Search

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.)

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.)

Background: Pembrolizumab significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus ipilimumab for unresectable advanced melanoma in KEYNOTE-006 (NCT01866319); 10-year follow-up data are presented., Patients and Methods: Patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg i.v. every 2 weeks or every 3 weeks for ≤2 years (pooled), or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg i.v. every 3 weeks for four cycles. After KEYNOTE-006, patients could transition to KEYNOTE-587 (NCT03486873) for long-term follow-up. Eligible patients could receive second-course pembrolizumab. The primary endpoint was OS; modified progression-free survival (PFS; censored at date last known alive), modified PFS on second-course pembrolizumab, and melanoma-specific survival were exploratory., Results: Of 834 patients randomly assigned in KEYNOTE-006 (pembrolizumab, n = 556; ipilimumab, n = 278), 333 (39.9%) were eligible for KEYNOTE-587; 211/333 patients (25.3%) transitioned to KEYNOTE-587 (pembrolizumab, n = 159; ipilimumab, n = 52) and 122 (14.6%) did not. For patients who transitioned to KEYNOTE-587 (n = 211), median time from randomization in KEYNOTE-006 to data cut-off for KEYNOTE-587 (1 May 2024) was 123.7 months (range, 122.0-127.3 months). Median OS was 32.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 24.5-41.6 months] for pembrolizumab and 15.9 months (95% CI 13.3-22.0 months) for ipilimumab [hazard ratio (HR), 0.71 (95% CI 0.60-0.85)]; 10-year OS was 34.0% and 23.6%, respectively. Among patients who completed ≥94 weeks of pembrolizumab, median OS from week 94 was not reached (NR; 95% CI NR-NR); 8-year OS rate was 80.8%. Median modified PFS was 9.4 months (95% CI 6.7-11.6 months) for pembrolizumab and 3.8 months (2.9-4.3 months) for ipilimumab [HR, 0.64 (95% CI 0.54-0.75)]. Among patients who received second-course pembrolizumab, median modified PFS from start of second course was 51.8 months (95% CI 11.0 months-NR); 6-year modified PFS was 49.2%. Median melanoma-specific survival was 51.9 months (95% CI 30.0-114.7 months) for pembrolizumab and 17.2 months (13.9-25.9 months) for ipilimumab [HR, 0.66 (95% CI 0.55-0.81)]., Conclusions: These results confirm that pembrolizumab provides long-term survival benefits in advanced melanoma, supporting it as a standard of care in this setting., (Copyright © 2024 European Society for Medical Oncology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Previous results from this trial showed longer overall survival after treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or with nivolumab monotherapy than with ipilimumab monotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma. Given that patients with advanced melanoma are living longer than 7.5 years, longer-term data were needed to address new clinically relevant questions., Methods: We randomly assigned patients with previously untreated advanced melanoma, in a 1:1:1 ratio, to one of the following regimens: nivolumab (1 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks; nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks plus placebo; or ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 3 weeks for four doses plus placebo. Treatment was continued until the occurrence of disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. Randomization was stratified according to BRAF mutation status, metastasis stage, and programmed death ligand 1 expression. Here, we report the final, 10-year results of this trial, including results for overall survival and melanoma-specific survival, as well as durability of response., Results: With a minimum follow-up of 10 years, median overall survival was 71.9 months with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, 36.9 months with nivolumab, and 19.9 months with ipilimumab. The hazard ratio for death was 0.53 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44 to 0.65) for nivolumab plus ipilimumab as compared with ipilimumab and was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.76) for nivolumab as compared with ipilimumab. Median melanoma-specific survival was more than 120 months with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (not reached, with 37% of the patients alive at the end of the trial), 49.4 months with nivolumab, and 21.9 months with ipilimumab. Among patients who had been alive and progression-free at 3 years, 10-year melanoma-specific survival was 96% with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, 97% with nivolumab, and 88% with ipilimumab., Conclusions: The final trial results showed a continued, ongoing survival benefit with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and with nivolumab monotherapy, as compared with ipilimumab monotherapy, in patients with advanced melanoma. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 067 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844505.)., (Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Melanoma is increasingly recognized as a heterogeneous disease, with conflicting evidence regarding whether cutaneous head and neck melanoma (CHNM) represents a distinct entity., Objective: Comparison of clinicopathological features and treatment outcomes of CHNM and cutaneous melanomas of other sites (CMOS)., Methods: Patients with CHNM and CMOS diagnosed between 2000 and 2018 were included. Locoregional control, distant metastasis-free survival, melanoma-specific survival (MSS), and overall survival (OS) were described using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox regression analyses were performed to examine associations between prognostic factors and outcomes. Additional analyses of survival from time of stage IV disease diagnosis were undertaken, stratified by receipt of BRAF-targeted therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy., Results: Of 3007 CHNM and 10,637 CMOS patients, CHNM had more adverse pathological features (median age 65.9 vs 58.5, P < .001; median Breslow thickness 1.7 mm vs 1.2 mm, P < .001; and ulceration 21.2% vs 18.2%, P < .001). CHNM had worse locoregional control (hazard ratio (HR) 1.17, P < .001) and distant metastasis-free survival (HR 1.25, P < .001) but there were no significant differences in MSS or OS. Among stage IV patients who received immune checkpoint inhibitor, CHNM had better MSS (HR 0.56, P = .001) and OS (HR 0.57, P < .001) on multivariable analyses., Limitations: Retrospective study, offset by prospective data collection., Conclusion: CHNM is associated with a distinct clinicopathological and prognostic profile., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest Dr Saw has received honoraria for advisory board participation from MSD, Novartis, and Qbiotics and speaking honoraria from BMS and Novartis. Dr Pires da Silva has received travel support from BMS and MSD and speaker fees from Roche, BMS, MSD, and Novartis. Dr Varey has received an honorarium from Novartis. Dr Akkooi has served on advisory boards and received consultancy honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Neracare, Novartis, MSD-Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Provectus, Sanofi, Sirius Medical, and 4SC. Dr Menzies has served on advisory boards for BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pierre-Fabre, and QBiotics. Dr Carlino has served on advisory boards for Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Amgen, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Merck, Ideaya, Regeneron, Nektar, Eisai, Oncosec, and Qbiotics and honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, and Novartis. Dr Long is consultant advisor for Agenus, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Evaxion, Hexal AG (Sandoz Company), Highlight Therapeutics S.L., Innovent Biologics USA, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, OncoSec, PHMR Ltd, Pierre Fabre, Provectus, Qbiotics, and Regeneron. Dr Scolyer has received fees for professional services from MetaOptima Technology Inc., F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Evaxion, Provectus Biopharmaceuticals Australia, Qbiotics, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, NeraCare, AMGEN Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Myriad Genetics, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr Thompson has received honoraria for advisory board participation from BMS Australia, MSD Australia, GSK, and Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, and travel and conference support from GSK, Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, and Novartis. Drs Li, Xu, Blah, Lo, Shannon, and Ch'ng have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are standard-of-care for the treatment of advanced melanoma, but their use is limited by immune-related adverse events. Proteomic analyses and multiplex cytokine and chemokine assays from serum at baseline and at the adverse event onset indicated aberrant T cell activity with differential expression of type I and III immune signatures. This was in line with the finding of an increase in the proportion of CD4 + T cells with IL-17A expression at the adverse event onset in the peripheral blood using flow cytometry. Multiplex immunohistochemistry and spatial transcriptomics on immunotherapy-induced skin rash and colitis showed an increase in the proportion of CD4 + T cells with IL-17A expression. Anti-IL-17A was administered in two patients with mild myocarditis, colitis and skin rash with resolution of the adverse events. This study highlights the potential role of type III CD4 + T cells in adverse event development and provides proof-of-principle evidence for a clinical trial using anti-IL-17A for treating adverse events., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Melanoma is a heterogeneous cancer influenced by the plasticity of melanoma cells and their dynamic adaptations to microenvironmental cues. Melanoma cells transition between well-defined transcriptional cell states that impact treatment response and resistance., Methods: In this study, we applied single-cell RNA sequencing to interrogate the molecular features of immunotherapy-naive and immunotherapy-resistant melanoma tumours in response to ex vivo BRAF/MEK inhibitor treatment., Findings: We confirm the presence of four distinct melanoma cell states - melanocytic, transitory, neural-crest like and undifferentiated, and identify enrichment of neural crest-like and undifferentiated melanoma cells in immunotherapy-resistant tumours. Furthermore, we introduce an integrated computational approach to identify subsets of responding and nonresponding melanoma cells within the transcriptional cell states., Interpretation: Nonresponding melanoma cells are identified in all transcriptional cell states and are predisposed to BRAF/MEK inhibitor resistance due to pro-inflammatory IL6 and TNFɑ signalling. Our study provides a framework to study treatment response within distinct melanoma cell states and indicate that tumour-intrinsic pro-inflammatory signalling contributes to BRAF/MEK inhibitor resistance., Funding: This work was supported by Macquarie University, Melanoma Institute Australia, and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC; grant 2012860, 2028055)., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JHL has received honorarium from Merck, Sharp & Dohme and AstraZeneca, received conference support from Pfizer and Merck, Sharp & Dohme, and consulting fees from Boxer Capitol. JHL is a consultant for Merck, Sharp & Dohme, Sanofi, Cancer Council and EviO. RAS has received fees for professional services from MetaOptima Technology Inc., F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Evaxion, Provectus Biopharmaceuticals Australia, Qbiotics, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, NeraCare, AMGEN Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Myriad Genetics, GlaxoSmithKline, IO Biotech ApS and SkylineDX B.V. GVL is consultant advisor for Agenus, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer Health Care, BioNTech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Evaxion, Hexal AG (Sandoz Company), Highlight Therapeutics S.L., IO Biotech, Immunocore, Innovent Biologics USA, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, PHMR Ltd, Pierre Fabre, Qbiotics, Regeneron, Scancell Limited and SkylineDX B.V. GVL has received conference support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Pierre Fabre. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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

