Search

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

Purpose: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is treated to prevent progression to invasive breast cancer. Yet, most lesions will never progress, implying that overtreatment exists. Therefore, we aimed to identify factors distinguishing harmless from potentially hazardous DCIS using a nested case–control study.Experimental Design: We conducted a case–control study nested in a population-based cohort of patients with DCIS treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) alone (N = 2,658) between 1989 and 2005. We compared clinical, pathologic, and IHC DCIS characteristics of 200 women who subsequently developed ipsilateral invasive breast cancer (iIBC; cases) and 474 women who did not (controls), in a matched setting. Median follow-up time was 12.0 years (interquartile range, 9.0–15.3). Conditional logistic regression models were used to assess associations of various factors with subsequent iIBC risk after primary DCIS.Results: High COX-2 protein expression showed the strongest association with subsequent iIBC [OR = 2.97; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.72–5.10]. In addition, HER2 overexpression (OR = 1.56; 95% CI, 1.05–2.31) and presence of periductal fibrosis (OR = 1.44; 95% CI, 1.01–2.06) were associated with subsequent iIBC risk. Patients with HER2+/COX-2high DCIS had a 4-fold higher risk of subsequent iIBC (vs. HER2−/COX-2low DCIS), and an estimated 22.8% cumulative risk of developing subsequent iIBC at 15 years.Conclusions: With this unbiased study design and representative group of patients with DCIS treated by BCS alone, COX-2, HER2, and periductal fibrosis were revealed as promising markers predicting progression of DCIS into iIBC. Validation will be done in independent datasets. Ultimately, this will aid individual risk stratification of women with primary DCIS. Clin Cancer Res; 24(15); 3593–601. ©2018 AACR.

Supplementary Tables

Supplementary Materials and Methods

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is considered a potential precursor of invasive breast carcinoma (IBC). Studies aiming to find markers involved in DCIS progression generally have compared characteristics of IBC lesions with those of adjacent synchronous DCIS lesions. The question remains whether synchronous DCIS and IBC comparisons are a good surrogate for primary DCIS and subsequent IBC. In this study, we compared both primary DCIS and synchronous DCIS with the associated IBC lesion, on the basis of immunohistochemical marker expression. Immunohistochemical analysis of ER, PR, HER2, p53, and cyclo-oxygenase 2 (COX-2) was performed for 143 primary DCIS and subsequent IBC lesions, including 81 IBC lesions with synchronous DCIS. Agreement between DCIS and IBC was assessed using kappa, and symmetry tests were performed to assess the pattern in marker conversion. The primary DCIS and subsequent IBC more often showed discordant marker expression than synchronous DCIS and IBC. Strikingly, 18 of 49 (36%) women with HER2-positive primary DCIS developed an HER2-negative IBC. Such a difference in HER2 expression was not observed when comparing synchronous DCIS and IBC. The frequency of discordant marker expression did not increase with longer time between primary DCIS and IBC. In conclusion, comparison of primary DCIS and subsequent IBC yields different results than a comparison of synchronous DCIS and IBC, in particular with regard to HER2 status. To gain more insight into the progression of DCIS to IBC, it is essential to focus on the relationship between primary DCIS and subsequent IBC, rather than comparing IBC with synchronous DCIS.

This pilot study explored the value of localized index node removal after neoadjuvant immunotherapy in patients with stage III melanoma, for use as a response indicator to guide the extent of completion lymph node dissection. Promising technology.

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

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

Purpose: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is treated to prevent progression to invasive breast cancer. Yet, most lesions will never progress, implying that overtreatment exists. Therefore, we aimed to identify factors distinguishing harmless from potentially hazardous DCIS using a nested case–control study. Experimental Design: We conducted a case–control study nested in a population-based cohort of patients with DCIS treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) alone (N = 2,658) between 1989 and 2005. We compared clinical, pathologic, and IHC DCIS characteristics of 200 women who subsequently developed ipsilateral invasive breast cancer (iIBC; cases) and 474 women who did not (controls), in a matched setting. Median follow-up time was 12.0 years (interquartile range, 9.0–15.3). Conditional logistic regression models were used to assess associations of various factors with subsequent iIBC risk after primary DCIS. Results: High COX-2 protein expression showed the strongest association with subsequent iIBC [OR = 2.97; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.72–5.10]. In addition, HER2 overexpression (OR = 1.56; 95% CI, 1.05–2.31) and presence of periductal fibrosis (OR = 1.44; 95% CI, 1.01–2.06) were associated with subsequent iIBC risk. Patients with HER2+/COX-2high DCIS had a 4-fold higher risk of subsequent iIBC (vs. HER2−/COX-2low DCIS), and an estimated 22.8% cumulative risk of developing subsequent iIBC at 15 years. Conclusions: With this unbiased study design and representative group of patients with DCIS treated by BCS alone, COX-2, HER2, and periductal fibrosis were revealed as promising markers predicting progression of DCIS into iIBC. Validation will be done in independent datasets. Ultimately, this will aid individual risk stratification of women with primary DCIS. Clin Cancer Res; 24(15); 3593–601. ©2018 AACR.

