Search

Summary: Most patients with advanced melanomas have a known primary site [melanoma of known primary (MKP)]. However, 2%-9% of patients are diagnosed with melanoma metastasis of unknown primary (MUP). As MUP and MKP have similar UV-induced mutations and molecular signatures, it is proposed that the primary tumor has regressed completely in patients with MUP. As regression of the primary tumor could be indicative of enhanced recognition of melanoma antigens, we hypothesize that patients with advanced MUP have a better outcome compared with MKP.Patients with advanced MUP from 10 German university hospitals were retrospectively analyzed and matched with MKP based on the type of systemic treatment (BRAF and MEK inhibitors, PD-1 inhibitor monotherapy, combined CTLA-4 and PD-1 inhibitor therapy) therapy line (first or second line) and AJCC stage (IIIC, IV M1a-M1d). Three hundred thirty-seven patients with MUP were identified, and 152 treatments with PD-1 and CTLA-4 inhibitors, 142 treatments with PD-1 inhibitors, and 101 treatments with BRAF and MEK inhibitors were evaluated. Median time to treatment failure was significantly prolonged in patients with MUP treated with PD-1 monotherapy (17 mo, 95% CI: 9-25, P = 0.002) compared with MKP (5 mo, 95% CI: 3.4-6.6), as well as in MUP treated with combined PD-1 and CTLA-4 therapy (11 mo, 95% CI: 4.5-17.5, P < 0.0001) compared with MKP (4 mo, 95% CI: 2.9-5.1) Occurrence of immune-related adverse events and time to treatment failure for patients with BRAF and MEK inhibitors was similar in MKP and MUP. In our multicentre collective, patients with MUP have better outcomes under immunotherapy compared with MKP., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Programmed death-1 (PD-1) antibodies and BRAF + MEK inhibitors are widely used for adjuvant therapy of fully resected high-risk melanoma. Little is known about treatment efficacy outside of phase III trials. This real-world study reports on clinical outcomes of modern adjuvant melanoma treatment in specialized skin cancer centers in Germany, Austria and Switzerland., Methods: Multicenter, retrospective study investigating stage III-IV melanoma patients receiving adjuvant nivolumab (NIV), pembrolizumab (PEM) or dabrafenib + trametinib (D + T) between 1/2017 and 10/2021. The primary endpoint was 12-month recurrence-free survival (RFS). Further analyses included descriptive and correlative statistics, and a multivariate linear-regression machine learning model to assess the risk of early melanoma recurrence., Results: In total, 1198 patients from 39 skin cancer centers from Germany, Austria and Switzerland were analysed. The vast majority received anti PD-1 therapies (n = 1003). Twelve-month RFS for anti PD-1 and BRAF + MEK inhibitor-treated patients were 78.1% and 86.5%, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 1.998 [95% CI 1.335-2.991]; p = 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival (OS) in anti PD-1 (95.8%) and BRAF + MEK inhibitor (96.9%) treated patients (p > 0.05) during the median follow-up of 17 months. Data indicates that anti PD-1 treated patients who develop immune-related adverse events (irAEs) have lower recurrence rates compared to patients with no irAEs (HR 0.578 [95% CI 0.443-0.754], p = 0.001). BRAF mutation status did not affect overall efficacy of anti PD-1 treatment (p > 0.05). In both, anti PD-1 and BRAF + MEK inhibitor treated cohorts, data did not show any difference in 12-month RFS and 12-month OS comparing patients receiving total lymph node dissection (TLND) versus sentinel lymph node biopsy only (p > 0.05). The recurrence prediction model reached high specificity but only low sensitivity with an AUC = 0.65. No new safety signals were detected. Overall, recorded numbers and severity of adverse events were lower than reported in pivotal phase III trials., Conclusions: Despite recent advances in adjuvant melanoma treatment, early recurrence remains a significant clinical challenge. This study shows that TLND does not reduce the risk of early melanoma recurrence and should only be considered in selected patients. Data further highlight that variables collected during clinical routine are unlikely to allow for a clinically relevant prediction of individual recurrence risk., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)

Background: Despite of various therapeutic strategies, treatment of patients with melanoma brain metastasis (MBM) still is a major challenge. This study aimed at investigating the impact of type and sequence of immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) and targeted therapy (TT), radiotherapy, and surgery on the survival outcome of patients with MBM., Method: We assessed data of 450 patients collected within the prospective multicenter real-world skin cancer registry ADOREG who were diagnosed with MBM before start of the first non-adjuvant systemic therapy. Study endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)., Results: Of 450 MBM patients, 175 (38.9%) received CTLA-4+PD-1 ICB, 161 (35.8%) PD-1 ICB, and 114 (25.3%) BRAF+MEK TT as first-line treatment. Additional to systemic therapy, 67.3% of the patients received radiotherapy (stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS); conventional radiotherapy (CRT)) and 24.4% had surgery of MBM. 199 patients (42.2%) received a second-line systemic therapy. Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed the application of radiotherapy (HR for SRS: 0.213, 95% CI 0.094 to 0.485, p<0.001; HR for CRT: 0.424, 95% CI 0.210 to 0.855, p=0.016), maximal size of brain metastases (HR for MBM >1 cm: 1.977, 95% CI 1.117 to 3.500, p=0.019), age (HR for age >65 years: 1.802, 95% CI 1.016 to 3.197, p=0.044), and ECOG performance status (HR for ECOG ≥2: HR: 2.615, 95% CI 1.024 to 6.676, p=0.044) as independent prognostic factors of OS on first-line therapy. The type of first-line therapy (ICB vs TT) was not independently prognostic. As second-line therapy BRAF+MEK showed the best survival outcome compared with ICB and other therapies (HR for CTLA-4+PD-1 compared with BRAF+MEK: 13.964, 95% CI 3.6 to 54.4, p<0.001; for PD-1 vs BRAF+MEK: 4.587 95% CI 1.3 to 16.8, p=0.022 for OS). Regarding therapy sequencing, patients treated with ICB as first-line therapy and BRAF+MEK as second-line therapy showed an improved OS (HR for CTLA-4+PD-1 followed by BRAF+MEK: 0.370, 95% CI 0.157 to 0.934, p=0.035; HR for PD-1 followed by BRAF+MEK: 0.290, 95% CI 0.092 to 0.918, p=0.035) compared with patients starting with BRAF+MEK in first-line therapy. There was no significant survival difference when comparing first-line therapy with CTLA-4+PD-1 ICB with PD-1 ICB., Conclusions: In patients with MBM, the addition of radiotherapy resulted in a favorable OS on systemic therapy. In BRAF-mutated MBM patients, ICB as first-line therapy and BRAF+MEK as second-line therapy were associated with a significantly prolonged OS., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests in reference to this work. For conflicts of interest outside the submitted work see list: CF has been on the advisory board or has received honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Immunocore and Novartis and received travel grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis and Pierre Fabre. PM declares research support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis and Merck Sharp & Dome; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Almirall Hermal, Beiersdorf, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dome, Immunocore, Merck Serono, Medac, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi Genzyme, Sun Pharma and Roche, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis and Pierre Fabre. LB received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb and Sun Pharma. IG declares speakers and advisory board honoraria from Almirall Hermal, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dome, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi Genzyme, Sun Pharma and Roche. FM has received travel support or/and speaker’s fees or/and advisor’s honoraria by Novartis, Roche, BMS, MSD and Pierre Fabre and research funding from Novartis and Roche. RH reports speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Immunocore, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Roche and SUN pharma. CP received honoraria (speaker honoraria or honoraria as a consultant) and travel support from: Novartis, BMS, Roche, Merck Serono, MSD, Celgene, AbbVie, SUNPHARMA, UCB, Allergy Therapeutics, Pierre Fabre, Kyowa Kirin and LEO. JUl has received research support from Novartis; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche, Pierre Fabre, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb and medac. PT declares speakers and advisory board honoraria from Almirall, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre-Fabre, CureVac, Merck Serono, Sanofi, Roche, Kyowa Kirin, Biofrontera and 4SC; travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Pierre-Fabre. DN has received advisory and speaker honoraria from Merck Sharp & Dome, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Almirall and Sanofi. AF Advisory Board: Roche, Novartis, MSD, BMS, Pierre-Fabre; support for congress participation: Roche, Novartis, BMS, Pierre-Fabre; speaker honoraria: Roche, Novartis, BMS, MSD, CeGaT; institutional research support BMS Stiftung Immunonkologie. JUt is on the advisory board or has received honoraria and travel support from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Immunocore, LeoPharma, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche and Sanofi. TG has received speakers and/or advisory board honoraria and travel support from BMS, Sanofi-Genzyme, MSD, Novartis Pharma, Roche, Abbvie, Almirall, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, and Merck-Serono. FM served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi Genzyme and travel support from Novartis, Sunpharma and Bristol Myers Squibb. JW received honoraria from Pierre Fabre, Novartis and Merck Sharp & Dohme. KS has been on the advisory board or has received honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dome, Pierre Fabre, Novartis and received travel grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis and Pierre Fabre. IH has been on the advisory board of Ymmunobio. AR reported grants from Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Adtec; personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme; and non-financial support from Amgen, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Teva. LZ served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Sunpharma and Sanofi; research funding to institution: Novartis; travel support from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre-Fabre, Sunpharma, Sanofi and Novartis. EL served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Medac, Sanofi, Sunpharma and travel support from Medac, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Sunpharma and Novartis. DS: relevant financial activities (Roche, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sanofi, Regeneron, Array, Pierre Fabre, 4SC, Helsinn, Philogen, InFlarX, Merck-Serono, SunPharma, Ultimovacs, and Sandoz). SU declares research support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Serona; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dome, Merck Serono, Novartis and Roche, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Pierre Fabre. All other authors have no conflict of interest to declare., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Conjunctival melanoma is a rare type of ocular melanoma, which is prone to local recurrence and metastasis and can lead to patient death. Novel therapeutic strategies have revolutionized cutaneous melanoma management. The efficacy of these therapies in conjunctival melanoma, however, has not been evaluated in larger patient cohorts., Methods: In this multi-center retrospective cohort study with additional screening of the ADOREG database, data were collected from 34 patients with metastatic conjunctival melanoma who received targeted therapy (TT) (BRAF ± MEK inhibitors) or immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) (anti-PD-1 ± anti-CTLA4). In 15 cases, tissue was available for targeted next-generation-sequencing (611 genes) and RNA sequencing. Driver mutations, tumor mutational burden, copy number variations and inflammatory/IFNγ gene expression signatures were determined., Results: Genetic characterization identified frequent BRAF (46.7%, 7/15), NRAS (26.7%, 4/15), NF1 (20%, 3/15), and TERT promoter (46.7%, 7/15) mutations. UV associated C>T and CC>TT mutations were common. Median follow-up time after start of first TT or ICI therapy was 13.2 months. In 26 patients receiving first-line ICI, estimated one-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 42.0%, PFS and overall survival (OS) 6.2 and 18.0 months, respectively. First-line TT was given to 8 patients, estimated one-year PFS rate was 54.7%, median PFS and OS 12.6 and 29.1 months, respectively., Conclusions: Our findings support the role of UV irradiation in conjunctival melanoma and the genetic similarity with cutaneous melanoma. Conjunctival melanoma patients with advanced disease benefit from both targeted therapies (BRAF ± MEK inhibitors) and immune checkpoint inhibitors., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: GL has received travel support for congress participation: Sun Pharma. PJ declares no conflicts of interest. IM declares no conflicts of interest. AS declares no conflicts of interest. JCH receives a scientific grant from BMS, payments ad consultant from Pierre Fabre, MSD, Sunpharma and speaker honoraria from BMS, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, GSK, Amgen, Almirall. AF Advisory board: Pierre-Fabre, Roche, Novartis, BMS, MSD, travel support for congress participation: Pierre-Fabre, Roche, Novartis, BMS, honoraria for talks: Roche, Novartis, BMS, MSD, CeGaT, research funding: Stiftung Immunonkologie BMS. All outside the submitted work. JE declars no conflicts of interest. FM has received travel support or/and speaker's fees or/and advisor's honoraria by Novartis, Roche, BMS, MSD and Pierre Fabre and research funding from Novartis and Roche. LR declares no conflicts of interest. KCK has served as consultant or/and has received honoraria from Amgen, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre, and Novartis, and received travel support from Amgen, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Medac and Novartis. MZ has served as consultant or/and has received honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme and SUN Pharma. MS Consultancy, speaker fees or travel grants: BMS, MSD, Roche, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Immunocore. FR declares no conflicts of interest. AS declares no conflicts of interest. KS declares no conflicts of interest. FM served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi Genzyme and travel support from Novartis, Sunpharma and Bristol-Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. RG Honoraria for lectures (personally): Roche, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Amgen, Merck Serono, Almirall Hermal, SUN, Sanofi, Pierre-Fabre. Honoraria for advice (personally): BMS, Roche, Novartis, Almirall Hermal, MSD, Amgen, SUN, Sanofi, Pierre-Fabre, 4SC, Bayer, MerckSerono, Pfizer, Immunocore. Research grants (to institution): Novartis, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Amgen, Merck-Serono, SUN Pharma, Sanofi, Almirall Hermal. Support for meeting participation: Roche, BMS, SUN, Merck-Serono, Pierre-Fabre. CP received honoraria (speaker honoraria or honoraria as a consultant) and travel support from: Novartis, BMS, Roche, Merck Serono, MSD, Celgene, AbbVie, SUNPHARMA, UCB, Allergy Therapeutics, Pierre Fabre, Kyowa Kirin and LEO. PT declares honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre-Fabre, CureVac, Merck Serono, Sanofi, Roche, Kyowa Kirin, Biofrontera, Almirall, and 