Search

Alexander M Menzies,1 Georgina V Long,1,2 Rajmohan Murali3,41Melanoma Institute Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; 2Westmead Institute for Cancer Research and Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre Westmead, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; 3Department of Pathology; 4Human Oncology and Pathogensis Program, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USAAbstract: The purpose of this study is to review the development of BRAF inhibitors, with emphasis on the trials conducted with dabrafenib (GSK2118436) and the evolving role of dabrafenib in treatment for melanoma patients. Fifty percent of cutaneous melanomas have mutations in BRAF, resulting in elevated activity of the mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling pathway. Dabrafenib inhibits the mutant BRAF (BRAFmut) protein in melanomas with BRAFV600E and BRAFV600K genotypes. BRAFV600E metastatic melanoma patients who receive dabrafenib treatment exhibit high clinical response rates and compared with dacarbazine chemotherapy, progression-free survival. Efficacy has also been demonstrated in BRAFV600K patients and in those with brain metastases. Dabrafenib has a generally mild and manageable toxicity profile. Cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas and pyrexia are the most significant adverse effects. Dabrafenib appears similar to vemurafenib with regard to efficacy but it is associated with less toxicity. It is expected that new combinations of targeted drugs, such as the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib (GSK1120212, a MEK inhibitor), will provide higher response rates and more durable clinical benefit than dabrafenib monotherapy.Keywords: BRAF mutation, BRAF inhibitor, clinical trial, GSK1120212, GSK2118436, vemurafenib

BackgroundPrevious analysis of COMBI-d (NCT01584648) demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with combination dabrafenib and trametinib versus dabrafenib monotherapy in BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. This study was continued to assess 3-year landmark efficacy and safety after ≥36-month follow-up for all living patients.Patients and methodsThis double-blind, phase 3 study enrolled previously untreated patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma. Patients were randomized to receive dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) plus trametinib (2 mg once daily) or dabrafenib plus placebo. The primary endpoint was PFS; secondary endpoints were OS, overall response, duration of response, safety, and pharmacokinetics.ResultsBetween 4 May and 30 November 2012, a total of 423 of 947 screened patients were randomly assigned to receive dabrafenib plus trametinib (n = 211) or dabrafenib monotherapy (n = 212). At data cut-off (15 February 2016), outcomes remained superior with the combination: 3-year PFS was 22% with dabrafenib plus trametinib versus 12% with monotherapy, and 3-year OS was 44% versus 32%, respectively. Twenty-five patients receiving monotherapy crossed over to combination therapy, with continued follow-up under the monotherapy arm (per intent-to-treat principle). Of combination-arm patients alive at 3 years, 58% remained on dabrafenib plus trametinib. Three-year OS with the combination reached 62% in the most favourable subgroup (normal lactate dehydrogenase and

Background/Objectives: In melanoma management, sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is used to stage patients and to indicate prognosis. More recently, it has been used to select patients for adjuvant therapy. This study aimed to report knowledge of and attitudes towards SLNB for patients with melanoma among Australian dermatologists. Methods: Mixed methods study using cross‐sectional questionnaires (n = 88) and semi‐structured interviews (n = 13), May–September 2019. Results: Of the dermatologists surveyed, 56% thought SLNB had an important role in melanoma management, 26% were unsure and 18% thought SLNB unimportant. Of the 92% who would discuss SLNB with their patients, the main stated value of SLNB was for assessing eligibility for adjuvant therapies (79%); only 60% indicated SLNB was of value for providing prognostic information, and just over half (53%) thought it could improve staging. Interview data indicated that attitudes towards SLNB are shifting among dermatologists, driven by data from landmark clinical trials and the influence of professional networks. Accordingly, interviewees adopted one of three positions in relation to SLNB: (a) believed in utility of SLNB and adhered to the guidelines; (b) were unconvinced about utility of SLNB but adhered to the guidelines; and (c) were unconvinced about utility of SLNB and did not adhere to the guidelines. Conclusion: Although most of the dermatologists surveyed were familiar with and follow the SLNB recommendations, some disagreement with and distrust of the recommendations was evident. Greater acceptance of the SLNB recommendations appeared to be driven by the improved outcomes demonstrated in stage III patients receiving adjuvant systemic therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Keywords: Melanoma; Surgical oncology EN Melanoma Surgical oncology 208 209 2 08/17/22 20220815 NES 220815 Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is a staging procedure for assessing metastatic spread from a primary melanoma to the draining lymph nodes. During 2018 and 2019, 892 of 1855 people diagnosed with invasive melanomas of greater than 1.0 mm thickness (48%) and 151 of 597 with melanomas of 0.8-1.0 mm thickness (25%) underwent SLNB. [Extracted from the article]