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

Background: Neoadjuvant therapy improves recurrence-free survival (RFS) in resectable stage III cutaneous melanoma. However, accurately predicting individual recurrence risk remains a significant challenge. We investigated circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) as a biomarker for recurrence in measurable stage IIIB/C melanoma patients undergoing neoadjuvant immunotherapy., Methods: Plasma samples were collected pre-neoadjuvant treatment, pre-surgery and/or six weeks post-surgery from 40 patients enrolled in the OpACIN-neo and PRADO clinical trials. Patients received two cycles of ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4) and nivolumab (anti-PD-1) before surgery. Cell free DNA (cfDNA) underwent unbiased pre-amplification followed by tumour-informed mutation detection using droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) with the Bio-Rad QX600 PCR system., Results: Pre-treatment ctDNA was detectable in 19/40 (48%) patients. Among these, 17/19 (89%) zero-converted within six weeks of surgery and none recurred. Positive ctDNA post-surgery (N = 4), irrespective of pre-treatment ctDNA status, was 100% predictive of recurrence (sensitivity 44%, specificity 100%). Furthermore, ctDNA cleared prior to surgery in 7/9 (78%) patients who did not recur, warranting further investigation into ctDNA-guided surgical management., Conclusion: Post-surgery ctDNA positivity and zero-conversion are highly predictive of recurrence, offering a window for personalised modification of adjuvant therapy., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

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.

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.

Background: Neoadjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib has a high pathological response rate and impressive short-term survival in patients with resectable stage III melanoma. We report 5-year outcomes from the phase II NeoCombi trial., Patients and Methods: NeoCombi (NCT01972347) was a single-arm, open-label, single-centre, phase II trial. Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed, resectable, RECIST-measurable, American Joint Committee on Cancer seventh edition clinical stage IIIB-C BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1. Patients received 52 weeks of treatment with dabrafenib 150 mg (orally twice per day) plus trametinib 2 mg (orally once per day), with complete resection of the pre-therapy tumour bed at week 12., Results: Between 20 August 2014 and 19 April 2017, 35 patients were enrolled. At data cut-off (17 August 2021), the median follow-up was 60 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 56-72 months]. Overall, 21 of 35 (60%) patients recurred, including 12 (57%) with first recurrence in locoregional sites (followed by later distant recurrence in 6) and 9 (43%) with first recurrence in distant sites, including 3 in the brain. Most recurrences occurred within 2 years, with no recurrences beyond 3 years. At 5 years, recurrence-free survival (RFS) was 40% (95% CI 27% to 60%), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) was 57% (95% CI 42% to 76%), and overall survival was 80% (95% CI 67% to 94%). Five-year survival outcomes were stratified by pathological response: RFS was 53% with pathological complete response (pCR) versus 28% with non-pCR (P = 0.087), DMFS was 59% versus 55% (P = 0.647), and overall survival was 88% versus 71% (P = 0.205), respectively., Conclusions: Neoadjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib has high pathological response rates in clinical stage III melanoma, but low rates of RFS, similar to those achieved with adjuvant targeted therapy alone. Patients with a pCR to dabrafenib plus trametinib still had a high risk of recurrence, unlike that seen with immunotherapy where recurrences are rare., Competing Interests: Disclosure AMM—advisory boards BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pierre-Fabre, QBiotics. RAS—advisory boards MetaOptima Technology Inc., F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Evaxion, Provectus Biopharmaceuticals Australia, Qbiotics, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, NeraCare, AMGEN Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Myriad Genetics, GlaxoSmithKline. RPMS—advisory boards MSD, Novartis, and Qbiotics and speaking honoraria from BMS and Novartis. GVL—consultant advisor for Agenus, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, BioNTech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Evaxion, Hexal AG (Sandoz Company), Highlight Therapeutics S.L., Immunocore, Innovent Biologics USA, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, PHMR Ltd, Pierre Fabre, Provectus, Regeneron. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 European Society for Medical Oncology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Treatment options for immunotherapy-refractory melanoma are an unmet need. The MASTERKEY-115 phase II, open-label, multicenter trial evaluated talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) plus pembrolizumab in advanced melanoma that progressed on prior programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitors., Methods: Cohorts 1 and 2 comprised patients (unresectable/metastatic melanoma) who had primary or acquired resistance, respectively, and disease progression within 12 weeks of their last anti-PD-1 dose. Cohorts 3 and 4 comprised patients (resectable disease) who underwent complete surgery, received adjuvant anti-PD-1, and experienced recurrence. Cohort 3 were disease-free for < 6 months and cohort 4 for ≥ 6 months after starting the adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy and before confirmed recurrence. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. Secondary endpoints included complete response rate (CRR), disease control rate (DCR) and progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST v1.1 and irRC-RECIST, and safety., Results: Of the 72 enrolled patients, 71 were treated. The ORR (95% CI) was 0%, 6.7% (0.2-32.0), 40.0% (16.3-67.7), and 46.7% (21.3-73.4) in cohorts 1-4, respectively; iORR was 3.8% (0.1-19.6), 6.7% (0.2-32.0), 53.3% (26.6-78.7), and 46.7% (21.3-73.4). iCRR was 0%, 0%, 13.3%, and 13.3%. Median iPFS (months) was 5.5, 8.2, not estimable [NE], and NE for cohorts 1-4, respectively; iDCR was 50.0%, 40.0%, 73.3%, and 86.7%. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), grade ≥ 3 TRAEs, serious AEs, and fatal AEs occurred in 54 (76.1%), 9 (12.7%), 24 (33.8%), and 10 (14.1%) patients, respectively., Conclusion: T-VEC-pembrolizumab demonstrated antitumor activity and tolerability in PD-1-refractory melanoma, specifically in patients with disease recurrence on or after adjuvant anti-PD-1., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier - NCT04068181., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Caroline Robert: Consulting or advisory role: Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Roche, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, MSD, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Sunpharma; Scientific co-founder of Ribonexus. Brian Gastman: Consulting or advisory role: Quest Imaging, Castle Biosciences; Speakers' Bureau: Castle Biosciences; Stock and other ownership interests: Castle Biosciences; Research funding: Alkermes, NeoImmuneTech, Merck, Instil Bio. Helen Gogas: Advisory board: BMS, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi; Invited Speaker: BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi; Local PI: Amgen, Bayer, BMS, Iovance, MSD, Replimune; Research Grant: BMS, Lilly, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre; Steering Committee Member: Amgen, Replimune. Piotr Rutkowski: Consulting or advisory role: BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Merck, Philogen, Blueprint Medicine; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Merck, Astra Zeneca, Philogen, Blueprint Medicine. Georgina V. Long: Consulting fees and advisory boards: Agenus, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BioNTech, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Evaxion, Hexal AG (Sandoz Company), Highlight Therapeutics S.L., IOBiotech, Immunocore, Innovent Biologics USA, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, PHMR Ltd, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Scancell; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: BMS, Pierre Fabre. Marya F. Chaney: Employee: Employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA; Stock Ownership: Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. Harshada Joshi: Employee: Parexel. Yu-Lin Lin: Employee/stock ownership: Amgen. Wendy Snyder: Employee/stock ownership: Amgen. Jason A. Chesney: Research funding: Amgen., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) for patients with stage III melanoma achieves high major pathologic response rates and high recurrence-free survival rates. This study aimed to determine how NAST with targeted therapies (TTs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) influences surgical outcomes after lymph node dissection in terms of complications, morbidity, and textbook outcomes., Methods: Patients who underwent a lymph node dissection after either NAST in a clinical trial or upfront surgery for stage III melanoma between 2014 and 2022 were identified from an institutional research database., Results: The study included 89 NAST-treated patients and 79 upfront surgery-treated patients. The rate of postoperative complications did not differ between the NAST- and upfront surgery-treated patients (55% vs. 51%; p = 0.643), and steroid treatment for drug toxicity did not influence the complication rate (odds ratio [OR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4-3; p = 0.826). No significant differences in postoperative morbidity were observed in terms of seroma (23% vs. 11%; p = 0.570) or lymphedema (36% vs. 51%; p = 0.550). The rate of achieving a textbook outcome was comparable for the two groups (61% vs. 57%; p = 0.641)., Conclusions: The surgical outcomes after lymph node dissections were comparable between the patients who received NAST and those who had upfront surgery, indicating that surgery can be safely performed after NAST with TT or ICI for stage III melanoma., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