4SC; travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pierre-Fabre, outside the submitted work.BS is on the advisory board or has received honoraria from Almirall, Pfizer, Sanofi, Incyte, Novartis, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) and MSD Sharp & Dohme, research funding from Novartis, Pierre Fabre Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb and MSD Sharp & Dohme and travel support from Novartis, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre Pharmaceuticals, MSD Sharp & Dohme and Amgen, outside the submitted work. MS declares no conflict of interest. MH has been a member of advisory boards of Almirall Hermal, Sanofi-Aventis, MSD, 622 BMS, Novartis, and received speaker's honoraria from Galderma and Biofrontera. UL speaker fees: Roche, Novartis, Sanofi, MSD; consultancy: Roche, Sanofi, MSD, Novartis. AZ received travel support from Novartis, Sanofi Grenzyme, Sun Pharma, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. CM declares no conflicts of interest. 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. LZ served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Sunpharma and Sanofi; Research funding to institution: Novartis; travel support from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre-Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work. EH declares no conflicts of interest. NB declares no conflicts of interest. DS D.S. Served as consultant, advisory board and/or speaker and has received honoraria from Amgen, Array, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Helsinn, Immunocore, InflarX, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck-Serono, Nektar, Novartis, OncoSec, Pfizer, Philogen, Regeneron, Replimune, Sandoz, Sanofi, Sunpharma, 4SC and travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck-Serono, Nektar, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sandoz, Sanofi, and 4SC, outside the submitted work. HW declares no conflicts of interest. EL served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Medac, Sanofi, Sunpharma and travel support from Medac, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Sunpharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work. KG declares no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have tremendously changed the therapeutic landscape of melanoma since they are associated with a durable response, allowing for intentional discontinuation of therapy after complete or partial remission. However, a subset of patients develops a relapse after cessation of ICI treatment and may not respond to reinduction of ICIs. The aim of the present study was to identify risk factors for relapse after intentional discontinuation of ICI therapy. Patients with intentional discontinuation of ICI therapy for metastatic or unresectable melanoma from 5 German university hospitals were analyzed retrospectively. Clinicopathologic and follow-up data of 87 patients were collected and analyzed by univariate and multivariate Cox proportional-hazards models. The following parameters were associated with relapse after cessation of ICI treatment in the univariate Cox regression analysis: concurrent radiotherapy and ICI, best overall response, and presence of brain metastases. Duration of treatment, type of primary tumor, body mass index, programmed-death ligand 1 expression, and lactate dehydrogenase levels did not significantly influence the risk for relapse. In the multivariate analysis, partial remission [hazard ratio 4.217 (95% confidence interval: 1.424-12.49), P=0.009] and stable disease [3.327 (1.204-9.19), P=0.02] were associated with a significant decrease in progression-free survival compared with complete remission. Concurrent radiotherapy and ICI [3.619 (1.288-10.168), P=0.015] are additional independent risk factors for decreased progression-free survival upon ICI discontinuation, whereas the presence of brain metastasis did not reach statistical significance on multivariate analysis., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Uveal melanoma (UM) is an orphan cancer of high unmet medical need. Current patterns of care and surveillance remain unclear as they are situated in an interdisciplinary setting., Methods: A questionnaire addressing the patterns of care and surveillance in the management of patients with uveal melanoma was distributed to 70 skin cancer centers in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. Frequency distributions of responses for each item of the questionnaire were calculated., Results: 44 of 70 (62.9%) skin cancer centers completed the questionnaire. Thirty-nine hospitals were located in Germany (88.6%), three in Switzerland (6.8%) and two in Austria (4.5%). The majority (68.2%) represented university hospitals. Most patients with metastatic disease were treated in certified skin cancer centers (70.7%, 29/41). Besides, the majority of patients with UM were referred to the respective skin cancer center by ophthalmologists (87.2%, 34/39). Treatment and organization of follow-up of patients varied across the different centers. 35.1% (14/37) of the centers stated to not perform any screening measures., Conclusion: Treatment patterns of patients with uveal melanoma in Germany, Austria and Switzerland remain extremely heterogeneous. A guideline for the treatment and surveillance is urgently needed.