Purpose: Nivolumab plus relatlimab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab have been approved for advanced melanoma on the basis of the phase II/III RELATIVITY-047 and phase III CheckMate 067 trials, respectively. As no head-to-head trial comparing these regimens exists, an indirect treatment comparison was conducted using patient-level data from each trial., Methods: Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) adjusted for baseline characteristic differences. Minimum follow-ups (RELATIVITY-047, 33 months; CheckMate 067, 36 months) were selected to best align assessments. Outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), confirmed objective response rate (cORR), and melanoma-specific survival (MSS) per investigator; overall survival (OS); and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). A Cox regression model compared PFS, OS, and MSS. A logistic regression model compared cORRs. Subgroup analyses were exploratory., Results: After IPTW, key baseline characteristics were balanced for nivolumab plus relatlimab (n = 339) and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 297). Nivolumab plus relatlimab demonstrated similar PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08 [95% CI, 0.88 to 1.33]), cORR (odds ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.14]), OS (HR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.75 to 1.19]), and MSS (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.67 to 1.12]) to nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Subgroup comparisons showed larger numerical differences favoring nivolumab plus ipilimumab with acral melanoma, BRAF -mutant melanoma, and lactate dehydrogenase >2 × upper limit of normal, but were limited by small samples. Nivolumab plus relatlimab was associated with fewer grade 3-4 TRAEs (23% v 61%) and any-grade TRAEs leading to discontinuation (17% v 41%)., Conclusion: Nivolumab plus relatlimab demonstrated similar efficacy to nivolumab plus ipilimumab in the overall population, including most-but not all-subgroups, and improved safety in patients with untreated advanced melanoma. Results should be interpreted with caution.

Background: In BRAF-mutated high-risk melanoma, targeted therapy (BRAF/MEK inhibitors) and checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) immunotherapy have durable benefits as first-line (1L) adjuvant therapy. Based on differing action mechanisms of BRAF/MEK inhibitors and CPI immunotherapies, there is interest in evaluating the activity of 2L adjuvant targeted therapy in decreasing the risk of subsequent recurrence after repeat resection following relapse on/after 1L adjuvant CPI., Patients and Methods: This was a retrospective review of BRAF V600-mutated resected stage III/IV melanoma patients in the United States, Australia, and The Netherlands who received 1L adjuvant CPI immunotherapy, relapsed locoregionally/distantly, were again resected to no evidence of disease, and received dabrafenib/trametinib (dab/tram) as 2L adjuvant therapy. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival (RFS) from initiation of 2L adjuvant dab/tram (RFS-2), analyzed via Kaplan-Meier methods., Results: Thirty-eight patients were included (median age 50 years, 63% male, 87% stage III, median follow-up 19 months from 2L dab/tram initiation). Median dab/tram duration was 10.1 months (range: 1 day-22.7 months), with half discontinuing due to progression or adverse events. Median (95% CI) RFS-2 was 18.9 (14.9-28.1) months, with 91%, 81%, and 58% remaining relapse-free at 6, 12, and 18 months, respectively. Most patients remained distant metastasis-free at 6, 12, and 18 months (97%, 85%, and 71%, respectively). Two patients were deceased at the last follow-up, with 97% alive at 18 months., Conclusions: Over 80% of patients remained relapse- and metastasis-free at 12 months after 2L dab/tram initiation, with only 2 deaths observed. Dab/tram appears to have activity in the 2L adjuvant setting, although more follow-up is required., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Isolated limb infusion and perfusion (ILI/ILP) has been a mainstay treatment for unresectable melanoma in-transit metastases (ITM), but increased use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and intralesional therapy (talimogene laherparepvec [TVEC]) introduced several different management options. This study compares first-line ILI/ILP, ICI, and TVEC., Methods: Retrospective review from 12 international institutions included patients treated from 1990 to 2022 with first-line ILI/ILP, ICI, or TVEC for unresectable melanoma ITM., Results: A total of 551 patients were treated, with ILI/ILP (n = 356), ICI (n = 125), and TVEC (n = 70) with median follow-up of 5.5 years. Tumor burden was highest with ILI/ILP and lowest with TVEC (p = .002). Breslow thickness was lowest with TVEC (p = .007). TVEC was mostly used in stage IIIB disease versus IIIC for ILI/ILP and ICI (p = .01). Using ICI as the reference category, TVEC had the highest odds of a complete response (CR) (odds ratio, 1.96; p = .029) and a longer local progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.40; p = .003). ILI/ILP had shorter local PFS (HR, 1.72; p = .012), PFS (HR, 1.79; p < .001), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) (HR, 1.75; p = .014), overall survival (HR, 1.82; p = .009), and melanoma-specific survival (HR, 2.29; p = .004). Stage IIIB disease had longer DMFS (HR, 0.24; p < .001) compared to IIIC/D., Conclusions: TVEC as first-line therapy for unresectable melanoma ITM was associated with superior CR rates and local PFS. Notably, TVEC was used in patients with a lower Breslow thickness, disease stage, and tumor burden. Therefore, when compared to ILI/ILP and ICI, TVEC should be considered as first-line therapy for unresectable stage IIIB melanoma ITM with minimal tumor burden and lower Breslow thickness., (© 2024 American Cancer Society.)