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

Heterogeneous resistance to immunotherapy remains a major challenge in cancer treatment, often leading to disease progression and death. Using CITE-seq and matched 40-plex PhenoCycler tissue imaging, we performed longitudinal multimodal single-cell analysis of tumors from metastatic melanoma patients with innate resistance, acquired resistance, or response to immunotherapy. We established the multimodal integration toolkit to align transcriptomic features, cellular epitopes, and spatial information to provide deeper insights into the tumors. With longitudinal analysis, we identified an "immune-striving" tumor microenvironment marked by peri-tumor lymphoid aggregates and low infiltration of T cells in the tumor and the emergence of MITF + SPARCL1 + and CENPF + melanoma subclones after therapy. The enrichment of B cell-associated signatures in the molecular composition of lymphoid aggregates was associated with better survival. These findings provide further insights into the establishment of microenvironmental cell interactions and molecular composition of spatial structures that could inform therapeutic intervention., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests G.V.L. is a consultant advisor for Agenus, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Evaxion, Hexal AG (Sandoz), Highlight Therapeutics S.L., Innovent Biologics USA, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, OncoSec, PHMR Ltd., Pierre Fabre, Provectus, Qbiotics, and Regeneron. R.A.S. has received fees for professional services from SkylineDx BV, IO Biotech ApS, MetaOptima Technology, Roche, Evaxion, Provectus Biopharmaceuticals Australia, Qbiotics, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, NeraCare, AMGEN., Bristol Myers Squibb, Myriad Genetics, and GlaxoSmithKline. I.P.d.S. is on the advisory board of Merck Sharp & Dohme; has received fees for professional services from Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Pierre Fabre; and has had travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Sharp & Dohme. R.P.M.S. has received honoraria for advisory board participation from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Qbiotics, and speaking honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis. A.S. has received honoraria for advisory board participation from Nanostring and Phenomic. AI and research support was provided by Nanostring and 10X Genomics., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In PIVOT IO 001 (NCT03635983), the combination of the investigational interleukin-2 agonist bempegaldesleukin (BEMPEG) with nivolumab (NIVO) had no added clinical benefit over NIVO monotherapy in unresectable/metastatic melanoma. Pre-defined baseline and on-treatment changes in selected biomarkers were analyzed to explore the potential mechanisms underlying the clinical observations. In each treatment arm, higher baseline tumor mutational burden or immune infiltration/inflammation was associated with improved efficacy compared with lower levels. On-treatment peripheral biomarker changes showed that BEMPEG + NIVO increased all immune cell subset counts interrogated, including regulatory T cells. This was followed by attenuation of the increase in CD8 + T cells, conventional CD4 + T cells, and systemic interferon gamma levels at later treatment cycles in the combination arm. Changes in tumor biomarkers were comparable between arms. These biomarker results help provide a better understanding of the mechanism of action of BEMPEG + NIVO and may help contextualize the clinical observations from PIVOT IO 001., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Many mechanisms underlying an effective immunotherapy-induced antitumour response are transient and critically time dependent. This is equally true for several immunological events in the tumour microenvironment induced by other cancer treatments. Immune checkpoint therapy (ICT) has proven to be very effective in the treatment of some cancers, but unfortunately, with many cancer types, most patients do not experience a benefit. To improve outcomes, a multitude of clinical trials are testing combinations of ICT with various other treatment modalities. Ideally, those combination treatments should take time-dependent immunological events into account. Recent studies have started to map the dynamic cellular and molecular changes that occur during treatment with ICT, in the tumour and systemically. Here, we overlay the dynamic ICT response with the therapeutic response following surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy and targeted therapies. We propose that by combining treatments in a time-conscious manner, we may optimally exploit the interactions between the individual therapies., (© 2024. Springer Nature Limited.)

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

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

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

What Is This Summary About?: In this article, we summarize results from the ongoing phase 3 CheckMate 76K clinical study published online in Nature Medicine in October 2023. The study goal was to learn whether nivolumab works as an adjuvant therapy (that is, helps to keep cancer from coming back when it is given after surgery) for stage 2 melanoma (skin cancer) that has not spread to other parts of the body. Nivolumab is an immunotherapy that activates a person's immune system so it can destroy cancer cells. In melanoma, staging describes the severity of the cancer. Melanoma staging ranges from 0 (very thin and confined to the upper layer of the skin) to 4 (spread to distant parts of the body), with earlier stages removed by surgery. The people in this study had stage 2 melanoma that had not spread to the lymph nodes or other organs in the body., How Was the Study Designed?: People 12 years and older with stage 2 melanoma that had not spread and had been removed by surgery were included in CheckMate 76K. People were randomly assigned to receive either nivolumab (526 patients) or placebo (264 patients). A placebo resembles the test medicine but does not contain any active medicines. The researchers assessed whether people who received nivolumab lived longer without their cancer returning and/or spreading to other parts of their bodies (compared with placebo) and if nivolumab was well tolerated., What Were the Results?: Researchers found that people who received nivolumab were 58% less likely to have their cancer return and 53% less likely of having their cancer spread to distant parts of their body, compared with placebo. These reductions in risk with nivolumab were seen in different subgroups of people with a range of characteristics, and regardless of how deep the melanoma had gone into the skin. People taking nivolumab had more side effects than those taking placebo, but most were mild to moderate and manageable., What Do the Results Mean?: Results from CheckMate 76K support the benefit of using nivolumab as a treatment option for people with stage 2 melanoma post-surgery.

Background: Effective treatment options are limited for patients with advanced melanoma who have progressed on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and targeted therapies (TT). Preclinical models support the combination of ICI with TT; however, clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of triplet combinations in first-line setting showed limited advantage compared to TT only., Methods: We conducted a retrospective, multicenter study, that included patients with advanced melanoma who were treated with BRAF/MEK inhibitors in combination with an anti-PD-(L)1 antibody (triplet therapy) after failure of at least one anti-PD-(L)1-based therapy and one TT in seven major melanoma centers between February 2016 and July 2022., Results: A total of 48 patients were included, of which 32 patients, 66.7% had brain metastases, 37 patients (77.1%) had three or more metastatic organs and 21 patients (43.8%) had three or more treatment lines. The median follow-up time was 31.4 months (IQR, 22.27-40.45 months). The treatment with triplet therapy resulted in an ORR of 35.4% (n = 17) and a DCR of 47.9% (n = 23). The median DOR was 5.9 months (range, 3.39-14.27 months). Patients treated with BRAF/MEK inhibitors as the last treatment line showed a slightly lower ORR (29.6%) compared to patients who received ICI or chemotherapy last (ORR: 42.9%). Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 25% of patients (n = 12), with seven patients (14.6%) requiring discontinuation of treatment with both or either drug., Conclusions: Triplet therapy has shown activity in heavily pretreated patients with advanced melanoma and may represent a potential treatment regimen after failure of ICI and TT., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests. LJA received honoraria from Novartis, Sunpharma, and Bristol-Myers Squibb and travel support from Sunpharma, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi, outside the submitted work., FD receives/received honoraria and travel support from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre and Sun Pharma., PG has received conference support from Pierre Fabre., JCH received honoraria from Amgen, BMS, GSK, Immunocore, MSD, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma and travel support from BMS, Iovance and Sunpharma., ME declares honoraria and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Immunocore, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi, outside the submitted work., AF reports honoraria for presentations for BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre; Travel support and congress participation support from BMS, Pierre-Fabre, Novartis; Advisory Boards from MSD, BMS, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Immunocore and institutional funding from BMS Stiftung Immunonkologie, outside the submitted work., DBJ has served on advisory boards or as a consultant for BMS, Catalyst Biopharma, Iovance, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Mosaic ImmunoEngineering, Novartis, Oncosec, Pfizer, Targovax, and Teiko, and has received research funding from BMS and Incyte., GL received travel support from Sun Pharma, Pierre Fabre, research funding from Novartis, JMP served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi and received travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Therakos., FK received travel support for participation in congresses and / or (speaker) honoraria from Novartis, Almirall and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work, AZ received travel support from Novartis, Sanofi Grenzyme, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work., 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, and Novartis; and meeting and travel support from Almirall, Bristol-Myers Squibb, IGEA Clinical Biophysics, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Sun Pharma, AR reports grants from Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Adtec; personal fees from Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; and nonfinancial support from Amgen, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb and Teva, outside the submitted work., CB has received honoraria for advisory and/or speaker functions from Almirall Hermal, BMS, Delcath, Immunocore, InlaRx, Leo Pharma, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, and Sanofi, outside the submitted work., CP receives/received honoraria from AstraZeneca und Roche Pharma, outside the submitted work., AMM has served as a consultant for BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pierre-Fabre and QBiotics., GVL is consultant advisor for Agenus, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Evaxion, Hexal AG (Sandoz Company), Highlight Therapeutics S.L., Innovent Biologics USA, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, PHMR Ltd, Pierre Fabre, Provectus, Qbiotics, Regeneron, RD has intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationships with Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dhome (MSD), Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Roche, Amgen, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Catalym, Second Genome, Regeneron, Alligator, T3 Pharma, MaxiVAX SA, Pfizer, Simcere and touchIME outside the submitted work., EL served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma, Takeda and travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre- Fabre, Sunpharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work, DS declares research support from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merk Sharp & Dome, Novartis and Roche (all to institution); speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, PamGene, Neracare, Replimune, InFlarx, Immocore, Erasca, Philogen, BioAlta, Astra Zeneca, Daiichi-Sanyco, Formycon, Innovent Biologics, Agenus, Array Pharma, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Regeneron, Immatics, Curevac, Haystack Oncology, NoviGenix, Seagen, BionTech, SunPharma, UltimoVacs, and Novartis; and meeting and travel support from Pierre Fabre, LZ served as consultant and has received honoraria from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, and Sunpharma and travel support from MSD, BMS, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work, All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The effects of novel non-cytotoxic and immunotherapy drugs for cancer treatment on human testicular function have not been studied systematically., Objectives: The present study aimed to characterize effects of non-cytotoxic and immunotherapy drugs in patients with cancers who had not been previously treated with gonadotoxic chemo- or radiotherapy., Materials and Methods: This study involved 34 men, not previously treated with gonadotoxic regimens, in a mixed longitudinal (Cohort 1: 19 men about to start and approximately 1 year on non-cytotoxic and immunotherapy treatment) and cross-sectional (Cohort 2: 15 men already on non-cytotoxic and immunotherapy treatment) study using data modeling to estimate within-person time-course changes in testicular exocrine and endocrine functions. Cohort 1 provided 45 paired semen and blood samples (34 prior to and nine during treatment) and Cohort 2 provided 45 sets of samples (15 pre-treatment, 30 on treatment), including six men in Cohort 2 who had pre-treatment spermatozoa cryostorage prior to the study. Men on non-cytotoxic and immunotherapy treatment had undergone a median of 33.5 months long-term treatment., Results: Spermatozoa output and concentration were reduced by about 50%, with corresponding increases in serum follicle-stimulating hormone and decreases in serum inhibin B. Serum testosterone, luteinizing hormone, and sex hormone-binding globulin were unaffected by non-cytotoxic and immunotherapy treatment., Conclusion: Within limits of the present study of sample size and duration of on-non-cytotoxic and immunotherapy treatment, non-cytotoxic and immunotherapy drugs have a modest effects on testicular exocrine function (sperm production) or its hormonal correlates (follicle-stimulating hormone, inhibin B), with minimal impact on testicular endocrine (testosterone, luteinizing hormone) function., (© 2023 Commonwealth of Australia. Andrology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society of Andrology and European Academy of Andrology.)

