19%) had significantly reduced ORRs, PFS, and OS., Conclusions: Our case series of patients with concomitant CLL and melanoma demonstrate frequent, durable clinical responses to ICI. However, those with prior chemoimmunotherapy treatment for CLL had significantly worse outcomes. We found that CLL disease course is largely unchanged by treatment with ICI., Competing Interests: Disclosure JAW is an inventor on a US patent application (PCT/US17/53.717); reports compensation for speaker’s bureau and honoraria from Imedex, Dava Oncology, Omniprex, Illumina, Gilead, PeerView, MedImmune, and Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS); serves as a consultant/advisory board member for Roche/Genentech, Novartis, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), BMS, Merck, Biothera Pharmaceuticals, and Micronoma. JAW holds stock options from Micronoma. JLM serves as a consultant for Merck and in advisory board for Bristol-Myers Squibb. 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, Regeneron. LW is an advisory board consultant/advisor for Novartis, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest. Data Sharing The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Role of the Funder/Sponsor The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or decision to submit the manuscript for publication., (Copyright © 2023 European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have led to unprecedented prolongation of overall survival (OS) for patients with advanced melanoma. Five-year follow-up of KEYNOTE-006 showed pembrolizumab prolonged survival versus ipilimumab. Efficacy results with 7-year follow-up are presented. At data cutoff (April 19, 2021), median follow-up was 85.3 months (range, 0.03-90.8 months). Median OS was 32.7 months for pembrolizumab versus 15.9 months for ipilimumab (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.83); 7-year OS was 37.8% and 25.3%, respectively. OS HRs favored pembrolizumab regardless of BRAF status or prior BRAF/MEK-inhibitor treatment and prognostic characteristics (elevated lactate dehydrogenase, large tumor size, and brain metastasis). Median modified progression-free survival (mPFS) was 9.4 months for pembrolizumab versus 3.8 months for ipilimumab; 7-year mPFS was 23.8% and 13.3%, respectively. In patients who completed ≥94 weeks of pembrolizumab, the 5-year OS was 92.9% and the 5-year mPFS was 70.1%. The objective response rate with second-course pembrolizumab (n = 16) was 56% (95% CI, 30 to 80) and the 2-year mPFS was 62.5%. These findings confirm that pembrolizumab provides long-term survival benefit in advanced melanoma.

Importance: Anti-programmable cell death-1 (anti-PD-1) improves relapse-free survival when used as adjuvant therapy for high-risk resected melanoma. However, it can lead to immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which become chronic in approximately 40% of patients with high-risk melanoma treated with adjuvant anti-PD-1., Objective: To determine the incidence, characteristics, and long-term outcomes of chronic irAEs from adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective multicenter cohort study analyzed patients treated with adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy for advanced and metastatic melanoma between 2015 and 2022 from 6 institutions in the US and Australia with at least 18 months of evaluable follow-up after treatment cessation (range, 18.2 to 70.4 months)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Incidence, spectrum, and ultimate resolution vs persistence of chronic irAEs (defined as those persisting at least 3 months after therapy cessation). Descriptive statistics were used to analyze categorical and continuous variables. Kaplan-Meier curves assessed survival, and Wilson score intervals were used to calculate CIs for proportions., Results: Among 318 patients, 190 (59.7%) were male (median [IQR] age, 61 [52.3-72.0] years), 270 (84.9%) had a cutaneous primary, and 237 (74.5%) were stage IIIB or IIIC at presentation. Additionally, 226 patients (63.7%) developed acute irAEs arising during treatment, including 44 (13.8%) with grade 3 to 5 irAEs. Chronic irAEs, persisting at least 3 months after therapy cessation, developed in 147 patients (46.2%; 95% CI, 0.41-0.52), of which 74 (50.3%) were grade 2 or more, 6 (4.1%) were grade 3 to 5, and 100 (68.0%) were symptomatic. With long-term follow-up (median [IQR], 1057 [915-1321] days), 54 patients (36.7%) experienced resolution of chronic irAEs (median [IQR] time to resolution of 19.7 [14.4-31.5] months from anti-PD-1 start and 11.2 [8.1-20.7] months from anti-PD-1 cessation). Among patients with persistent irAEs present at last follow-up (93 [29.2%] of original cohort; 95% CI, 0.25-0.34); 55 (59.1%) were grade 2 or more; 41 (44.1%) were symptomatic; 24 (25.8%) were using therapeutic systemic steroids (16 [67%] of whom were on replacement steroids for hypophysitis (8 [50.0%]) and adrenal insufficiency (8 [50.0%]), and 42 (45.2%) were using other management. Among the 54 patients, the most common persistent chronic irAEs were hypothyroid (38 [70.4%]), arthritis (18 [33.3%]), dermatitis (9 [16.7%]), and adrenal insufficiency (8 [14.8%]). Furthermore, 54 [17.0%] patients experienced persistent endocrinopathies, 48 (15.1%) experienced nonendocrinopathies, and 9 (2.8%) experienced both. Of 37 patients with chronic irAEs who received additional immunotherapy, 25 (67.6%) experienced no effect on chronic irAEs whereas 12 (32.4%) experienced a flare in their chronic toxicity. Twenty patients (54.1%) experienced a distinct irAE., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of 318 patients who received adjuvant anti-PD-1, chronic irAEs were common, affected diverse organ systems, and often persisted with long-term follow-up requiring steroids and additional management. These findings highlight the likelihood of persistent toxic effects when considering adjuvant therapies and need for long-term monitoring and management.