Background: The 5-year results of this trial showed that adjuvant therapy with dabrafenib plus trametinib resulted in longer relapse-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival than placebo among patients with BRAF V600-mutated stage III melanoma. Longer-term data were needed, including data regarding overall survival., Methods: We randomly assigned 870 patients with resected stage III melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations to receive 12 months of dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) plus trametinib (2 mg once daily) or two matched placebos. Here, we report the final results of this trial, including results for overall survival, melanoma-specific survival, relapse-free survival, and distant metastasis-free survival., Results: The median duration of follow-up was 8.33 years for dabrafenib plus trametinib and 6.87 years for placebo. Kaplan-Meier estimates for overall survival favored dabrafenib plus trametinib over placebo, although the benefit was not significant (hazard ratio for death, 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 to 1.01; P = 0.06 by stratified log-rank test). A consistent survival benefit was seen across several prespecified subgroups, including the 792 patients with melanoma with a BRAF V600E mutation (hazard ratio for death, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.96). Relapse-free survival favored dabrafenib plus trametinib over placebo (hazard ratio for relapse or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.63), as did distant metastasis-free survival (hazard ratio for distant metastasis or death, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.71). No new safety signals were reported, a finding consistent with previous trial reports., Conclusions: After nearly 10 years of follow-up, adjuvant therapy with dabrafenib plus trametinib was associated with better relapse-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival than placebo among patients with resected stage III melanoma. The analysis of overall survival showed that the risk of death was 20% lower with combination therapy than with placebo, but the benefit was not significant. Among patients with melanoma with a BRAF V600E mutation, the results suggest that the risk of death was 25% lower with combination therapy. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; COMBI-AD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01682083; EudraCT number, 2012-001266-15.)., (Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

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

Purpose: Nivolumab (NIVO) + ipilimumab (IPI) combination and NIVO monotherapy have demonstrated durable clinical benefit in patients with unresectable/metastatic melanoma. This analysis describes long-term overall survival (OS) with the combination or monotherapy pooled across all major company-sponsored trials, as well as clinical factors associated with survival, in patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment-naïve unresectable/metastatic melanoma., Methods: Data were pooled from six CheckMate studies in ICI treatment-naïve patients receiving NIVO + IPI (NIVO 1 mg/kg + IPI 3 mg/kg or NIVO 3 mg/kg + IPI 1 mg/kg) or NIVO monotherapy (3 mg/kg). OS was assessed for each treatment, as well as in select subgroups. Cox proportional multivariate analysis (MVA) and classification and regression tree (CART) analyses were performed within treatment arms., Results: Median follow-up for OS was 45.0 months for patients treated with NIVO + IPI (n = 839) and 35.8 months for patients treated with NIVO (n = 536). OS was longer with NIVO + IPI versus NIVO monotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.67 to 0.91]), with 6-year OS rates of 52% versus 41%, respectively. Consistent benefit was observed in BRAF -mutant and BRAF -wild-type patients and those with normal and elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). Numerical difference in OS was also observed across PD-L1 expression levels, although more pronounced with no/low PD-L1 expression. Clinical factors associated with decreased survival in both the MVA and CART analyses were LDH > upper limit of normal with either treatment, age ≥65 years with NIVO + IPI, and the presence of liver metastases with NIVO monotherapy., Conclusion: In this large, pooled nonrandomized retrospective analysis, we observed that NIVO + IPI provides longer OS than NIVO in patients with ICI treatment-naïve advanced melanoma and identifies clinical factors that appear to be associated with survival for each treatment, which may assist with treatment decision making.