Adjuvant treatment of melanoma patients with immune-checkpoint inhibition (ICI) and targeted therapy (TT) significantly improved recurrence-free survival. This study investigates the real-world situation of 904 patients from 13 German skin cancer centers with an indication for adjuvant treatment since the approval of adjuvant ICI and TT. From adjusted log-binomial regression models, we estimated relative risks for associations between various influence factors and treatment decisions (adjuvant therapy yes/no, TT vs. ICI in BRAF mutant patients). Of these patients, 76.9% (95% CI 74-80) opted for a systemic adjuvant treatment. The probability of starting an adjuvant treatment was 26% lower in patients >65 years (RR 0.74, 95% CI 68-80). The most common reasons against adjuvant treatment given by patients were age (29.4%, 95% CI 24-38), and fear of adverse events (21.1%, 95% CI 16-28) and impaired quality of life (11.9%, 95% CI 7-16). Of all BRAF -mutated patients who opted for adjuvant treatment, 52.9% (95% CI 47-59) decided for ICI. Treatment decision for TT or ICI was barely associated with age, gender and tumor stage, but with comorbidities and affiliated center. Shortly after their approval, adjuvant treatments have been well accepted by physicians and patients. Age plays a decisive role in the decision for adjuvant treatment, while pre-existing autoimmune disease and regional differences influence the choice between TT or ICI.

Background: Skin cancers are known for their strong immunogenicity, which may contribute to a high treatment efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI). However, a considerable proportion of patients with skin cancer is immuno-compromised by concomitant diseases. Due to their previous exclusion from clinical trials, the ICI treatment efficacy is poorly investigated in these patients. The present study analyzed the ICI treatment outcome in advanced patients with skin cancer with a concomitant hematological malignancy., Methods: This retrospective multicenter study included patients who were treated with ICI for locally advanced or metastatic melanoma (MM), cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), or Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), and had a previous diagnosis of a hematological malignancy irrespective of disease activity or need of therapy at ICI treatment start. Comparator patient cohorts without concomitant hematological malignancy were extracted from the prospective multicenter skin cancer registry ADOREG. Treatment outcome was measured as best overall response, progression-free (PFS), and overall survival (OS)., Results: 84 patients (MM, n=52; cSCC, n=15; MCC, n=17) with concomitant hematological malignancy were identified at 20 skin cancer centers. The most frequent concomitant hematological malignancies were non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (n=70), with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (n=32) being the largest entity. While 9 patients received ICI in an adjuvant setting, 75 patients were treated for advanced non-resectable disease (55 anti-PD-1; 8 anti-PD-L1; 5 anti-CTLA-4; 7 combinations). In the latter 75 patients, best objective response (complete response+partial response) was 28.0%, disease stabilization was 25.3%, and 38.6% showed progressive disease (PD). Subdivided by skin cancer entity, best objective response was 31.1% (MM), 26.7% (cSCC), and 18.8% (MCC). Median PFS was 8.4 months (MM), 4.0 months (cSCC), and 5.7 months (MCC). 1-year OS rates were 78.4% (MM), 65.8% (cSCC), and 47.4% (MCC). Comparison with respective ADOREG patient cohorts without hematological malignancy (n=392) revealed no relevant differences in ICI therapy outcome for MM and MCC, but a significantly reduced PFS for cSCC (p=0.002)., Conclusions: ICI therapy showed efficacy in advanced patients with skin cancer with a concomitant hematological malignancy. Compared with patients without hematological malignancy, the observed ICI therapy outcome was impaired in cSCC, but not in MM or MCC patients., Competing Interests: Competing interests: UL: relevant financial activities (research support from Merck Sharp and Dohme; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis and Roche, Sanofi Aventis and travel support from Sun Pharma). CL: relevant financial activities (speakers, advisory board honoraria and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Kiowa Kirin, Sanofi, Biontech, Allmiral Hermal). DR-S: relevant financial activities (speakers and advisory board honoraria from Novartis and Roche; travel support from Sanofy Genzyme, Roche and Novartis). JCH: relevant financial activities (research support from Bristol Myers Squibb; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Roche, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi Aventis, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Pierre Fabre). VG: relevant financial activities (honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, advisory board honoraria from Novartis and reports travel support from Novartis, Pierre Fabre Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Sanofi Genzyme). JS: relevant financial activities (speakers’ honoraria and/or travel expense reimbursements from Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre and Roche). AR: relevant financial activities (travel grants and lecture fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen and Roche). RG: relevant financial activities (personal fees and non-financial support from Bristol Myers Squibb, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Merck Serono, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Amgen, personal fees and non-financial support from Pierre Fabre, personal fees and non-financial support from Sanofi Regeneron, personal