Background: Metformin is a commonly prescribed and well-tolerated medication. In laboratory studies, metformin suppresses BRAF wild-type melanoma cells but accelerates the growth of BRAF-mutated cells. This study investigated the prognostic and predictive value of metformin, including with respect to BRAF mutation status, in the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 1325/KEYNOTE-054 randomised controlled trial., Methods: Patients with resected high-risk stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC melanoma received 200 mg of pembrolizumab (n = 514) or placebo (n = 505) every 3 weeks for twelve months. Pembrolizumab prolonged recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) at approximately 42 months median follow-up (Eggermont et al., TLO, 2021). Multivariable Cox regression was used to estimate associations of metformin with RFS and DMFS. Interaction terms were used to model effect modification by treatment and BRAF mutation., Results: Fifty-four patients (0.5%) used metformin at baseline. Metformin was not significantly associated with RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52-1.45) and DMFS (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.47-1.44). The interaction between metformin and the treatment arm was not significant for either RFS (p = 0.92) or DMFS (p = 0.93). Among patients with mutated BRAF, the association of metformin with RFS (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.37-1.33) was greater in magnitude though not significantly different to those without mutated BRAF (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.56-1.69)., Conclusions: There was no significant impact of metformin use on pembrolizumab efficacy in resected high-risk stage III melanoma. However, larger studies or pooled analyses are needed, particularly to explore a possible effect of metformin in BRAF-mutated melanoma., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Oliver John Kennedy. None declared. Michal Kicinski. Grants or contracts from any entity: BMS, MSD, Pierre Fabre. Sara Valpione None declared. Sara Gandini None declared. Stefan Suciu. Grants or contracts from any entity: MSD. Christian Blank. Grants or contracts from any entity: BMS, Novartis, NanoString, 4SC. Consulting fees - consultant advisor for BMS, MSD, Roche, Novartis, GSK, AZ, Pfizer, Lilly, GenMab, Pierre Fabre- Payments were made to my institution, Third Rock Venture - Payments were made to me. Stock or stock options: Immagene BV and Signature Oncology - Co-founder. Georgina V Long. 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 (Australia), Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, OncoSec Australia, PHMR Ltd, Pierre Fabre, Provectus Australia, Qbiotics, Regeneron. Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Bristol Myers Squibb - Personal 1 h lecture of my own slides, Pierre Fabre, Personal 1 h lecture of my own slides. Victoria Atkinson. Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre- Speakers bureaus fees. Support for attending meetings and/or travel: BMS, Travel support. Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Q Biotics, Roche, Limbic - Advisory boards. Stephane Dalle. Grants or contracts from any entity: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme - My Institution. Support for attending meetings and/or travel: Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Merck Sharp &. Dohme. Other financial or non-financial interests: Sanofi Pasteur - My wife is an employee of Sanofi Pasteur. Andrew M. Haydon. Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus: BMS, Merck Sharp & Dohme Novartis. Participation to Advisory Board: BMS, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Merck Sharp & Dohme. Andrey Meshcheryakov. Grants or contracts from any entity: Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme - My institution, me. Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or. educational events: Amgen, Bayer AG, BIOCAD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, SERVIER, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Aventis - Honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus. Support for attending meetings and/or travel: BIOCAD, SERVIER, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sanofi- Aventis, Merck - Attending meetings and/or travel. Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: Amgen, Bayer AG, BIOCAD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Servier, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Aventis. - Advisory Board. Adnan Khattak None declared. Matteo S. Carlino. Participation on Advisory Board for Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ideaya, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Nektar, Novartis, Oncosec, Pierre-Fabre, Qbiotics, Regeneron, Roche. Consulting fees: Bristol Myer Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis. Shahneen Sandhu. Grants or contracts from any entity: Advanced Accelerators Applications (a Novartis company), Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Senwha, Genentech, AstraZeneca - Funding to the institution. Participation on an Advisory Board: AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Advanced Accelerators Applications (a Novartis company). - Funding to the institution. James Larkin. Grants or contracts from any entity: Achilles, BMS, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Immunocore, Aveo, Pharmacyclics. Institutional research support: BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Achilles Therapeutics, Roche, Nektar Therapeutics, Covance, Immunocore, Pharmacyclics, Aveo. Consulting fees from iOnctura, Apple Tree, Merck, BMS, Eisai, Debipharm, Incyte. Honorariums from Eisai, Novartis, Incyte, Merck, touchIME, touchEXPERTS, Pfizer, Royal College of Physicians, Cambridge Healthcare Research, Royal College of General Practitioners, VJOncology, Agence Unik, BMS. Speaker fee from Pierre Fabre, BMS, Ipsen, Roche, EUSA Pharma, Novartis, Aptitude, AstraZeneca, GSK, Eisai, Calithera, Ultimovacs, Seagen, Merck, eCancer, Inselgruppe, Pfizer, Goldman Sachs, MSD. Susana Puig. Grants or contracts from any entity: Almirall, ISDIN, La Roche Posay - To My Institution. Consulting fees: ISDIN, Almirall, La Roche Posay, MSD, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, Pfizer, Roche, Regeneron. Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: ISDIN, La Roche Posay, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, Roche, Regeneron, BMS, Sun Pharma. Support for attending meetings and/or travel: Almirall. Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: Roche, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, Almirall, ISDIN, Pfizer, Novartis. Paolo A. Ascierto. Grants or contracts from any entity: Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Pfizer/Array, Sanofi. Consulting fees: Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Merck Serono, Pierre-Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Sandoz, 4SC, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Pfizer/Array, Lunaphore, Medicenna, Bio-Al Health, ValoTx, Replimmune, Bayer. Support for attending meetings and/or travel: Pfizer, Bio-Al Health, Replimmune. Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche- Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Immunocore, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Oncosec, Nouscom, Seagen, iTeos. Piotr Rutkowski. Consulting fees: Amgen, Blueprint Medicine, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi - Advisory Role - Personal fees. Payment or honoraria for lectures: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi Pasteur. Dirk Schadendorf. Grants or contracts from any entity: Amgen, Array BioPharma, Novartis. Consulting fees: 4SC, Angenus, Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, EMD Serano, Roche, Genentech, InFlarX, Merck, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Sandoz, Sanofi, UltimoVacs. Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board: Immunocore. Honoraria for lectures: Amgen, Novartis. Support for attending meetings and/or travel: Amgen, Novartis. Marye Boers-Sonderen. None declared. Anna Maria di Giacomo. Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: BMS, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi. Support for attending meetings and/or travel: BMS, Pierre Fabre. Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: BMS, MSD, Nektar, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, GSK, Novartis. Alfonsus J.M. van den Eertwegh. Grants or contracts from any entity: Roche, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Idera Consulting fees: Bristol Myers Squibb. Support for attending meetings and/or travel: MSD Oncology, Roche, Pfizer, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre. Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology, Amgen, Roche, Novartis, Sanofi, Pfizer, Ipsen, Merck, Pierre Fabre. Jean-Jacques Grob. Payment for participation to an advisory board: Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Hoffmann-La Roche. Consulting fees: MSD, Novartis, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi Pasteur. Ralf Gutzmer. Grants or contracts from any entity: Pfizer, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, Amgen, Merck Serono, Sun Pharma Industries, Sanofi. Consulting fees: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Genentech, Novartis, Merck Serono, Almirall, Amgen, Sun Pharma Industries, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Bayer AG, Immunocore. Support for attending meetings and/or travel: Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma Industries. Rahima Jamal. Grants or contracts from any entity: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Iovance Biotherapeutics. Consulting fees: Bristol Myers Squibb. Alexander C.J. van Akkooi. Grants or contracts from any entity: Amgen, Merck, Pfizer. Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD-Merck, Merck, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Provectus, Sanofi, Sirius Medical, 4SC. Caroline Robert. Consulting fees: AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Merck, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi. Co-founder: Ribonexus. Alexander Eggermont. Consulting fees: Agenus, BioInvent, BMS, Brenus, CatalYm, Ellipses, Galecto, IO Biotech, IQVIA, ISA Pharmaceuticals, Merck&Co, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Sairopa, Sellas, SkylineDX, TigeTx, Trained Immunity TX. Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board: BioNTech, GSK, and Pfizer. Lectures: BMS, MSD. Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid: European Academy Cancer Sciences, German Cancer Aid. Stock or stock options: IO Biotech, SkylineDx and SaiRoPA. Paul Lorigan. Grants or contracts from any entity: BMS, Pierre Fabre. Consulting fees: Amgen, BMS, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Pierre Fabre. Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Amgen, BMS, Merck, MSD, Nektar, NeraCare GmbH, Novartis, Oncology Education, Pierre Fabre, Roche. Support for attending meetings and/or travel: BMS, MSD. Mario Mandala. Participation to Advisory Board: BMS, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre Pharmaceuticals., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Purpose: This study characterizes intratumoral macrophage populations within baseline melanoma biopsies from patients with advanced melanoma who received either anti-PD-1 monotherapy or a combination with anti-CTLA-4. Particularly, FcγRIIIa (CD16)-expressing macrophage densities were investigated for associations with response and progression-free survival., Experimental Design: Patients with advanced melanoma who received either anti-PD-1 monotherapy or combination anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 were retrospectively identified. Macrophage populations were analyzed within baseline melanoma biopsies via multiplex IHC in relation to treatment outcomes., Results: Patients who responded to combination immune checkpoint inhibitor contained higher CD16+ macrophage densities than those who did not respond (196 vs. 7 cells/mm2; P = 0.0041). There was no diffidence in CD16+ macrophage densities in the