Introduction: Approximately 50 % of resected stage II-IV melanoma patients develop recurrent disease by 5 years despite adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy. Data to define best management of recurrences is lacking., Methods: This was a multicentre, international, retrospective cohort study. Patients with resected stage II-IV melanoma who commenced adjuvant anti-PD-1-based therapy before January 2022 and later recurred were identified. Data on demographics, disease characteristics, recurrence patterns, management and outcomes were collected., Results: 711 patients from 17 sites were included. Median age was 60 [range 16-92], 64 % were male, 2 % stage II, 91 % were stage III, 7 % stage IV. Median time to recurrence was 6.2 months (0-68.5) and median follow up time from recurrence was 19.8 months (range 0.2-73.1). 63 % recurred on anti-PD-1 therapy, 36 % off therapy [3 % < 6 months, 33 % > 6 months]. Initial recurrences were locoregional (LR) alone in 44 %, distant alone (DR) in 43 %, and 11 % in both sites. LR recurrences were managed with local therapy, alone (62 %) or with "second adjuvant" anti-PD-1 (14 %) or BRAF/MEK therapy (23 %); 12 m RFS2 was 25 %, 29 % and 69 % respectively (p = 0.0045). Definitive systemic therapy at first recurrence was given in 16 % LR and 86 % DR, with best outcomes for anti-CTLA4 + anti-PD-1 and trial combinations (24 m PFS 63 % and 69 %, respectively). The 24 m OS for the entire cohort was 65 %., Conclusion: Most recurrences following adjuvant anti-PD-1 based therapy occur early and while still on drug. Outcomes are poor, regardless of site, timing of recurrence, and subsequent treatment., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: AMM has served on advisory boards for BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pierre-Fabre, and Qbiotics. JK has received research funding from LEO Pharma, honorium from BMS, Amgen, Janssen; and educational funding from MSD, Janssen and Astra Zeneca. RRT has served on advisory boards for BMS, MSD, Amgen, Pierre-Fabre, Astra Zeneca and Roche. CL has received research funding from BMS, Roche, consulting fees from BMS, Pierre-Fabre, Sanofi, Novartis, MSD, Amgen, Merck Serono, Roche and Iflax; speaking fees from Amgen, BMS, Pierre-Fabre, Sanofi, Novartis, MSD, Incyte, Pfizer, Roche; and travel funding from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Roche, Sanofi and served on advisory boards for BMS, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Novartis, MSD, Magen, Merck Serono, Roche and Inflax. CA has received travel funding from BMS, Roche and Amgen and speaking fees from Novartis. RJS has served on advisory boards for Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Replimune and receives grant funding from Merck. CR has served on advisory boards for Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Merck, Roche, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, Ultimovacs, Regeneron, Egle, Philogen, Maat Pharma; involved in steering committees for Novartis, Regeneron, Pfizer and IO Biotech and a consultant IDMC for Ultimovacs; received speaking fees from Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, BMS, MSD and Novartis and travel funding from Pierre Fabre. JM has intermittent project focused consultant or advisory relationships with Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, and Pierre Fabre and has received travel support from L′ Oreal, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers and Squibb and Pierre Fabre outside of the submitted work. 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. DBJ has served on advisory boards or as a consultant for AstraZeneca, BMS, The Jackson Laboratory, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Mosaic ImmunoEngineering, Novartis, Pfizer, Targovax, and Teiko, and has received research funding from BMS and Incyte. BN has received financial compensation from Novartis, Roche, BMS, MSD, and Pierre-Fabre for service on advisory boards and speaking engagements; and institutional research funding from Pfizer, Novartis, Roche and Merck-Serono. VR has received honoraria from AstraZeneca and has received travel and education funding from MSD and Novartis. PAA has served as a consultant for BMS, MSD, Roche-Genentech, Ventana, Novartis, Amgen and Array and received research funding from BMS, Roche-Genentech and Ventana. JW has served as a consultant for Merck, Genentech, AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis, Nektar, Celldex, Incyte, Biond, Moderna, ImCheck, Sellas, Evaxion, Pfizer, Regeneron, EMD Serono, and Bristol Myers Squibb; has had equity roles in Biond, Evaxion, OncoC4, and Instill Bio; received institutional research support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, GSK, Moderna, Pfizer, Novartis, and AstraZeneca; served in scientific advisory roles with CytomX, Incyte, ImCheck, Biond, Sellas, Instill Bio, OncoC4, and NexImmune; and holds patent agreements with Moffitt Cancer Center and Biodesix. PR has received honoraria from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Merck and Sanofi; and served in an advisory capacity for MSD, BMS, Sanofi, Pierre-Fabre, Blueprint Medicines and Philogen. GAM has received institutional research funding through Roche-Genentech, MSD, Roche, and BMS and other funding through Novartis and