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

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

Background: Intratumorally delivered immunotherapies have the potential to favorably alter the local tumor microenvironment and may stimulate systemic host immunity, offering an alternative or adjunct to other local and systemic treatments. Despite their potential, these therapies have had limited success in late-phase trials for advanced cancer resulting in few formal approvals. The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a panel of experts to determine how to design clinical trials with the greatest chance of demonstrating the benefits of intratumoral immunotherapy for patients with cancers across all stages of pathogenesis., Methods: An Intratumoral Immunotherapy Clinical Trials Expert Panel composed of international key stakeholders from academia and industry was assembled. A multiple choice/free response survey was distributed to the panel, and the results of this survey were discussed during a half-day consensus meeting. Key discussion points are summarized in the following manuscript., Results: The panel determined unique clinical trial designs tailored to different stages of cancer development-from premalignant to unresectable/metastatic-that can maximize the chance of capturing the effect of intratumoral immunotherapies. Design elements discussed included study type, patient stratification and exclusion criteria, indications of randomization, study arm determination, endpoints, biological sample collection, and response assessment with biomarkers and imaging. Populations to prioritize for the study of intratumoral immunotherapy, including stage, type of cancer and line of treatment, were also discussed along with common barriers to the development of these local treatments., Conclusions: The SITC Intratumoral Immunotherapy Clinical Trials Expert Panel has identified key considerations for the design and implementation of studies that have the greatest potential to capture the effect of intratumorally delivered immunotherapies. With more effective and standardized trial designs, the potential of intratumoral immunotherapy can be realized and lead to regulatory approvals that will extend the benefit of these local treatments to the patients who need them the most., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JJL: Researcher: AbbVie, Astellas, Astrazeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corvus, Day 1, EMD Serono, Fstar, Genmab, Ikena, Immatics, Incyte, Kadmon, KAHR, Macrogenics, Merck, Moderna, Nektar, Next Cure, Numab, Palleon, Pfizer, Replimmune, Rubius, Servier, Scholar Rock, Synlogic, Takeda, Trishula, Tizona, XencorConsultant/Advisor/Speaker: Abbvie, Agenus, Alnylam, Atomwise, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Castle, Checkmate, Codiak, Crown, Cugene, Curadev, Day One, Eisai, EMD Serono, Endeavor, Flame, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech, Gilead, Glenmark, HotSpot, Kadmon, KSQ, Janssen, Ikena, Inzen, Immatics, Immunocore, Incyte, Instil, IO Biotech, Macrogenics, Merck, Mersana, Nektar, Novartis, Partner, Pfizer, Pioneering Medicines, PsiOxus, Regeneron, Replimmune, Ribon, Roivant, Servier, STINGthera, Synlogic, Synthekine, 7 Hills, Affivant, Bright Peak, Exo, Fstar, Inzen, RefleXion, Xilio (stock) Actym, Alphamab Oncology, Arch Oncology, Duke Street Bio, Kanaph, Mavu, NeoTx, Onc.AI, OncoNano, physIQ, Pyxis, Saros, STipe, Tempest, Abbvie, Agenus, Amgen, Immutep, Evaxion. DD: Grants/Research Support (institutional): Arcus, Immunocore, Merck, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Tesaro/GSK. Consultant: ACM Bio, Ascendis, Castle, Clinical Care Options (CCO), Gerson Lehrman Group (GLG), Immunitas, Medical Learning Group (MLG), Replimmune, Trisalus, Xilio Therapeutics. CE Speakers’ Bureau: Castle Biosciences. Stockholder: None. Intellectual Property: US Patent 63/124,231, "Compositions and Methods for Treating Cancer", December 11, 2020 US Patent 63/208,719, "Compositions and Methods For Responsiveness to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICI), Increasing Effectiveness of ICI and Treating Cancer", June 9, 2021. AM: Owner: HiFiBio, Deka Bio, Hotspot Therapeutics, Shattuck Labs, Researcher: Astra Zeneca, BMS, Sanofi, Consultant/Advisor/Speaker: Gritstone, Innate Pharma, Neogene, Deka Bio, Hotspot therapeutics, J&J, Medicxi, Depth Charge, BiolineRx, Clover Pharma, Grey Wolf, Lytix, RedX, HiFiBio, ImCheck, Applied Materials, Takeda, Shattuck Labs, Marengo therapeutics, Pierre Fabre, Third Rock Ventures, SotioPublicly Traded Stocks: Centessa. RHA–Employee: Seven & Eight Biopharmaceuticals. Ownership Interest Less Than 5 Percent: Seven & Eight Biopharmaceuticals. NB: Consulting Fees: Novartis, Apricity, Rome Therapeutics, BreakBio, Carisma Therapeutics, CureVac, BioNTech, Gilead, Tempest Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Contracted Research: Regeneron Pharmaceutics, Dragonfly Therapeutics, Harbour Biomed Sciences, Ownership Interest Less Than 5 Percent: BreakBio, Apricity. JDB: Researcher: Merck, Genentech, Astrazeneca, Kite/Gilead, BMS, Celldex, Oncovir, Seattle Genetics, ADC Therapeutics, Epizyme, Consultant/Advisor/Speaker: Merck, Genentech, Astrazeneca, Kite/Gilead, BMS, Seattle Genetics, ADC Therapeutics, Epizyme, Asgaard Therapeutics, Global BioAccess, SIRPant Immunotherapeutics. JC: Executive Role: UofL Health, Researcher: Amgen, Iovance, Fate, Replimune, Consultant/Advisor/Speaker: Replimune advisory board 2020-21, Royalties or Patent Beneficiary: US Patents: University of Louisville. RC: Employee: Replimune. TdB: Consultant/Advisor/Speaker: Terumo, Boston Scientific, Astra Zeneca, Nanobiotix, Quantum Surgical, Guerbet, Cook medical, Johnson & Johnson. TDdG: Patents: (1) The use of cytostatics for the accelerated differentiation of DC; WO2009019320-A2; WO2009019320-A3; AU2008285598-A1; EP2281030-A2; CA2724018-A1; US2011117051-A1. US8,470,789B2; DCprime BV. (2) Immunoglobulins binding human Vγ9VÎ’2 T cell receptors; P31885NL00. Consulting Fees: Mendus (formerly Immunicum, formerly DCPrime BV), Partner Therapeutics, GE Health, LAVA Therapeutics, Contracted Research: Idera Pharmaceuticals, Macrophage Parma, Ownership Interest Less Than 5 Percent: LAVA Therapeutics. MGF: Employee: Regeneron. GVG: Employee: Merck. Publicly Traded Stocks: Immunogen, Aveo, Beta Bionics. KJH: Researcher: AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Replimune, Consultant/Advisor/Speaker: Arch Oncology, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Codiak, Eisai, Inzen, Merck-Serono, MSD, Oncolys, Pfizer, Replimune. HK: Employee: Ankyra Therapeutics. Consultant/Advisor/Speaker: Castle Biosciences, Marengo Therapeutics. CMK: Researcher: Amgen, Merck & Co., Kartos Pharmaceuticals, EMD Serono, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eily lilly, Blueprint Medicines, Incyte Corporation, Clovis Oncology, BMS, Aadi Bioscience, Pfizer, Iterion Therapeutics, Springworks Therapeutics, Nektar Therapeutics, GSK, Adaptimmune, Medimmune, Bioatla, Oncternal Therapeutics, Daiichi- Sankyo Co. Traycon Pharm, Eisai. Ascentage Pharma, Hutchison Medipharma, Salarius Pharmaceuticals, Loxo Oncology, -BTG Specialty Pharmaceuticals, AStex Pharmaceuticals, Xencor, bayer healthcare, Athenex pharmaceuticals, servier, K- group Beta, Trilliium Pharmaceuticals, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, Ningbo Newbay Technology Development, Rain Therapeutics, Inhibrx, C4 Therapeutics, Foghorn Therapeutics, Theseus Pharmaceuticals, Cogent Therapeutics, Curadev PharmaRegeneron, Consultant/Advisor/Speaker: Chemocentryx, Kartos, Servier, Immunicom, Other: Spouse employed by Daichii Sankyo with stock options. ADK: Employee: Merck. KL: Employee: Marengo Therapeutics. SL: Executive Role: Big Against Cancer (Belgium), Breast Cancer Trials (Australia), International Breast Cancer Study Group (Switzerland) Researcher: Research funding to institution from Novartis, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Merck, Puma Biotechnology, Eli Lilly, Nektar Therapeutics, Astra Zeneca, Roche-Genentech and Seattle Genetics, Consultant/Advisor/Speaker: Consultant (not compensated) to Seattle Genetics, Novartis, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Merck, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Gilead Therapeutics and Roche-Genentech. Consultant (paid to institution) to Aduro Biotech, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche-Genentech, Astra Zeneca, Silverback Therapeutics, G1 Therapeutics, PUMA Biotechnologies, Pfizer, Gilead Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, Amunix, Tallac Therapeutics, Eli Lilly and Bristol Meyers Squibb, Role: Presenter (Speaker). GVL: Consultant/Advisor/Speaker: Consultant Advisor for Agenus, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca UK, Boehringer Ingelheim International, Bristol Myers Squibb, Evaxion Biotech A/S, Hexal AG (Sandoz Company), Highlight Therapeutics S.L., Innovent Biologics USA, Merck Sharpe & Dohme (Australia), Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis Pharma AG, PHMR, Pierre Fabre, Provectus Australia, Qbiotics Group Limited, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. IM: Consulting Fees: Bristol-Myers Squibb, F-STAR, Alligator, Pharma Mar, AstraZeneca, Numab Therapeutics, Roche, Amunix, Gossamer, Molecular Partners, Merck-Serono, Genmab, PharmaMar, Contracted Research: Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Highlight Therapeutics, Alligator, Genmab, Astrazeneca. MRM: Researcher : Roche, Astrazeneca, Novartis, Immunocore, BMS, Pfizer, Merck/MSD, Regeneron, BiolineRx, Replimune, GRAIL, Alkermes, iOx, Vaccitech, Consultant/Advisor/Speaker: Infinitopes. BN: Researcher: As a principal investigator for clinical trials sponsored by UZ Brussel, my institution received support from Novartis, Pfizer, Bayer, BMS, MSD, Pierre-Fabre, Amgen, Consultant/Advisor/Speaker: Novartis, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, Amgen. DJP: Consulting Fees: ViiV Healthcare, Bayer, Hoffman La Roche, EISAI, H3B, MiNa Alpha Therapeutics, DaVolterra, Fees for Non CE Services: Hoffmann La Roche, EISAI, Contracted Research: Merck Sharpe and Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb (to institution). RAS: Researcher: Boston ScientificConsultant/Advisor/Speaker: Cook Medical, TriSalus, Replimune, Medtronic. SBS: Owner: Aperture Medical Technology, Executive Role: Aperture Medical Technology, Researcher: GE Healthcare, Johnson & Johnson, Elesta, Consultant/Advisor/Speaker: GE Healthcare, XACT Robotics, Microbot, Candel Therapeutics, Varian, Merck & Co., Royalty and Patent Beneficiary: Aperture Medical Technology, Publicly Traded Stocks: Johnson & Johnson, Poseidx Therapeutics, Motus GI, Sientra, Avadel, Lantheus. PS: Employee: Johnson & Johnson, Publicly Traded Stocks: Johnson & Johnson. SITC staff members SMW, CG, AK, NL, EG and KJ have no disclosures., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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