PD-1 monotherapy-treated patients based on response (118 vs. 89 cells/mm2; P = 0.29). A significantly longer 3-year progression-free survival was observed in combination-treated patients with high intratumoral densities of CD16+ macrophages compared with those with low densities (87% vs. 42%, P = 0.0056, n = 40). No association was observed in anti-PD-1 monotherapy-treated patients (50% vs. 47%, P = 0.4636, n = 50). Melanoma biopsies with high densities of CD16+ macrophages contained upregulated gene expression of critical T-cell recruiting chemokines (CXCL9, CXCL10, and CXCL11)., Conclusions: Our data demonstrate that tumor microenvironments enriched with CD16+ macrophages are favorable for response to combination anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 therapy but not anti-PD-1 monotherapy. These data provides a potential biomarker of response for combination immunotherapies in patients with metastatic melanoma. See related commentary by Smithy and Luke, p. 2345., (©2023 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Immunotherapy targeting PD-1 and/or CTLA4 leads to durable responses in a proportion of patients with melanoma. However, many patients will not respond to these immune checkpoint inhibitors, and up to 60% of responding patients will develop treatment resistance. We describe a vulnerability in melanoma driven by immune cell activity that provides a pathway towards additional treatment options. This study evaluated short-term melanoma cell lines (referred to as PD1 PROG cells) derived from melanoma metastases that progressed on PD-1 inhibitor-based therapy. We show that the cytokine IFN-γ primes melanoma cells for apoptosis by promoting changes in the accumulation and interactions of apoptotic regulators MCL-1, NOXA, and BAK. The addition of pro-apoptotic BH3 mimetic drugs sensitized PD1 PROG melanoma cells to apoptosis in response to IFN-γ or autologous immune cell activation. These findings provide translatable strategies for combination therapies in melanoma., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Checkpoint inhibitor-associated autoimmune diabetes mellitus (CIADM) is a distinct form of autoimmune diabetes that is a rare complication of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Data regarding CIADM are limited., Purpose: To systematically review available evidence to identify presentation characteristics and risk factors for early or severe presentations of adult patients with CIADM., Data Sources: MEDLINE and PubMed databases were reviewed., Study Selection: English full text articles from 2014 to April 2022 were identified with a predefined search strategy. Patients meeting diagnostic criteria for CIADM with evidence of hyperglycemia (blood glucose level >11 mmol/L or HbA1c ≥6.5%) and insulin deficiency (C-peptide <0.4 nmol/L and/or diabetic ketoacidosis [DKA]) were included for analysis., Data Extraction: With the search strategy we identified 1,206 articles. From 146 articles, 278 patients were labeled with "CIADM," with 192 patients meeting our diagnostic criteria and included in analysis., Data Synthesis: Mean ± SD age was 63.4 ± 12.4 years. All but one patient (99.5%) had prior exposure to either anti-PD1 or anti-PD-L1 therapy. Of the 91 patients tested (47.3%), 59.3% had susceptibility haplotypes for type 1 diabetes (T1D). Median time to CIADM onset was 12 weeks (interquartile range 6-24). DKA occurred in 69.7%, and initial C-peptide was low in 91.6%. T1D autoantibodies were present in 40.4% (73 of 179) and were significantly associated with DKA (P = 0.0009) and earlier time to CIADM onset (P = 0.02)., Limitations: Reporting of follow-up data, lipase, and HLA haplotyping was limited., Conclusions: CIADM commonly presents in DKA. While T1D autoantibodies are only positive in 40.4%, they associate with earlier, more severe presentations., (© 2023 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The prognostic value of sentinel node biopsy (SNB) is well established and SNB was therefore adopted as a requirement for pathological staging of melanomas>1 mm thick in the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th edition. Consequently, a negative SNB status became an eligibility criterion for clinical trials of adjuvant systemic therapy in resected stage IIB/C melanoma. However, since the Keynote 716 trial demonstrated an improvement in relapse-free survival (RFS) in patients with Stage IIB/C melanoma, all of whom had SNB staging, some have argued that SNB is no longer required for patients with T3 and T4 primary melanomas. The rationale for omitting SNB is that these patients will be able to access adjuvant immunotherapy regardless of SNB status, avoiding the costs and potential complications of SNB. However, this argument overlooks the prognostic value of knowing a patient's nodal status and the therapeutic benefit of SNB in regional disease control. Based on extrapolation of data from multiple sources, we demonstrate that the risk of regional node-field relapse with SNB and immunotherapy for T3b and T4 melanomas is around 7-9% but is 20-27% without SNB. Similarly, the node-field recurrence rate with SNB alone is around 14% compared to around 40% with no SNB or immunotherapy. Consequently, in the absence of prospective data, we propose that the optimal management of the regional node-field for high-risk T3b and T4 primary melanomas is likely to be achieved by combining SNB and adjuvant immunotherapy for those patients who are suitable, rather than either treatment alone., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Gene expression profiling is increasingly being utilised as a diagnostic, prognostic and predictive tool for managing cancer patients. Single-sample scoring approach has been developed to alleviate instability of signature scores due to variations from sample composition. However, it is a challenge to achieve comparable signature scores across different expressional platforms., Methods: The pre-treatment biopsies from a total of 158 patients, who have received single-agent anti-PD-1 (n = 84) or anti-PD-1 + anti-CTLA-4 therapy (n = 74), were performed