BMS. SH has served as a consultant for Amgen, Genmab, Xencor, Astellas Pharma, Regeneron, and Nektar. AA has served as a consultant for BMS, Roche, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, MSD, Merck, Sanofi; received speaking fees from Pierre Fabre, Novartis, MSD, BMS, Roche, Merck, Sanofi; institutional funding from Pierre-Fabre, Novartis, Roche, BMS, MSD, Merck and Sanofi; and travel funding from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre. AH has served on an advisory board for BMS, MSD and Novartis. RD has received honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Amgen, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, CatalYm, Second Genome, Regeneron, Alligator Bioscience, MaxiVax, touchIME, T3 Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer; served as a consultant for Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Amgen, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, CatalYm, Second Genome, Alligator Bioscience, touchIME, MaxiVax, Regeneron, Pfizer, T3 Pharmaceuticals and received institutional research funding from Roche, BMS, Novartis, MSD and Amgen. CUB has served as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GenMab, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche/Genentech, and Third Rock Ventures; received institutional research funding from SC, Bristol-Myers Squibb, NanoString Technologies, and Novartis; provided expert testimony for Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; received travel funding from BMS; and has ownership interest in Immagene and Signature Oncology. GVL has received honoraria from BMS, Pierre-Fabre and received served as a consultant for Agenus, Amgen, Array BioPharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Evaxion Biotech, Hexal AG (Sandoz Company), Highlight Therapeutics, Innovent Biologics USA Inc, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, OncoSec Medical Australia, PHMR Limited, Pierre Fabre, Provectus, QBiotics, Regeneron, and AstraZeneca. The remaining authors have nothing to declare., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In the previously reported primary analyses of this phase 3 trial, 12 months of adjuvant pembrolizumab resulted in significantly longer recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) than placebo in patients with resected high risk stage III melanoma. Stability of these benefits when the median follow-up was 3.5 and 5 years was published. Here we report results with a longer follow-up., Methods: We randomized 1019 patients to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo, intravenously every 3 weeks for a total of 18 doses. RFS in the overall population and in the subgroup of patients with melanoma positive for the PD-1 ligand (PD-L1) were co-primary endpoints. DMFS in these two populations was a secondary and progression/recurrence-free survival 2 (PRFS2) an exploratory endpoint., Results: The median follow-up was 6.9 years. In the overall intention-to-treat population, RFS was longer in the pembrolizumab group than in the placebo group (HR 0.63, 95 % CI 0.53 to 0.74). RFS at 7 years was 50 % (95 % CI 46 % to 55 %) in the pembrolizumab and 36 % (95 % CI 32 % to 41 %) in the placebo group. Positive effects were present both for loco-regional recurrences and distant metastases, and across substages IIIA-IIIB-IIIC, and PD-L1 positive and PD-L1 negative as well as for BRAF mutant and BRAF wild type populations. DMFS was longer in the pembrolizumab group than in the placebo group (HR 0.64, 95 % CI 0.54 to 0.76). DMFS at 7 years was 54 % (95 % CI 50 % to 59 %) in the pembrolizumab and 42 % (95 % CI 37 % to 46 %) in the placebo group. PRFS2 was longer in the pembrolizumab group than in the placebo group (HR 0.69, 95 % CI 0.57 to 0.84). PRFS2 at 7 years was 61 % (95 % CI 57 % to 66 %) in the pembrolizumab and 53 % (95 % CI 49 % to 57 %) in the placebo group., Conclusions: The 7-year analysis of adjuvant therapy with pembrolizumab demonstrated a sustained improvement in the long-term RFS, DMFS and PRFS2 compared with placebo in patients with resected stage III melanoma., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Alexander MM Eggermont is an Editor-in-Chief for European Journal of Cancer and was not involved in the editorial review or the decision to publish this article. Susana Puig is an Editor for European Journal of Cancer Skin Cancer and was not involved in the editorial review or the decision to publish this article. Dirk Schadendorf is an Editor-in-Chief European Journal of Cancer Skin Cancer and was not involved in the editorial review or the decision to publish this article. The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Alexander C.J. van Akkooi: advisory board/consultancy honoraria from 4SC AG, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono-Pfizer, MSD-Merck, Neracare, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sirius Medical, SkylineDX; research grants from Amgen, Merck Serono-Pfizer, SkylineDX. Paolo A. Ascierto: a consultant/advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Merck Serono, Pierre-Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Sandoz, Immunocore, Italfarmaco, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Regeneron, Pfizer, Nouscom, Lunaphore, Medicenna, Bio-Al