Background: The introduction of adjuvant systemic treatment for patients with high-risk melanomas necessitates accurate staging of disease. However, inconsistencies in outcomes exist between disease stages as defined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer (8th edition). We aimed to develop a tool to predict patient-specific outcomes in people with melanoma rather than grouping patients according to disease stage., Methods: Patients older than 13 years with confirmed primary melanoma who underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) between Oct 29, 1997, and Nov 11, 2013, at four European melanoma centres (based in Berlin, Germany; Amsterdam and Rotterdam, the Netherlands; and Warsaw, Poland) were included in the development cohort. Potential predictors of recurrence-free and melanoma-specific survival assessed were sex, age, presence of ulceration, primary tumour location, histological subtype, Breslow thickness, sentinel node status, number of sentinel nodes removed, maximum diameter of the largest sentinel node metastasis, and Dewar classification. A prognostic model and nomogram were developed to predict 5-year recurrence-free survival on a continuous scale in patients with stage pT1b or higher melanomas. This model was also calibrated to predict melanoma-specific survival. Model performance was assessed by discrimination (area under the time-dependent receiver operating characteristics curve [AUC]) and calibration. External validation was done in a cohort of patients with primary melanomas who underwent SLNB between Jan 30, 1997, and Dec 12, 2013, at the Melanoma Institute Australia (Sydney, NSW, Australia)., Findings: The development cohort consisted of 4071 patients, of whom 2075 (51%) were female and 1996 (49%) were male. 889 (22%) had sentinel node-positive disease and 3182 (78%) had sentinel node-negative disease. The validation cohort comprised 4822 patients, of whom 1965 (41%) were female and 2857 (59%) were male. 891 (18%) had sentinel node-positive disease and 3931 (82%) had sentinel node-negative disease. Median follow-up was 4·8 years (IQR 2·3-7·8) in the development cohort and 5·0 years (2·2-8·9) in the validation cohort. In the development cohort, 5-year recurrence-free survival was 73·5% (95% CI 72·0-75·1) and 5-year melanoma-specific survival was 86·5% (85·3-87·8). In the validation cohort, the corresponding estimates were 66·1% (64·6-67·7) and 83·3% (82·0-84·6), respectively. The final model contained six prognostic factors: sentinel node status, Breslow thickness, presence of ulceration, age at SLNB, primary tumour location, and maximum diameter of the largest sentinel node metastasis. In the development cohort, for the model's prediction of recurrence-free survival, the AUC was 0·80 (95% CI 0·78-0·81); for prediction of melanoma-specific survival, the AUC was 0·81 (0·79-0·84). External validation showed good calibration for both outcomes, with AUCs of 0·73 (0·71-0·75) and 0·76 (0·74-0·78), respectively., Interpretation: Our prediction model and nomogram accurately predicted patient-specific risk probabilities for 5-year recurrence-free and melanoma-specific survival. These tools could have important implications for clinical decision making when considering adjuvant treatments in patients with high-risk melanomas., Funding: Erasmus Medical Centre Cancer Institute., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests RCS reports honoraria (paid to their institution) from Amgen. AAMvdV reports consultancy fees (paid to their institution) from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, Ipsen, Eisai, Merck, Pfizer, Novartis, and Roche. RPMS has received honoraria for advisory board participation from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Qbiotics, and speaker fees from Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis. AHRV has received honoraria from Novartis. RAS has received fees for professional services from MetaOptima Technology, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Evaxion, Provectus, Qbiotics, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, NeraCare, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Myriad Genetics, and GlaxoSmithKline. GVL reports consultancy or advisory fees from Agenus, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Evaxion, Hexal, Highlight Therapeutics, Innovent Biologics, Novartis, OncoSec, PHMR, Pierre Fabre, Provectus, Qbiotics, and Regeneron. JFT has received honoraria for advisory board participation from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, GlaxoSmithKline, and Provectus, and travel and conference support from GlaxoSmithKline, Provectus, and Novartis. PR reports research funding (paid to their institution) from Merck Sharp & Dohme and Pfizer, and has received honoraria for lectures and advisory board participation from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Merck, Philogen, and Blueprint Medicines. UK has received consulting fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, travel support from Merck Serono and Pfizer, and grants for educational activities from Merck Serono, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Pierre-Fabre. ACJvA reports honoraria for consultancy and serving on advisory boards (all paid to their institution) from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck, Pfizer, Neracare, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Provectus, Sanofi, Sirius Medical, and 4SC, and research grants (paid to their institution) from Amgen, Merck, and Pfizer. DvK has participated on the data and safety monitoring boards of the FAST CABG and Multivessel Talent trials. DJG has served on data and safety monitoring boards for Amgen and Novartis (funds paid to their institution). All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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

Purpose: Improvements in recurrence-free survival (RFS) were demonstrated in two recent randomized trials for patients with sentinel node (SN)-negative stage IIB or IIC melanoma receiving adjuvant systemic therapy (pembrolizumab/nivolumab). However, adverse events also occurred. Accurate individualized prognostic estimates of RFS and overall survival (OS) would allow patients to more accurately weigh the risks and benefits of adjuvant therapy. Since the current American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition (AJCC-8) melanoma staging system focuses on melanoma-specific survival, we developed a multivariable risk prediction calculator that provides estimates of 5- and 10-year RFS and OS for these patients., Methods: Data were extracted from the Melanoma Institute Australia (MIA) database for patients diagnosed with stage II (clinical or pathological) melanoma (n = 3,220). Survival prediction models were developed using multivariable Cox regression analyses (MIA models) and externally validated twice using data sets from the United States and the Netherlands. Each model's performance was assessed using C-statistics and calibration plots and compared with Cox models on the basis of AJCC-8 staging (stage models)., Results: The 5-year and 10-year RFS C-statistics were 0.70 and 0.73 (MIA-model) versus 0.61 and 0.60 (stage-model), respectively. For OS, the 5-year and 10-year C-statistics were 0.71 and 0.75 (MIA-model) compared with 0.62 and 0.61 (stage-model), respectively. The MIA models were well calibrated and externally validated., Conclusion: The MIA models offer accurate and personalized estimates of both RFS and OS in patients with stage II melanoma even in the absence of pathological staging with SN biopsy. These models were robust on external validations and may be used in everyday practice both with (ideally) and without performing SN biopsy to identify high-risk patients for further management strategies. An online tool will be available at the MIA website (Risk Prediction Tools).