using NanoString PanCancer IO360 Panel. Multiple immune-related signature scores were measured from a single-sample rank-based scoring approach, singscore. We assessed the reproducibility and the performance in reporting immune profile of singscore based on NanoString assay in advance melanoma. To conduct cross-platform analyses, singscores between the immune profiles of NanoString assay and the previous orthogonal whole transcriptome sequencing (WTS) data were compared through linear regression and cross-platform prediction., Results: singscore-derived signature scores reported significantly high scores in responders in multiple PD-1, MHC-1-, CD8 T-cell-, antigen presentation-, cytokine- and chemokine-related signatures. We found that singscore provided stable and reproducible signature scores among the repeats in different batches and cross-sample normalisations. The cross-platform comparisons confirmed that singscores derived via NanoString and WTS were comparable. When singscore of WTS generated by the overlapping genes to the NanoString gene set, the signatures generated highly correlated cross-platform scores (Spearman correlation interquartile range (IQR) [0.88, 0.92] and r 2 IQR [0.77, 0.81]) and better prediction on cross-platform response (AUC = 86.3%). The model suggested that Tumour Inflammation Signature (TIS) and Personalised Immunotherapy Platform (PIP) PD-1 are informative signatures for predicting immunotherapy-response outcomes in advanced melanoma patients treated with anti-PD-1-based therapies., Conclusions: Overall, the outcome of this study confirms that singscore based on NanoString data is a feasible approach to produce reliable signature scores for determining patients' immune profiles and the potential clinical utility in biomarker implementation, as well as to conduct cross-platform comparisons, such as WTS., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (mMCC) is highly responsive to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs); however, durability of response after treatment cessation and response to retreatment in the setting of progression is unknown., Methods: Patients (pts) having mMCC from 10 centres who discontinued ICI treatment for a reason other than progression were studied., Results: Forty patients were included. Median time on treatment was 13.5 months (range 1-35). Thirty-one patients (77.5%) stopped treatment electively while 9 patients (22.5%) stopped due to treatment-related toxicity. After median of 12.3 months from discontinuation, 14 pts (35%) have progressed (PD). Disease progression rate following ICI discontinuation was 26% (8 of 31) in patients who discontinued in complete response (CR), 57% (4 of 7) in patients in partial response and 100% (2 of 2) in those with stable disease. Median progression-free survival (PFS) after treatment cessation was 21 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 18- not reached [NR]), with a third of patients progressing during their first year off treatment. PFS was longer for patients who discontinued ICI electively (median PFS 29 months; 95% CI, 21-NR) compared to those who stopped due to toxicity (median PFS 11 months; 95% CI, 10-NR). ICI was restarted in 8 of 14 pts (57%) with PD, with response rate of 75% (4 CR, 2 partial response, 1 stable disease, 1 PD)., Conclusion: ICI responses in mMCC do not appear durable off treatment, including in patients who achieve a CR, though response to retreatment is promising. Extended duration of treatment needs to be investigated to optimise long-term outcomes., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) are human beings' most common malignant tumors. Most are easily managed by surgery or topical therapies, and metastasis is rare. Although BCCs can become locally advanced, metastatic BCCs are very uncommon and may be biologically distinct. We assessed the clinicopathologic characteristics of 17 patients with metastatic BCC and pursued whole-exome sequencing of tumor and germline DNA from 8 patients. Genomic profiling revealed aberrant activation of Hedgehog signaling and alterations in GLI transcriptional regulators and Notch and Hippo signaling. Matched local recurrences of primary BCCs and metastases from 3 patients provided evidence of a clonal origin in all cases. Mutations associated with YAP inhibition were found exclusively in 2 hematogenously-spread lung metastases, and metastatic BCCs were enriched for mutations in the YAP/TAZ-binding domain of TEAD genes. Accordingly, YAP/TAZ nuclear localization was associated with metastatic types and Hippo mutations, suggesting an enhanced oncogenic role in hematogenously-spread metastases. Mutations in RET, HGF, and phosphatidylinositol 3‑kinase (PI3K)/protein kinase B (AKT) signaling were enriched compared with a cohort of low clinical-risk BCCs. Our results implicate Hippo and PI3K/AKT dysregulation in metastatic progression of BCCs, making these potential therapeutic targets in metastatic disease. The common clonal origin of matched recurrent and metastatic BCCs suggests that molecular profiling can assist in determining the nature/origin of poorly differentiated metastatic tumors of uncertain type. Genes and pathways enriched for mutations in this cohort are candidate drivers of metastasis and can be used to identify patients at high risk of metastasis who may benefit from aggressive local treatment and careful clinical follow-up., (Copyright © 2023 United States & Canadian Academy of Pathology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Up to 50% of patients with uveal melanoma develop metastases (MUM) with a poor prognosis and median overall survival of approximately 1 year., Methods: This phase I study evaluated the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and efficacy of the oral protein kinase C inhibitor LXS196 in 68 patients with MUM (NCT02601378). Patients received LXS196 doses ranging from 100-1000 mg once daily (QD; n = 38) and 200-400 mg twice daily (BID; n = 30)., Results: First cycle dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were observed in 7/38 (18.4%) QD and 2/17 (11.8%) BID