Background In the multicenter investigator-initiated OpACIN-neo trial, patients (pts) with macroscopic stage III melanoma were randomized (stratified by center) to three different dosing schemes of neoadjuvant ipilimumab (IPI) + nivolumab (NIVO). Two cycles IPI 1 mg/kg + NIVO 3 mg/kg was identified as the most favorable regimen with 20% grade 3-4 adverse events and a pathologic response rate (pRR) of 77%. After a median follow-up of 17.7 months, relapses were observed in 1/64 (2%) of the pts with a pathologic response, and in 13/21 (62%) of the non-responders. Post-hoc analyses according to continent of study inclusion were conducted to investigate potential differences between pts treated in Europe (EU) and in Australia (AUS). Methods We evaluated baseline patient characteristics, safety and efficacy in terms of pathologic response in pts treated in EU (n=48) and AUS (n=38). Mutational (mut) load of baseline biopsies was assessed using whole exome sequencing. Multivariate analyses were performed using the logistic regression method. Median follow-up was 18.2 months for EU pts and 16.6 months for AUS pts. Results Baseline characteristics (AUS vs EU) differed in age (median 60 vs 53 year [yr], p=0.017). There were numerically more male pts in the Australian cohort (65.8 vs 50.0%, p=0.142) and more pts with unknown primary melanoma (36.8 vs 20.8%, p=0.100). A numerical higher pRR was observed in AUS pts vs EU pts (84.2% vs 64.7%, OR 2.50, p=0.092). The pRR was significantly higher for older pts (OR per yr 1.059, p=0.003), males (83.7% vs 63.9%, OR 2.90, p=0.041), and pts with higher mut load (OR per mutation 1.002, p=0.014). Mut load was higher in pts with pathologic response (p=0.0013) and in AUS pts (p=0.0003). There was a positive correlation between age and mut load (R=0.26, p=0.043). Multivariate analysis including continent, age, gender and mut load revealed that only mut load was significantly associated with response (OR 1.002, p=0.037).The frequency of grade 3-5 toxicities was the same in pts 60 yr (42.3% vs 32.4%, p=0.353). Conclusion The numerical higher pRR in AUS vs EU melanoma pts upon neoadjuvant IPI + NIVO appears mostly driven by a higher mut load found in the melanomas of AUS pts. AUS pts were older and there was a positive correlation between age and mut load, indicating that the higher mut load in AUS pts might be explained by higher age. It remains to be elucidated if continental variance in sun exposure also contributed to the difference in mut load. The fact that older pts achieve a higher response rate in absence of increased toxicity rates indicates that older pts should not be withheld neoadjuvant IPI + NIVO. Citation Format: Irene L. Reijers, Elisa A. Rozeman, Alexander M. Menzies, Judith M. Versluis, Bart A. van de Wiel, Karolina Sikorska, Hanna Eriksson, Kerwin Shannon, Carolien Bierman, Harm van Tinteren, Maria Gonzalez, Andrew J. Spillane, Robyn P. Saw, Alexander C. van Akkooi, Richard A. Scolyer, Johan Hansson, Georgina V. Long, Christian U. Blank. Different pathologic response rates between Australia and Europe in macroscopic stage III melanoma patients upon neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab in the phase II OpACIN-neo trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr 3271.