Background: POLARIS (phase 2 [ph2]; NCT03911869) evaluated encorafenib (BRAF inhibitor) in combination with binimetinib (MEK1/2 inhibitor) in BRAF/MEK inhibitor-naïve patients with BRAF V600-mutant melanoma with asymptomatic brain metastases., Methods: The safety lead-in (SLI) assessed tolerability for high-dose encorafenib 300 mg twice daily (BID) plus binimetinib 45 mg BID. If the high dose was tolerable in ph2, patients would be randomized to receive high or standard dose (encorafenib 450 mg once daily [QD] plus binimetinib 45 mg BID). Otherwise, standard dose was evaluated as the recommended ph2 dose (RP2D). Patients who tolerated standard dosing during Cycle 1 could be dose escalated to encorafenib 600 mg QD plus binimetinib 45 mg BID in Cycle 2. Safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics were examined., Results: RP2D was standard encorafenib dosing, as >33% of evaluable SLI patients (3/9) had dose-limiting toxicities. Overall, of 13 safety-evaluable patients (10 SLI, 3 ph2), 9 had prior immunotherapy. There were 9 treatment-related adverse events in the SLI and 3 in ph2. Of the SLI efficacy-evaluable patients ( n  = 10), 1 achieved complete response and 5 achieved partial responses (PR); the brain metastasis response rate (BMRR) was 60% (95% CI: 26.2, 87.8). In ph2, 2 of 3 patients achieved PR (BMRR, 67% [95% CI: 9.4, 99.2]). Repeated encorafenib 300 mg BID dosing did not increase steady-state exposure compared with historical 450 mg QD data., Conclusions: Despite small patient numbers due to early trial termination, BMRR appeared similar between the SLI and ph2, and the ph2 safety profile appeared consistent with previous reports of standard-dose encorafenib in combination with binimetinib., Competing Interests: A.M.M.: Reports personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche, Pierre Fabre, and QBiotics. G.V.L.: Reports personal fees from Agenus, Amgen, Array BioPharma, AstraZeneca, BioNTech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Evaxion, Hexal AG (Sandoz Company), Highlight Therapeutics S. L., IO Biotech Immunocore, Innovent Biologics USA, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, PHMR Ltd, Pierre Fabre, and Regeneron. A.K.: No declaration of interests to report. H.T.: Reports consulting or advisory roles for Array BioPharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, and Roche; and research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Roche. J.W.: Reports being a paid consultant for Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Genentech, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca, and was named on a PD-1 biomarker patent by Biodesix and a CTLA4 biomarker patent by Moffitt Cancer Center. K.F.: Reports stock and other ownership interests for Clovis Oncology, Loxo, X4 Pharma, Strata Oncology, PIC Therapeutics, Apricity Health, Oncoceutics, FogPharma, Tvardi Therapeutics, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, Kinnate Biopharma, Scorpion Therapeutics, ALX Oncology, xCures, Monopteros Therapeutics, Vibliome Therapeutics, Transcode Therapeutics, Soley Therapeutics, and Nextech Invest; and a consulting or advisory role with Novartis, Lilly, Oncoceutics, Tvardi Therapeutics, Takeda, and Debiopharm Group. G.A.M: Reports research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb and Roche-Genentech. P.A.A.: Reports a consultant/advisory role with Anaveon, Bayer, Bio-Al Health, BioNTech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Erasca, Immunocore, Italfarmaco, Lunaphore, Medicenna, Merck Serono, MSD, Nouscom, Novartis, Pfizer, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Replimune, Roche-Genentech, Sandoz, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and ValoTX; research grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Pfizer, and Sanofi and travel support from Pfizer, Bio-Al Health, Replimune, MSD, and Pierre Fabre. Y.P.: Reports having no conflicts of interest. K.L.: Reports institutional research funding from Pfizer. K.T.: Reports institutional research funding from ABM Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, BioAtla, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Oncosec, OnKure, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Replimune; and honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb. O.H.: Reports consulting fees from Aduro, Akeso, Amgen, Beigene, Bioatia, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunocore, Idera, Incyte, Janssen, Merck, Nextcure, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Regeneron, SeaGen, Tempus, and Zelluna; and honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi Regeneron. H.P.: Reports being a consultant to Biocartis and Cureteq; and honoraria from Amgen, Roche, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, and Bayer. L.F.: Reports having no conflicts of interest. E.W., C.G., F.Z., J.F.K., A.d.P.: Report being employees of Pfizer. M.A.D.: Reports being a consultant to Roche/Genentech, Array, Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Aventis, Vaccinex, Apexigen, Eisai, Iovance, Merck, and ABM Therapeutics; and serving as the PI of research grants to MD Anderson by Roche/Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Aventis, Merck, Myriad, Oncothyreon, Pfizer, ABM Therapeutics, and LEAD Pharma., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press, the Society for Neuro-Oncology and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology.)