patients. Hypotension was the most common DLT, occurring at doses ≥500 mg/day, and manageable with LXS196 interruption and dose reduction. Median duration of exposure to LXS196 was 3.71 months (range: 1.81-15.28) for QD and 4.6 months (range: 0.33-58.32) for BID dosing. Clinical activity was observed in 6/66 (9.1%) evaluable patients achieving response (CR/PR), with a median duration of response of 10.15 months (range: 2.99-41.95); 45/66 had stable disease (SD) per RECIST v1.1. At 300 mg BID, the recommended dose for expansion, 2/18 (11.1%) evaluable patients achieved PR and 12/18 (66.7%) had SD., Conclusion: These results suggest manageable toxicity and encouraging clinical activity of single-agent LXS196 in patients with MUM., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Increasing evidence strongly supports the key role of the tumour microenvironment in response to systemic therapy, particularly immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). The tumour microenvironment is a complex tapestry of immune cells, some of which can suppress T-cell immunity to negatively impact ICI therapy. The immune component of the tumour microenvironment, although poorly understood, has the potential to reveal novel insights that can impact the efficacy and safety of ICI therapy. Successful identification and validation of these factors using cutting-edge spatial and single-cell technologies may enable the development of broad acting adjunct therapies as well as personalised cancer immunotherapies in the near future. In this paper we describe a protocol built upon Visium (10x Genomics) spatial transcriptomics to map and characterise the tumour-infiltrating immune microenvironment in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Using ImSig tumour-specific immune cell gene signatures and BayesSpace Bayesian statistical methodology, we were able to significantly improve immune cell identification and spatial resolution, respectively, improving our ability to analyse immune cell interactions within the tumour microenvironment.

Resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies in melanoma is common and remains an intractable clinical challenge. In this study, we comprehensively profile immune checkpoint inhibitor resistance mechanisms in short-term tumor cell lines and matched tumor samples from melanoma patients progressing on immune checkpoint inhibitors. Combining genome, transcriptome, and high dimensional flow cytometric profiling with functional analysis, we identify three distinct programs of immunotherapy resistance. Here we show that resistance programs include (1) the loss of wild-type antigen expression, resulting from tumor-intrinsic IFNγ signaling and melanoma de-differentiation, (2) the disruption of antigen presentation via multiple independent mechanisms affecting MHC expression, and (3) immune cell exclusion associated with PTEN loss. The dominant role of compromised antigen production and presentation in melanoma resistance to immune checkpoint inhibition highlights the importance of treatment salvage strategies aimed at the restoration of MHC expression, stimulation of innate immunity, and re-expression of wild-type differentiation antigens., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are side effects of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy (ICI). While common irAEs have been well characterized, there are more limited data on rare immune related adverse events (RirAEs) due to low incidence. Lack of characterization of these entities has led to difficulties in accurate diagnosis and management. Here, we conducted a multi-institution analysis of all patients with stage III/IV melanoma who developed RirAEs after being treated with ICIs (anti-PD-1/L1, anti-CTLA-4, and combination PD-1/CTLA-4 blockade) at three institutions (Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Melanoma Institute of Australia). RirAEs were defined as those occurring in approximately <1% of patients treated with anti-PD-1 or <2% with combination. Of 2834 patients who received ICIs, 82 developed RirAEs and were more common with combination PD-1/CTLA-4 blockade (4.6%) vs. anti-PD-1/L1 agents (2.8%). Overall median time from ICI start to RirAE was 86 days (interquartile range 42-235 days) with significantly earlier onset in combination therapy ( p  < 0.001). The spectrum of RirAEs spanned across several organ systems. Most RirAEs were grade 2 (57 [41.3%]) and grade 3 (40 [29.0%]) with relatively few grade 4 (11 [8.0%]) or 5 (5 [3.6%]) events. Steroid re-escalation (21.4%) or additional immunosuppression (13.8%) were commonly required. RirAE recurrence occurred in 22.6% with ICI rechallenge; 37.1% had new irAEs with rechallenge. In conclusion, RirAEs associated with ICIs in melanoma patients occurred, in aggregate, in 2-5% of patients treated with anti-PD-1-based therapy. Steroid re-escalation and alternative immunosuppression use were frequently required but fatal irAEs were fairly uncommon., Competing Interests: DBJ has served on advisory boards or as a consultant for BMS, Catalyst Biopharma, Iovance, Jansen, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Mosaic ImmunoEngineering, Novartis, Oncosec, Pfizer, Targovax, and Teiko, and has received research funding from BMS and Incyte. AMM has served on advisory boards for BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pierre-Fabre and QBiotics. MSC: consultant advisor: Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ideaya, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Nektar, Novartis, Oncosec, Pierre-Fabre, Qbiotics, Regeneron, Roche; honoraria: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis. GVL is consultant/advisor for Agenus, Amgen, Array Biopharma, 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, Regeneron. JMB receives research support from Genentech/Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Incyte Corporation, has received consulting/expert witness fees from Novartis, and is an inventor on patents regarding immunotherapy targets and biomarkers in cancer.., (© 2023 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.)