Health, ValoTX, Replimmune, Bayer, Erasca, Philogen, Biontech, Anaveon; research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Pfizer, Sanofi; travel support by Pfizer, Bio-Al Health, Replimmune, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Philogen. Victoria Atkinson: advisory board for and speeches fees from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Immunocore; travel support by Pierre Fabre. Christian U Blank: advisory role for BMS, MSD, Roche, Novartis, GSK, AZ, Pfizer, Lilly, GenMab, Pierre Fabre, Third Rock Ventures, Sandoz; research funding from BMS, Novartis, NanoString, 4SC; stock ownership of Flindr Therapeutics, Signature Oncology. Matteo Carlino: advisory boards or a consultant for Amgen, BMS, Eisai, Ideaya, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Oncosec, Pierre-Fabre, Qbiotics, Regeneron, Roche, Merck, and Sanofi; honoraria from BMS, MSD, and Novartis. Stéphane Dalle: research grants to institution from MSD, BMS, Pierre Fabre; advisory board paid to institution by MSD and BMS; spouse employment Sanofi. Alexander MM Eggermont: honoraria for scientific advisory board or data monitoring committee activities from Agenus, Bioinvent, BioNTech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Brenus, CatalYm, Eurobio, GenOway, Imcheck, IO Biotech, Ipsen, IQVIA, ISA Pharmaceuticals, Merck KGA, Merck&Co/MSD, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, QBiotics, Regeneron, Replimune, Sairopa BV, ScanCell, Scorpion Pharmaceuticals, Secarna, Sellas, SkylineDX BV, TigaTX, Thermosome, Trained Immunotherapeutics Discovery. Stock: IO Biotech, Sairopa BV, SkylineDX. Anna Maria Di Giacomo: advisor/board member for Merck, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Incyte, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, SunPharma, Immunocore; honoraria from Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, GlaxoSmithKline, SunPharma. Immunocore. Dmitri Grebennik: employee of Merck & Co. Jean-Jacques Grob: advisory boards for Novartis, BMS, MSD, Philogen, Pierre Fabr, Sanofi, Roche, Amgen. Ralf Gutzmer: honoraria for lectures and advice from BristolMyers Squibb, MerckSharpDohme, Novartis, Merck-Serono, Amgen, Almirall Hermal, Pierre-Fabre, Sun Pharma, Immunocore, 4SC, Delcath, Sanofi/Regeneron; support for participation in meetings from SUN Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim and PierreFabre; research support (to institution) from Sanofi/Regeneron, Merck Serono, Amgen, SUN Pharma, KyowaKirin, Almirall Hermal, Recordati. Andrew Haydon: advisory board member for BMS, MSD and Novartis. Rahima Jamal: honoraria for presentation and advisory board with Merck. PI in Merck-sponsored trials. Adnan Khattak: speaker honoraria, advisory board, and travel sponsorship from MSD. Michal Kicinski: research funding from MSD, BMS, Pierre Fabre, Immunocore, and JnJ. Clemens Kreplere: employee and shareholder of Merck & Co. James Larkin: relationships with the following companies: iOnctura, Apple Tree, Merck, BMS, MSD, Telix, Novartis, Philogen, Pfizer, Incyte, Eisai, Debipharm, GCO, TouchIME, Immatics, Insighter, Agence Unik, VJOncology, Royal College of General Practioners, Cambridge Healthcare Research, Royal College of Physicians, TouchExperts. Georgina V Long: consultant advisor for Agenus, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BioNTech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Evaxion, GI Innovation, Hexal AG (Sandoz Company), Highlight Therapeutics S.L., IOBiotech, Immunocore, Innovent Biologics USA, MSD, Novartis, PHMR Ltd, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Scancell, SkylineDX B.V. Paul Lorigan: support for travel from MSD; research funding from Pierre Fabre and BMS; speakers bureau/consultancy for BMS and Pierre Fabre. Mario Mandala: advisory board and lectures for: MSD, BMS, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sun Pharma; research grant from Novartis. Susana Puig: speaker for Almirall, BMS, Cantabria, ISDIN, La Roche Posay, Leo Pharma, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sunpharma; advisory board of Almirall, BMS, ISDIN, La Roche Posay, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Sun Pharma; involvement in research and trials of Abbvie, Almirall, Amgen, BMS, Biofrontera, Canfield, Cantabria, Fotofinder, GSK, ISDIN, La Roche Posay, Leo Pharma, MSD, MEDA, Novartis, Polychem, Roche, Sun Pharma; husband has relationship with Almirall, Amgen, BMS, Biofrontera, Canfield, Cantabria, Fotofinder, GSK, ISDIN, La Roche Posay, Leo, Mavig, Nevisence, Novartis, Polychem, Roche, Sun Pharma. Educational activities for Abbie, Lilly, and ISD; ownership of Athena Tech & Dermavision Solutions. Caroline Robert: consultant/advisory board of Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, BMS, MSD, Novaris, Merck, Roche, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, Ultimovacs, Regeneron, Egle, Philogen, Maat Pharma; consultant steering committee for Novartis, Regeneron, Pfizer, IO Biotech; consultant IDMC for Ultimovacs; speaker for Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, BMS, MSD, Novaris; travel by Pierre Fabre. Piotr Rutkowski: honoraria for lectures and advisory boards from MSD, BMS, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Genesis Pharma, Medison Pharma. Shahneen Sandhu: research funding from