Background: Adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) versus placebo in the phase 3 KEYNOTE-716 study of resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma. At the prespecified third interim analysis (data cut-off, January 4, 2022), the HR for RFS in the overall population was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.50 to 0.84) and the HR for DMFS was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.47 to 0.88). We present a post hoc analysis of efficacy by subtypes defined by histopathologic characteristics., Methods: Patients aged ≥12 years with newly diagnosed, resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks (2 mg/kg up to 200 mg for pediatric patients) or placebo. The primary end point was RFS per investigator review; DMFS per investigator review was secondary. Subgroups of interest were melanoma subtype (nodular vs non-nodular), tumor thickness (≤4 mm vs >4 mm), presence of ulceration (yes vs no), mitotic rate (<5 per mm 2 (median) vs ≥5 per mm 2 ), and presence of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs; absent vs present)., Results: Between September 23, 2018, and November 4, 2020, 976 patients were assigned to pembrolizumab (n=487) or placebo (n=489). Median follow-up was 27.4 months (range, 14.0-39.4). The HR (95% CI) for RFS was 0.54 (0.37 to 0.79) for nodular and 0.77 (0.53 to 1.11) for non-nodular melanoma; 0.57 (0.37 to 0.89) for thickness ≤4 mm and 0.69 (0.50 to 0.96) for >4 mm; 0.66 (0.50 to 0.89) for ulceration and 0.57 (0.32 to 1.03) for no ulceration; 0.57 (0.35 to 0.92) for mitotic rate <5 per mm 2 and 0.57 (0.40 to 0.80) for ≥5 per mm 2 ; and 0.89 (0.52 to 1.54) for TILs absent and 0.51 (0.34 to 0.76) for TILs present. DMFS results were similar. In a Cox multivariate analysis, treatment arm, tumor thickness, and mitotic rate were significant independent factors for RFS, and treatment arm and mitotic rate were significant independent factors for DMFS., Conclusions: In this post hoc analysis, the benefit of pembrolizumab was largely consistent with the overall study population regardless of histopathologic characteristics. These results support the use of adjuvant pembrolizumab in patients with resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma., Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03553836., Competing Interests: Competing interests: DS reports being an invited speaker for BMS, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi; having advisory board roles with BMS, Immunocore, MSD, Neracare, Novartis, Pfizer, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi/Regeneron; research grants from BMS and MSD; being a steering committee member for BMS, MSD, and Novartis; being a coordinating PI for BMS, MSD, Novartis, and Pierre Fabre; being a local PI for Philogen and Sanofi; and being member of the board of directors for EORTC-MG (non-financial). JJL reports grants or contracts from AbbVie, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Corvus, Day One, EMD Serono, Fstar, Genmab, Ikena, Immatics, Incyte, Kadmon, KAHR, Macrogenics, Merck, Moderna, Nektar, Next Cure, Numab, Palleon, Pfizer, Replimune, Rubius, Servier, Scholar Rock, Synlogic, Takeda, Trishula, Tizona, and Xencor; consulting fees from 7 Hills, Bright Peak, Exo, Fstar, Inzen, RefleXion, Xilio, Actym, Alphamab Oncology, Arch Oncology, Duke Street Bio, Kanaph, Mavu, NeoTx, Onc.AI, OncoNano, Pyxis, Saros, STipe, Tempest, AbbVie, Alnylam, Atomwise, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Castle, Checkmate, Codiak, Crown, Cugene, Curadev, Day One, Eisai, EMD Serono, Endeavor, Flame, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech, Gilead, Glenmark, HotSpot, Kadmon, KSQ, Janssen, Ikena, Inzen, Immatics, Immunocore, Incyte, Instil, IO Biotech, Macrogenics, Merck, Mersana, Nektar, Novartis, Partner, Pfizer, Pioneering Medicines, PsiOxus, Regeneron, Ribon, Roivant, Servier, STINGthera, Synlogic, and Synthekine; having two provisional patents (serial #15/612,657 (Cancer Immunotherapy) and PCT/US18/36052 (Microbiome Biomarkers for Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Responsiveness: Diagnostic, Prognostic and Therapeutic Uses Thereof)); participating on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AbbVie, Immutep, and Evaxion; having leadership or a fiduciary role in the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer; and having stock or stock options in Actym, Alphamab Oncology, Arch Oncology, Duke Street Bio, Kanaph, Mavu, NeoTx, Onc.AI, OncoNano, Pyxis, Saros, STipe, and Tempest. PAA reports grants or contracts from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Pfizer, and Sanofi; consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Sandoz, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Pfizer, Lunaphore, Medicenna. Bio-Al Health, ValoTx, Replimmune, and Bayer; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Pfizer, Bio-Al Health, and Replimmune; and participating on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Oncosec, Nouscom, Seagen, iTeos, and Erasca. GVL is consultant advisor for Agenus, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, BioNTech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Evaxion, Hexal AG (Sandoz Company), Highlight Therapeutics S.L., IO Biotech, Immunocore, Innovent Biologics USA, MSD, Novartis, PHMR Ltd, Pierre Fabre, and Regeneron. PR reports consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Merck, Philogen, and Blueprint Medicine; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureau, manuscript writing, or educational events from Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Merck, AstraZeneca, Philogen and Blueprint Medicine. AK reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureau, manuscript writing or educational events from MSD and support for attending meetings and/or travel from MSD. MDV reports consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Immunocore; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureau, manuscript writing, or educational events from Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Immunocore. LdlC-M reports grants or contracts from Roche, Celgene, and MSD; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureau, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS, MSD-Merck, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca, Incyte, and Gilead; and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Gilead. JM reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureau, manuscript writing, or educational events from MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Novartis; support for attending meetings and/or travel from MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Novartis; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Novartis. VCS reports consulting fees from Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Merck-Serono, and Bristol Myers Squibb; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Pierre Fabre and Bristol Myers Squibb; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Merck Sharp and Dohme and Pierre Fabre. JMK reports consulting fees from Amgen Inc., Ankyra Therapeutics, Applied Clinical Intelligence LLC, Becker Pharmaceutical Consulting, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cancer Network, Cancer Study Group, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, DermTech, Fenix Group International, Harbour BioMed, Immunocore LLC, iOnctura, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Istari Oncology, Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc., Magnolia Innovation LLC, Merck, Natera Inc, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, OncoCyte Corporation, OncoSec Medical Inc, PathAI Inc, Pfizer Inc, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc, Replimune Inc, Scopus BioPharma Inc, SR One Capital Management LP, and Takeda; research trial support to institution from Amgen Inc, Bristol Myers Squibb, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, Harbour BioMed, Immvira Pharma Co, Immunocore Ltd, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Lion Biotechnologies Inc, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, and Verastem Inc; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureau, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, BMS, Regeneron, Ankyra Therapeutics, and Iovance Biotherapeutics; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Axio Research and IQVIA. CR reports consulting fees from BMS, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Sanofi, Merck, MSD, Sun Pharma, and AstraZeneca; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for BMS, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Merck, MSD, and AstraZeneca; and stock or stock options in Ribonexus. J-JG reports grants or contracts from Pierre Fabre (institution); consulting fees from Novartis, BMS, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, Sanofi, and Philogen; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureau, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS, Novartis, and Pierre Fabre; support for attending meetings and/or travel from BMS, Novartis, MSD, and Pierre Fabre; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, and Philogen. RD reports consulting fees from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sun Pharma, Takeda, Sanofi, Caralym, Second-Genome, Regeneron, Alligator, T3 Pharma, MaxiVAX SA, Pfizer, and TouchIME; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureau, manuscript writing, or educational events from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sun Pharma, Takeda, Sanofi, Caralym, Second-Genome, Regeneron, Alligator, T3 Pharma, MaxiVAX SA, Pfizer, and touchIME. MSC reports consulting fees from MSD, BMS, Novartis, Amgen, Eisai, Ideaya, Nektar, Oncosec, Pierre-Fabre, Qbiotics, Regeneron, Roche, Merck, and Sanofi; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureau, manuscript writing, or educational events from MSD, BMS, and Novartis. YZ reports employment at Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, New Jersey, USA, and stock ownership in Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, New Jersey, USA. MK reports employment at Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, New Jersey, USA, and stock ownership in Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, New Jersey, USA. CK reports employment at Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, New Jersey, USA, and stock ownership in Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, New Jersey, USA. AE reports consulting fees from Agenus, BioInvent, BioNTech, Brenus, CatalYm, Clover Pharmaceuticals, Ellipses, Galecto, GenOway, IO Biotech, IQVIA, ISA Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Scorpion Pharmaceuticals, Sairopa, Sellas, SkylineDX, TigaTx, and Trained Therapeutics; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureau, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS and MSD; support for attending meetings and/or travel from BMS; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for BioNTeck, IQVIA, and Pfizer; and stock or stock options in IO Biotech, Sairopa, and SkylineDX. RAS reports consulting fees from MetaOptima Technology Inc., F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Evaxion, Provectus Biopharmaceuticals Australia, Qbiotics, Novartis, MSD, NeraCare, Amgen Inc., Bristol Myers Squibb, Myriad Genetics, and GlaxoSmithKline., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Biomarkers help to inform the clinical management of patients with melanoma. For patients with clinically localised primary melanoma, biomarkers can help to predict post-surgical outcome (including via the use of risk prediction tools), better select patients for sentinel lymph node biopsy, and tailor catch-all follow-up protocols to the individual. Systemic drug treatments, including immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapies and BRAF-targeted therapies, have radically improved the prognosis of metastatic (stage III and IV) cutaneous melanoma patients, and also shown benefit in the earlier setting of stage IIB/C primary melanoma. Unfortunately, a response is far from guaranteed. Here, we review clinically relevant, established, and emerging, prognostic, and predictive pathological biomarkers that refine clinical decision-making in primary and metastatic melanoma patients. Gene expression profile assays and nomograms are emerging tools for prognostication and sentinel lymph node risk prediction in primary melanoma patients. Biomarkers incorporated into clinical practice guidelines include BRAF V600 mutations for the use of targeted therapies in metastatic cutaneous melanoma, and the HLA-A∗02:01 allele for the use of a bispecific fusion protein in metastatic uveal melanoma. Several predictive biomarkers have been proposed for ICI therapies but have not been incorporated into Australian clinical practice guidelines. Further research, validation, and assessment of clinical utility is required before more prognostic and predictive biomarkers are fluidly integrated into routine care., (Copyright © 2024 Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia. All rights reserved.)

Background: Anti-PD-1 antibodies and BRAK/MEK inhibitors (BRAF/MEKi) reduce the risk of recurrence for patients with resected stage III melanoma. BRAFV600-mutated (BRAFmut) melanoma patients who recur with isolated disease following adjuvant therapy may be suitable for 'second adjuvant' treatment after local therapy. We sought to examine the efficacy and safety of 'second adjuvant' BRAF/MEKi., Patients and Methods: Patients with BRAFmut melanoma treated with adjuvant PD-1 based immunotherapy who recurred, underwent definitive local therapy and were then treated with adjuvant BRAF/MEKi were identified retrospectively from 13 centres (second adjuvant group). Demographics, disease and treatment characteristics and outcome data were examined. Outcomes were compared to BRAFmut patients who did not receive 'second adjuvant' therapy (no second adjuvant group)., Results: 73 patients were included; 61 who received 'second adjuvant' therapy and 12 who did not. Most initially recurred on PD-1 therapy (66%). There were no differences in characteristics between groups. 92% of second adjuvant group received dabrafenib and trametinib and median duration of therapy was 11.8 months (0.4, 34.5). 72% required dose adjustments, 23% had grade 3 + toxicity and 38% permanently discontinued drug due to toxicity. After median 26.1 months (1.9, 56.3) follow-up, recurrence-free survival (RFS) was improved in second adjuvant group versus no second adjuvant group (median 30.8 vs 4 months, HR 0.35; p = 0.014), largely driven by a delay in early recurrence, with no difference in overall survival (p = 0.59)., Conclusion: This is the first study examining outcomes of 'second adjuvant' targeted therapy for melanoma, after failure of adjuvant PD-1 based immunotherapy. Data suggest a short-term improvement in RFS, but at the cost of toxicity. Alternative strategies and more data on sequencing adjuvant therapies are required to improve outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Disclosures: AMM has served on advisory boards for BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pierre-Fabre. DBJ has served on advisory boards or as a consultant for BMS, Catalyst Biopharma, Iovance, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Mosaic ImmunoEngineering, Novartis, Oncosec, Pfizer, Targovax, and Teiko, and has received research funding from BMS and Incyte. LZ declares speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma, research support from Novartis and travel support from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma and Novartis; outside the submitted work. CH reports speaker and advisory board honoraria from Almirall, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi Aventis. GVL is consultant advisor for Agenus, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Evaxion, Hexal AG (Sandoz Company), Highlight Therapeutics S.L., Innovent Biologics USA, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, OncoSec, PHMR Ltd, Pierre Fabre, Provectus, Qbiotics, Regeneron. PAA has/had a consultant/advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Merck Serono, Pierre-Fabre, AstraZeneca, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Sandoz, Immunocore, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Oncosec, Nouscom, Lunaphore, Seagen, iTeos, Medicenna, Bio-Al Health, ValoTX, Replimmune, Bayer, Erasca. He also received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Pfizer, Sanofi. Travel support by Pfizer, Bio-Al Health, Replimmune. JP received travel support from Pierre Fabre, MSD, BMS, Novartis outside the scope of this study. JMR received speaker honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Amgen and Novartis and travel support by Sanofi, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb through institution. MSC is a consultant advisor for Amgen, BMS, Eisai, Ideaya, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Oncosec, Pierre-Fabre, Qbiotics, Regeneron, Roche, Merck and Sanofi, and received honoraria from BMS, MSD, Sanofi and Novartis. AH declares speakers and advisory board honoraria from Almirall, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermagnostix, Eisai, Highlight Therapeutics, Immunocore, Incyte, IO Biotech, KyowaKirin, MerckPfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Neracare, Novartis, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Replimune, Sanofi-Genzyme, Seagen, SunPharma, Xenthera; outside the submitted work. The remaining authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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