Background: In patients with stage III melanoma, despite surgical resection and adjuvant systemic therapy, locoregional recurrences still occur. The randomized, phase III Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG) 02.01 trial demonstrated that adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) after complete lymphadenectomy (CLND) halves the incidence of melanoma recurrence within local nodal basins without improving overall survival or quality of life. However, the study was conducted prior to the current era of adjuvant systemic therapies and when CLND was the standard approach for microscopic nodal disease. As such, there is currently no data on the role of adjuvant RT in patients with melanoma who recur during or after adjuvant immunotherapy, including those that may or may not have undergone prior CLND. In this study, we aimed to answer this question., Methods: Patients with resected stage III melanoma who received adjuvant anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) (±ipilimumab) immunotherapy with a subsequent locoregional (lymph node and/or in-transit metastases) recurrence were retrospectively identified. Multivariable logistic and Cox regression analyses were conducted. Primary outcome was rate of subsequent locoregional recurrence; secondary outcomes were locoregional recurrence-free survival (lr-RFS2) and overall RFS (RFS2) to second recurrence., Results: In total, 71 patients were identified: 42 (59%) men, 30 (42%) BRAF V600E mutant, 43 (61%) stage IIIC at diagnosis. Median time to first recurrence was 7 months (1-44), 24 (34%) received adjuvant RT and 47 (66%) did not. Thirty-three patients (46%) developed a second recurrence at a median of 5 months (1-22). The rate of locoregional relapse at second recurrence was lower in those who received adjuvant RT (8%, 2/24) compared with those who did not (36%, 17/47, p=0.01). Adjuvant RT at first recurrence was associated with an improved lr-RFS2 (HR 0.16, p=0.015), with a trend towards an improved RFS2 (HR 0.54, p = 0.072) and no effect on risk of distant recurrence or overall survival., Conclusion: This is the first study to investigate the role of adjuvant RT in patients with melanoma with locoregional disease recurrence during or after adjuvant anti-PD-1-based immunotherapy. Adjuvant RT was associated with improved lr-RFS2, but not risk of distant recurrence, demonstrating a likely benefit in locoregional disease control in the modern era. Further prospective studies are required to validate these results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PB: sponsorship: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis; paid speaker: Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme. AH: advisory board member Qbiotics, Oncobeta. JM: consultant advisor: Merck/Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Amgen, Novartis, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pierre Fabre; travel support: Ultrasun, L’oreal, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre. DBJ: advisory boards/consultant: BMS, Catalyst Biopharma, Iovance, Janssen, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Mosaic ImmunoEngineering, Novartis, Oncosec, Pfizer, and Targovax. Research funding: BMS and Incyte. AHay: advisory board member for Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, and Qbiotics. GLod: travel/accommodation/expenses: Sun Pharma. EL: honoraria: Novartis, Medac, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Sun Pharm, Pierre Fabre; consulting/advisory role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre and Novartis; travel/accommodations/expenses: Pierre Fabre, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Medac, Sun Pharma. KK: consultant or/and honoraria: Amgen, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Novartis; travel support: Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Medac, Novartis. AHau: consultancy and/or speaker honoraria: Almirall, Amgen, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Dermagnostix, Eisai, Immunocore, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), MerckPfizer, Novartis, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Sanofi, Seagen, SunPharma, Xenthera. GAM: reimbursement of trials costs to the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre: Array/Pfizer Roche/Genentech; non-reimbursed advisor: Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb. AMM: advisory board: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche, Pierre Fabre, QBiotics. GLon: advisory board: Agenus, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Evaxion, Hexal AG (Sandoz Company), Highlight Therapeutics S.L., Innovent Biologics USA, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, OncoSec, PHMR, Pierre Fabre, Provectus, Qbiotics, Regeneron. MSC: consultant advisor: Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ideaya, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Nektar, Novartis, Oncosec, Pierre Fabre, Qbiotics, Regeneron, Roche; honoraria: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis. All other authors declare no COI., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The integration of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) for the treatment of melanoma has resulted in remarkable and durable responses. Given the potential role of immunosenescence, age may contribute to differential ICI efficacy and toxicity. While older patients have been studied in detail, outcomes from ICI in young patients (≤40 years) are not well characterised., Methods: We performed a multi-institutional, retrospective study of patients with advanced melanoma treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy or ICI combination (ipilimumab and anti-PD-1). Response rates, survival, and toxicities were examined based on age comparing those under 40 years of age with older patients (age 41-70 and ≥ 71 years)., Results: A total of 676 patients were included: 190 patients (28%) aged ≤40 years, 313 (46%) between ages 41-70, and 173 patients (26%) aged ≥71. Patients ≤40 years had higher response rates (53% vs 38%, p = 0.035) and improved