Novartis/AAA, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Amgen, Genentech, Senwha, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Healthcare and Pfizer; participation on advisory boards for Merck Sharp and Dohme, AstraZeneca, Novartis, SkylineDx and Abbvie (fees for attending go to research funds at the institution); honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Janssen (all paid to the institution); chair of DSMB for 2 Novartis/AAA sponsored Phase III trials (no fee accepted for chair role). Dirk Schadendorf: a member of the advisory board, consultant or received speakers´ honoraria from: Astra Zeneca, BMS, CureVac, Daiichi Sankyo, Erasca, Haystack, Immatics, Immunocore, InFlarX, Lapcorp, Merck-Serono, MSD, Neracare, Novartis, Novogenix, PamGene, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Regeneron, Replimune, Sanofi, Seagen, Sun Pharma, UltraVacs; research funding from BMS, Roche, MSD, Amgen & Novartis. Stefan Suciu: DSMB member of the NADINA study. Alfonsus JM van den Eertwegh: study grant from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Idera; travel expenses by Ipsen; advisory board of Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology, Ipsen, Pierre Fabre, Janssen Cilag BV. The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Data on the efficacy and safety of anti PD-1 antibodies in children and adolescents (CA) with melanoma are lacking. The aim of this study was to determine outcomes of CA melanoma patients receiving anti PD-1 antibodies., Methods: Melanoma patients ≤18 years treated with anti PD-1 were retrospectively retrieved from 15 academic centers. Information on histopathological diagnosis, surgical treatment, systemic therapy, objective response rate (ORR), safety profile was collected. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed by Kaplan-Meier method., Results: Between April 2016 and March 2024, 99 patients treated with systemic therapy were retrieved, 81 treated with anti PD-1 therapy. Median age was 14 years (range 2-18 years), 37 pts were ≤12 yrs. Overall, 38 CA patients received anti PD-1 in adjuvant setting, and the 3-year PFS and OS were 70.6 % and 81.1 %, respectively. Two patients received anti-PD-1 based neoadjuvant treatment, both had a pathologic complete response and remain disease free. Fifty-six received a systemic therapy for advanced disease and among them, 43 received anti PD-1-based therapy for advanced disease in 1st line, while 12 and 5 pts received a 2nd and 3rd line, respectively. Among patients receiving a 1st line therapy with anti PD-1 monotherapy the ORR was 25 %, and the 3-year OS was 34 %. Toxicities were consistent with previous studies in adult melanoma patients., Conclusions: Our study provides the first evidence of efficacy of anti PD-1 in CA melanoma patients and supports the use of anti PD-1 therapy in pts ≤18 years, included those <12 years., 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 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: In phase III CheckMate 238, adjuvant nivolumab significantly improved recurrence-free survival compared with ipilimumab in patients with resected stage IIIB-C/IV melanoma without a significant difference in overall survival (OS). Here, we investigate progression-free survival (PFS) and OS after postrecurrence systemic therapy., Patients and Methods: Patients 15 years or older with resected stage IIIB-C/IV melanoma were stratified by stage and tumor PD-L1 status and randomly assigned to receive nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or ipilimumab 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses and then every 12 weeks for 1 year or until disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Patients with recurrence in each group were assessed for PFS and OS from subsequent systemic therapy (SST) initiation per recurrence timing (≤12 months [early] v >12 months [late] from initial therapy)., Results: Recurrences occurred in 198 (44%) of 453 nivolumab-treated patients (122 early, 76 late) and 232 (51%) of 453 ipilimumab-treated patients (160 early, 72 late). Median PFS on next-line systemic therapy for nivolumab-treated patients recurring early versus late was 4.7 versus 12.4 months (24-month rates, 16% v 31%); median OS was 19.8 versus 42.8 months (24-month rates: 37% v 73%). In response to subsequent therapy, patients on nivolumab with late versus early recurrence were more likely to benefit from anti-PD-1 monotherapy. Nivolumab-treated patients with either an early or late recurrence benefitted from an ipilimumab-based therapy or targeted therapy, each with similar OS., Conclusion: Postrecurrence survival was longer for patients who recurred >12 months. Patients on nivolumab who recurred early benefitted from SST but had better survival with ipilimumab-based regimens or targeted therapy compared with anti-PD-1 monotherapy.