Introduction The outcome of high-risk stage III melanoma patients was poor with a 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of Methods The phase 1b OpACIN trial randomized 20 stage IIIB/IIIC melanoma patients to receive either 4 cycles of adjuvant IPI 3 mg/kg plus NIVO 1 mg/kg or 2 cycles of neoadjuvant IPI plus NIVO at the same dose followed by 2 cycles adjuvant IPI plus NIVO. In the OpACIN-neo trial, 86 patients were randomized to 2 cycles neoadjuvant in arm A: 2x IPI 3 mg/kg plus NIVO 1 mg/kg q3w (n=30), arm B: 2x IPI 1 mg/kg plus NIVO 3 mg/kg q3w (n=30), and arm C: 2x IPI 3 mg/kg q3w followed immediately by 2x NIVO 3 mg/kg q3w (n=26). Pathologic response was defined as Results After a median follow-up of 36 months for the OpACIN and 18 months for the OpACIN-neo trial, only 1 of 71 patients (1.4%) with a pathologic response on neoadjuvant therapy had relapsed, versus 15 of 23 patients (65.2%) without a pathologic response. The estimated 3-year RFS rate for the neoadjuvant arm was 80% (95% CI: 59%-100%) versus 60% (95% CI: 36%-100%) for the adjuvant arm in the OpACIN trial. The median RFS was not reached in any of the arms within the OpACIN-neo trial. Estimated 18-months RFS rate was 85% (95% CI: 78%-93%) for all patients; for arm A 90% (95% CI: 80%-100%), for arm B 82% (95% CI: 70%-98%) and for arm C 83% (95% CI: 70%-100%). Translational analyses showed that tumor mutational burden and interferon-γ gene expression score at baseline, both separate and combined, can function as predictors of response. Conclusions OpACIN showed for the first time a potential benefit of neoadjuvant versus adjuvant immunotherapy, while OpACIN-neo confirmed the high pathologic response rates which can be achieved by neoadjuvant IPI plus NIVO. Both trials argue for pathologic response as a surrogate markers for RFS. Clinical trial information: NCT02437279, NCT02977052 Citation Format: Christian U. Blank, Judith M. Versluis, Elisa A. Rozeman, Alexander M. Menzies, Irene L. Reijers, Oscar Krijgsman, Esmée P. Hoefsmit, Bart A. van de Wiel, Karolina Sikorska, Carolien Bierman, Petros Dimitriadis, Maria Gonzalez, Annegien Broeks, Ron M. Kerkhoven, Andrew J. Spillane, John B. Haanen, Winan J. van Houdt, Robyn P. Saw, Hanna Eriksson, Alexander C. van Akkooi, Richard A. Scolyer, Ton N. Schumacher, Georgina V. Long. 36-months and 18-months relapse-free survival after (neo)adjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab in macroscopic stage III melanoma patients - update of the OpACIN and OpACIN-neo trials [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr 3412.

Background. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a potential precursor of invasive breast cancer, because: DCIS often accompanies invasive breast cancer; its risk factors are similar to those of invasive breast cancer; and genetic markers found in DCIS are similar to the ones found in invasive breast cancer. However, clinical behavior of DCIS is still poorly understood, as there is only limited information on its long-term natural history. Altogether, this makes it difficult to understand the relatedness of DCIS and its subsequent ipsilateral invasive breast cancer (iIBC). Here, we set-up a comparison between primary DCIS and matched subsequent iIBC, by making use of pathological and molecular data. Patients and methods. For this study, we used a unique series of 155 DCIS cases which developed a subsequent iIBC during a median follow up period of 12.6 years. We assessed histological characteristics, tumor location, estrogen and progesterone receptor status, p16 expression, and HER2 and p53 overexpression. RNA sequencing and copy number sequencing was done on 78 DCIS lesions and 78 matched invasive breast cancer relapses. We determined if the iIBC lesion and DCIS lesion were related, with respect to tumor location, immunohistochemical (IHC) markers, and genomic features. Results. Based on tumor location and histological grade, >95% of the subsequent invasive breast cancers reflected outgrowth of residual disease. HER2 was the only IHC marker that showed a significant difference in expression between DCIS and matched iIBC: 40% of the HER2 positive DCIS was followed by a HER2 negative invasive recurrence. In addition, RNAseq data was used to classify DCIS and IBC lesions into PAM50 subtypes. 77% of the DCIS IBC pair belonged to the same subtype. The DCIS lesions showed copy number aberrations on typical breast cancer-associated loci. However, when we compared the DCIS with its matched iIBC, we saw in 41% of the cases very distinct copy number profiles, indicating either outgrow of a different tumor subclone or a second primary. Conclusion. This is the first time that a sound comparison could be made between primary DCIS and its subsequent invasive breast cancer with such a large patient group, integrating pathological and molecular data. Our results strongly suggest that many subsequent iIBCs after treatment of pure DCIS could be considered as second primary breast cancer lesions. To provide definite proof for this, in depth DNA sequencing and heterogeneity studies will be presented at SABCS 2018. Citation Format: Visser LL, Hoogstraat M, Elshof LE, van de Vijver K, Groen EJ, Almekinders MM, Bierman C, Nieboer F, de Maaker M, Kristel P, Mulder L, Schaapveld M, Schmidt MK, Lips E, Wesseling J. Approximately 40% of invasive recurrences after treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ is likely to be a second primary tumor [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD8-09.