progression-free survival (median 13.7 vs 4.0 months, p = 0.032) with combination ICI compared to monotherapy. Progression-free survival was similar among groups while overall survival was inferior in patients >70 years, who had low response rates to combination therapy (28%). ICIs had a similar incidence of severe toxicities, though hepatotoxicity was particularly common in younger patients vs. patients >40 with monotherapy (9% vs. 2%, p = 0.007) or combination ICI (37% vs. 10%, p < 0.001)., Conclusions: ICIs had comparable efficacy between younger and older patients, although outcomes were superior with combination ICI compared to monotherapy in patients aged ≤40 years. Toxicity incidence was similar across age groups, though organs affected were substantially different., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: DBJ has served on advisory boards or as a consultant for BMS, Catalyst Biopharma, Iovance, Jansen, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Mosaic ImmunoEngineering, Novartis, Oncosec, Pfizer, and Targovax, and has received research funding from BMS and Incyte. RJS has served on advisory boards or as a consultant for BMS, Eisai, Iovance, Merck, Novartis, Oncosec, and Pfizer, and has received research funding from Merck. GVL is a consultant advisor for Agenus, Amgen, Array Biopharma, Boehringer Ingelheim International, Bristol Myers Squibb, Evaxion, Hexal AG, Highlight Therapeutics, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, OncoSec, Pierre Fabre, Provectus, Qbiotics, and Regeneron. MSC is a consultant advisor for Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ideaya, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Nektar, Novartis, Oncosec, Pierre-Fabre, Qbiotics, Regeneron, and Roche; honoraria: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis. AMM has served on advisory boards for BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pierre-Fabre, and QBiotics. IMR has served on advisory boards or as a consultant for Amgen, BMS, GSK, Novartis, MSD, Roche, Celegene, Pierre Fabre, Highlight Therapeutics (formerly Bioncotech), Regeneron, Sanofi, Merck Serono, Astra Zeneca, BiolineRx, and Sun Pharma. EMC has served on advisory boards or as a consultant for Amgen, BMS, GSK, Novartis, MSD, Roche, Celegene, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Sanofi, Merck Serono, Astra Zeneca, and Sun Pharma. LZ (MGH) has served on advisory boards or as a consultant for Merck. SU declares research support from Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck Serono; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis, and Roche, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Pierre Fabre; outside the submitted work. LZ (Essen) reports personal fees and other (advisory board participation, travel grants) from Bristol-Meyers-Squibb, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Novartis; other (advisory board participation and/or travel grants) from Sanofi and Amgen; all outside the submitted work. EL reports personal fees and other (advisory board participation and/or travel grants) from Amgen, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, and medac; personal fees from Janssen; other fees from Actelion and Pierre-Fabre; all outside the submitted work. DS reports research finding to the institution for clinical studies or research from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Amgen, Array; patient fees to the institution from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Merck-EMD, Philogen, Pfizer, Array, InflarX, OncoSec, Replimune, Neracare, Nektar, SunPharma, Sandoz, and UltimoVacs; reimbursement for travel from BMS, Merck, Novartis, Merck-EMD, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, InflarX, NeraCare, and Nektar; non-financial support from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Merck-EMD, Pierre-Fabre, InFlarX, Neracare, Nektar, SunPharma, and Sandoz; all outside the submitted work. SMB has served as a consultant for Two River Consulting and Third Rock Ventures and reports equity holdings in Kronos Bio and 76Bio. All remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Ipilimumab and nivolumab have each shown treatment benefit for high-risk resected melanoma. The phase III CheckMate 915 trial evaluated adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab alone in patients with resected stage IIIB-D or IV melanoma., Patients and Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, phase III trial, 1,833 patients received nivolumab 240 mg once every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg once every 6 weeks (916 patients) or nivolumab 480 mg once every 4 weeks (917 patients) for ≤ 1 year. After random assignment, patients were stratified by tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and stage. Dual primary end points were recurrence-free survival (RFS) in randomly assigned patients and in the tumor PD-L1 expression-level < 1% subgroup., Results: At a minimum follow-up of approximately 23.7 months, there was no significant difference between treatment groups for RFS in the all-randomly assigned patient population (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.09; P = .269) or in patients with PD-L1 expression < 1% (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.14). In all patients, 24-month RFS rates were 64.6% (combination) and 63.2% (nivolumab). Treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported in 32.6% of patients in the combination group and 12.8% in the nivolumab group. Treatment-related deaths were reported in 0.4% of patients in the combination group and in no nivolumab-treated patients., Conclusion: Nivolumab 240 mg once every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg once every 6 weeks did not improve RFS versus nivolumab 480 mg once every 4 weeks in patients with stage IIIB-D or stage IV melanoma. Nivolumab showed efficacy consistent with previous adjuvant studies in a population resembling current practice using American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition, reaffirming nivolumab as a standard of care for melanoma adjuvant treatment.