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have transformed cancer treatment, providing significant benefit to patients across various tumour types, including melanoma. However, around 40% of melanoma patients do not benefit from ICI treatment, and accurately predicting ICI response remains challenging. We now describe a novel and simple approach that integrates immune-associated transcriptome signatures and tumour volume burden to better predict ICI response in melanoma patients. RNA sequencing was performed on pre-treatment (PRE) tumour specimens derived from 32 patients with advanced melanoma treated with combination PD1 and CTLA4 inhibitors. Of these 32 patients, 11 also had early during treatment (EDT, 5-15 days after treatment start) tumour samples. Tumour volume was assessed at PRE for all 32 patients, and at first computed tomography (CT) imaging for the 11 patients with EDT samples. Analysis of the Hallmark IFNγ gene set revealed no association with ICI response at PRE (AUC ROC curve = 0.6404, p = 0.24, 63% sensitivity, 71% specificity). When IFNg activity was evaluated with tumour volume (ratio of gene set expression to tumour volume) using logistic regression to predict ICI response, we observed high discriminative power in separating ICI responders from non-responders (AUC = 0.7760, p = 0.02, 88% sensitivity, 67% specificity); this approach was reproduced with other immune-associated transcriptomic gene sets. These findings were further replicated in an independent cohort of 23 melanoma patients treated with PD1 inhibitor. Hence, integrating tumour volume with immune-associated transcriptomic signatures improves the prediction of ICI response, and suggest that higher levels of immune activation relative to tumour burden are required for durable ICI response., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Immunotherapies targeting the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) checkpoint receptors have revolutionised the treatment of metastatic melanoma. However, half of treated patients do not respond to or eventually progress on standard therapies and many experience adverse events as a result of drug toxicity. The identification of accurate biomarkers of clinical outcomes are required in order to move away from the one-size-fits-all treatment approach of standard clinical practice, and towards a more personalised approach to enable the administration of the optimal therapy for any given patient and further improve patient outcomes. Recent clinical trials have proven the potential of multi-omics analyses, including genomic, gene expression, and tumour immune profiling, of patients' tumour biopsies, to predict a patient's response to subsequently administered immunotherapies. However, reproducibility of such multi-omics analyses, tissue requirements, and clinical validation have limited the practical application of these approaches in routine clinical workflows. In this review, we discuss several pivotal tissue-based profiling techniques that can be utilised to identify potential genomic, transcriptomic and immune biomarkers predictive of clinical outcomes following treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors in melanoma. Furthermore, we highlight the key opportunities and challenges associated with the use of each of these techniques. The development and implementation of multimodal predictive models which combine data derived from these various methods is the future for achieving precision medicine for patients with melanoma.

Background: Tumoral melanosis (TM) is a histological term to describe a nodular aggregation of macrophages containing melanin pigment (melanophages) that is devoid of viable melanocytes. It is most often identified in skin, where it may be appreciated clinically as a pigmented lesion; however, it can also be found in other organs such as lymph nodes. The presence of TM is usually thought to signify the presence of a regressed melanoma or other pigmented tumor. Until recently, it was a relatively uncommon finding; however, with the use of effective systemic therapies against melanoma, its occurrence in histological specimens is more frequent., Methods: We identified and reviewed all histopathological diagnoses of TM at any organ site reported at a single institution from 2006 to 2018. TM cases were paired with non-TM cases of cutaneous melanoma through propensity score matching at a 1:2 ratio, and their survival outcomes were compared. The clinical outcomes examined included recurrence-free survival (RFS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS), melanoma-specific survival (MSS), and overall survival (OS)., Results: TM was reported in 79 patients. Their median age was 65 years (range 22-88), with a 2:1 male predominance (51 out of 79, 65%). The most common organ involved was the skin (67%), with a third of all cases localized to a lower limb (36%). TM had a strong association with the presence of melanoma (91%) and regression at other sites of melanoma (54%), suggesting that it is part of a systemic immune response against melanoma. Most patients with TM either previously or subsequently developed histologically confirmed melanoma in the same anatomical region as the TM (89%). Thirty-five TM patients were matched with 70 non-TM cases. Patients with melanoma who developed TM without prior regional or systemic therapy showed improved MSS (p = 0.03), whereas no statistically significant differences were observed in terms of RFS, DDFS, and OS., Conclusions: TM usually occurs in the context of a previous or subsequent cutaneous melanoma and is associated with improved MSS. It is important that TM is recognized by pathologists and documented in pathology reports., (© 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Cutaneous Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)