fees from Merck Sharp and Dohme, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, personal fees from Almirall Hermal, grants and personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from SUN Pharma, personal fees from 4SC, grants from Johnson&Johnson). KCK: relevant financial activities (research support, travel grants and honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Sharp and Dohme).TG: relevant financial activities (speakers and/or advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi-Genzyme, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis Pharma, Roche, Abbvie, Almirall, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Merck-Serono). KS: relevant financial activities (speakers and advisory board honoraria from AMGEN Oncology, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Roche, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and TEVA/Cephalon Pharma). CP: relevant financial activities (speaker honoraria or honoraria as a consultant and travel support from Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Celgene, AbbVie, Lilly and LEO). CF: relevant financial activities (travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Pierre Fabre; advisory board or honararia from Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis). PT: relevant financial activities (speaker's honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre-Fabre, CureVac and Roche, consultant's honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Merck Serono, Sanofi und Roche and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre-Fabre and Roche). SH: relevant financial activities (research support from Bristol Myers Squibb; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Sanofi and Roche). PM: relevant financial activities (honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Sanofi and Roche). LH: relevant financial activities (speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis, Amgen, Curevac, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi and Roche). EL: relevant financial activities (served as consultant or/and has received honoraria from Amgen, Actelion, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Janssen, Medac, and travel support from Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Sunpharma and Novartis). DS: relevant financial activities (Roche, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sanofi, Regeneron, Array, Pierre Fabre, 4SC, Helsinn, Philogen, InFlarX, Merck-Serono, SunPharma, Ultimovacs, Sandoz). CG: relevant financial activities (personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, grants and personal fees from Novartis, grants and personal fees from NeraCare, grants and personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, personal fees from Pierre Fabre, personal fees from Philogen, grants and personal fees from Roche, grants and personal fees from Sanofi). JCB: relevant financial activities (speaker honoraria from Amgen, MerckSerono, Pfizer, Sanofi; advisory board honoraria from 4SC, Amgen, CureVac, eTheRNA, MerckSerono, Novartis and InProTher; research funding from Alcedis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, IQVIA, and MerckSerono; travel support from 4SC and Incyte). SU: relevant financial activities (research support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Serono; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis and Roche, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp and Dohme). All other authors (Lena Bischof, Ulrike Keim, Andreas Meiwes, Lydia Reinhardt, Nora Schlecht) declared to have no conflicts of interest., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: We have previously reported on the 3-year results of the phase III German Dermatologic Cooperative Oncology Group trial (DeCOG; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02434107) comparing distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS) in patients with positive sentinel lymph-node biopsy who were randomly assigned to complete lymph node dissection (CLND) or observation. Here, we report the final analysis with 72 months of median follow up., Patients and Methods: The multicenter randomized phase III trial included patients with cutaneous melanoma of the trunk and extremities who were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo CLND or observation. DMFS was analyzed as the primary end point, and RFS, OS, and recurrences in the regional lymph node basin were secondary end points. The analysis was by intention to treat. Disease and survival information were collected quarterly., Results: From January 2006 to December 2014, 5,547 patients were screened to identify 1,256 with metastases in the sentinel lymph node (SLN). Of these, 483 (39%) were included: 241 in the observation arm and 242 in the CLND arm. In the final analysis, median follow up was 72 months (interquartile range, 67-77 months). No significant treatment-related difference was seen in the 5-year DMFS between the observation and CLND arms (67.6% v 64.9%, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; P = .87). The 5-year RFS and OS also showed no difference (HR, 1.01 and 0.99, respectively). Grade 3 and 4 adverse effects occurred in 32 patients (13%) in the CLND arm; lymphedema (n = 20) and delayed wound healing (n = 5) were most common and no serious adverse events were reported., Conclusion: The final results of the German Dermatologic Cooperative Oncology Group trial with a median follow up of 72 months showed higher event rates, but similar HRs compared with those at the 3-year analysis. These results confirm that immediate CLND in SLN-positive patients is not superior to observation in terms of DMFS, RFS, or OS and support not recommending CLND in patients with SLN metastasis.