Background In stage III melanoma patients, adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) has shown to improve relapse free survival. However, preclinical and translational data suggest that neoadjuvant (neoadj) ICI might be more beneficial due to broader immune activation. In the OpACIN and OpACIN-neo trials with neoadj IPI+NIVO, high pathologic (path) response rates (pRR) were observed (78% and 77%, respectively). Furthermore, neoadj ICI could reduce tumor burden, making surgery less mutilating. In patients presenting with synchronous lymph node (LN) metastases, neoadj ICI might improve surgical resectability of both sites. To date, response of these primary melanoma lesions upon neoadj IPI+NIVO is not reported. Methods Here we report on four stage III melanoma patients with melanoma at the primary site and synchronous LN metastases that were treated with neoadj IP+NIVO. Results Four stage III melanoma patients were identified. In the OpACIN-neo trial, one patient treated with 2 courses IPI 1 mg/kg + NIVO 3 mg/kg showed a path partial response (33% viable tumor cells) in the in-scar recurrence and a complete response (CR) in the LN metastasis, and one patient treated with 2 courses IPI 3 mg/kg followed by 2 courses NIVO 3 mg/kg showed no pathological response in both the in-scar recurrence (60% viable tumor cells) and LN metastasis (59% vital tumor). In the PRADO extension cohort, one patient treated with 2 courses IPI 1 mg/kg + NIVO 3 mg/kg demonstrated a path CR in both the axillar LN metastases and the primary melanoma on digit 4 of his right hand, preventing finger amputation. The results of another PRADO patient with a large primary on the shoulder and axillar LN metastases are pending (expected June 2019). Conclusions Neoadjuvant IPI+NIVO induces comparable responses in LN metastases and at the primary melanoma location. In the light of the high LN response upon neoadj IPI+NIVO, postponing the resection of the primary or recurrent melanoma should be considered, improving surgical resectability and reducing morbidity. Clinical trial identification NCT02977052. Legal entity responsible for the study Netherlands Cancer Institute. Funding BMS. Disclosure E.A. Rozeman: Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: MSD; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: NanoString. A.C.J. van Akkooi: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Amgen; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD Merck; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck-Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: 4SC. G.V. Long: Advisory / Consultancy: Aduro; Advisory / Consultancy: Amgen; Advisory / Consultancy: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Mass-Array; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche. C.U. Blank: Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (self): BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: GSK; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (self): Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: GenMab; Advisory / Consultancy: Lilly; Research grant / Funding (self): NanoString; Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

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

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

9593 Background: With the approval of adjuvant therapy for stage III melanoma, accurate staging in melanoma patients is important more than ever to prevent over- or undertreatment. Sentinel node biopsy (SNB) is an accurate staging tool, yet the presence of capsular nevi (CN) can lead to a false positive diagnosis. We compared positive SNB and CN patient outcomes and aimed to evaluate the cause of false positive SNB and discern diagnostic pitfalls in their evaluation. Methods: Retrospective analysis of AJCC 7th Edition stage IIIA melanoma patients (N1-2a, non-ulcerated primary tumor) who were treated at our institute between 2000 and 2015. SNB slides were reviewed for this study by an expert melanoma pathologist. Baseline characteristics were assessed for SN+ and CN+ patients. Concordance rates for SNB evaluation before and after revision were documented and diagnostic pitfalls were discerned. Results: 169 patients were diagnosed, 10 could not be reviewed due to lack of evaluable slides. Of these 159 cases, 14 patients originally diagnosed with metastatic melanoma were shown to have capsular nevi (8.8%). Another 2 patients were shown to have melanophages that were incorrectly interpreted as metastases (1.3%). Thus, 10.1% was considered false positive after revision. In 14 patients the SN tumor burden was originally reported > 1 mm, but turned out to have < 1 mm SN tumor burden. 4 patients originally reported as SN tumor burden < 1 mm before revision turned out to have > 1 mm SN tumor burden. These 32 patients (20%) might have potentially been over- or undertreated in the current era of adjuvant therapy for stage III melanoma. Conclusions: False positive sentinel node results in melanoma are real, they can occur for a number of reasons, but distinguishing metastatic melanoma from benign capsular nevi and melanophages can be a diagnostic challenge. We plead for an expert pathologists’ review in any case, but certainly when using the SNB+ results to determine treatment consequences for SN+ melanoma patients.