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

Background: Immunotherapies such as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are effective in multiple tumor entities but induce a plethora of side effects. Comprehensive real-world analyses are essential to identify new signals, characterize diagnostic features, enable risk assessment, determine pathomechanisms, assess effectiveness of side effect management and compare tumor outcomes., Methods: The international online `Side-Effect Registry Immuno-Oncology´ (SERIO; www.serio-registry.org) collects rare, complex, and severe immunotherapy-induced side effects across all tumor entities with a strong focus on ICI-induced immune-related adverse events (irAE). The relational database management system (RDMS) contains structured data on patient and tumor characteristics, type of immunotherapy, treatment of side effects, and outcome of tumor and irAE. Data are captured within 25 organ modules including new modules for immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) for CAR-T-cell therapies and cytokine release syndrome (CRS) for bispecific antibodies. Information on biological samples is gathered., Results: A total of 1398 irAE cases have been documented by 58 centers from 13 countries in patients with 17 tumor types. IrAEs were induced by nine different immunotherapies including tebentafusp and CAR-T cell therapies, and resulted, among others, in neurological (7.6%), pulmonary (4.0%), and cardiac toxicities (2.9%). 50.0% of all irAEs were graded severe or life-threatening and 23.0% of patients received second-line therapy for steroid-refractory or steroid-dependent irAE. SERIO has contributed to 44 original publications on topics ranging from irMyocarditis to irEncephalitis to long-term persistent sequelae of immunotherapy., Conclusions: A reliable evidence base is crucial for decision-making in rare, complex or therapy-refractory irAE. SERIO can help optimize side effect management and thereby reduce morbidity and mortality induced by immunotherapy., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest LH received speaker and consultancy fees from BiomeDx, BMS, Kyowa Kirin, Merck, MSD, Myoncare, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, SUN and Therakos. The LMU received research grants or clinical study grants from Agenus, AstraZeneca Inc., BMS, Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Huya Bioscience, Immunocore, IO Biotech, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dome GmbH, Miltenyi Biomedicine GmbH, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Replimune, and Sanofi Aventis. AF received honoraria for presentations and travel support from: BMS, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre. AF reports on participation on Advisory Boards of MSD, BMS, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Immunocore and institutional research grants from BMS Stiftung Immunonkologie for other financial or non-financial interests. AH reports grants and personal fees from Amgen, grants and personal fees from BMS, grants and personal fees from MerckPfizer, grants and personal fees from MSD/Merck, grants and personal fees from Philogen, grants and personal fees from Pierre Fabre, grants and personal fees from Regeneron, grants and personal fees from Roche, grants and personal fees from Sanofi-Genzyme, grants and personal fees from Novartis Pharma, grants and personal fees from Eisai, personal fees from Immunocore, grants and personal fees from Replimune, personal fees from Seagen, personal fees from IO Biotech, personal fees from Dermagnostix, personal fees from Incyte, grants and personal fees from NeraCare, personal fees from Highlight Therapeutics, grants from Huya Biosciences, personal fees from Kyowa Kirin, personal fees from Iovance, outside the submitted work. CL received honoraria (lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events) and travel support from: BMS, MSD Merck, Pierre-Fabre, Biontech, Almirall Hermal, Sun Pharma, KyowaKirin, Immunocore, Sanofi, Novartis. CP received honoraria (speaker honoraria or honoraria as a consultant) and travel support from: Novartis, BMS, MSD, Merck Serono, MSD, Celgene, AbbVie, Sunpharma, Pierre Fabre, UCB, Nutricia Milupa, Janssen and LEO outside the submitted work. CR reports personal consulting fees from BMS, Roche, MSD, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, Sunpharma, Pfizer, Regeneron. CR received honoraria (lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events) from Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, BMS. CR reports personal fees (participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board) from Ultimovacs and Regeneron. CR reports stocks/stock options: Ribonexus. DS reports grants, personal fees, non-financial support and other from Novartis, BMS, Amgen, MSD & Array/Pfizer; personal fees and from 4SC, Agenus, Array BioPharma, Astra Zeneca, BioAlta, CureVac, Daiichi Sanyko, Erasma, Haystack, Immatics, Immunocore, InFlarX, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, PamGene, Philogen, Neracare NoviGenix, Ultimovacs, Sandoz/Hexal, Sanofi, Seagen, Sun Pharma, Regeneron, and Replimune. GMcA reports on grants or contracts from BMS, Genentech-Roche, Merck to his institution. DT reports consultancy, speaker fees or travel grants: BMS, Roche, Novartis, Sanofi, Recordati, Kyowa Kirin, Sun Pharma and Pierre Fabre. GMcA reports on participation on Data Safety Monitoring or Advisory Board from Pierre Fabre and Pfizer (no payments) and on National Breast Cancer Foundation Board (Australia) (no payments). GVL is consultant advisor for Agenus, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Evaxion, Hexal AG (Sandoz Company), Highlight Therapeutics S.L., Innovent Biologics USA, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, OncoSec, PHMR Ltd, Pierre Fabre, Provectus, Qbiotics, Regeneron. HG reports on grants or contracts from BMS, Roche, MSD Oncology, Amgen, Novartis, Iovance Biotherapeutics to her institution. HG received consulting fees from BMS, MSD Oncology, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi/ Regeneron. HG received speakers honoraria from BMS, MSD Oncology, Pierre-Fabre, Sanofi/ Regeneron. HG received travel support from MSD, Amgen, Pfizer. JH received scientific grants from BMS, Sanofi, Sunpharma and consulting fees (for advisory boards) from GSK, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Onkowiessen, Sunpharma. JH received honoraria (talks) from Amgen, BMS, GSK, Immunocore, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma. JH received meeting/travel support from BMS, Iovance, Sunpharma. JH reports on participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board from Nekvax. LZ declares speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma, research support from Novartis and travel support from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma and Novartis; outside the submitted work. MS reports on research support from Amgen, BMS/Celgene, Gilead/Kite, Janssen, Miltenyi, Novartis, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Takeda. MS reports on participation on Advisory Boards of Astra Zeneca, Avencell, Ichnos, Incyte, Janssen, Molecular Partners. MS received honoraria (speaker’s bureau) from: Amgen, BMS/Celgene, Janssen, Gilead/Kite, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda. PA reports on grants and contracts from BMS, Roche-Genentech, Pfizer, Sanofi. PA received consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Merck, Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Merck Serono, PierreFabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Sandoz, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Pfizer, Lunaphore, Medicenna. Bio-Al Health, ValoTx, Replimmune, Bayer. PA received travel support from Pfizer, BIO-AI Health, Replimmune. PA reports on participation on a Data Safety Monitoring or Advisory Board from BMS, Roche-Genentech, Merck, Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, AstraZeneca, BoehringerIngelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Oncosec, Nouscom, Seagen, iTeos, Erasca. RD has intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationships with Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dhome (MSD), Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Roche, Amgen, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Catalym, Second Genome, Regeneron, Alligator, T3 Pharma, MaxiVAX SA, Pfizer, Simcere and touchIME outside the submitted work. RG received honoraria for advice and lectures from BristolMyers Squibb, Roche Pharma, MerckSharpDohme, Novartis, Merck-Serono, Amgen, Almirall Hermal, Pierre-Fabre, Sun Pharma, Immunocore, 4SC, Delcath, Sanofi/Regeneron. Ralf Gutzmer received travel support from SUN Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim and PierreFabre. Ralf Gutzmer received research grants from Novartis, Sanofi/Regeneron, Merck Serono, Amgen, SUN Pharma, KyowaKirin, Admiral Hermal. RK received meeting and travel support from SunPharma, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre. SG reports on clinical trials honoraria to institution from MSD, BMS, Sanofi, Pfizer, BioNTech, EORTC, I-O Biotech, Astra Zeneca, and Regeneron. SG received consulting fees from MSD and BMS and an Online Ticket for ASCO from BMS. TE received speaker and consultancy fees from BMS, Curevac, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Sanofi, Almiral Hermal, and SUN. TN reports on grants or contracts from NIH, BMS, Astra Zeneca to his institution. TN received consulting fees from Genentech, BMS, Roche, Sanofi, Roivant, Race Oncology. TN participated on Data Safety Monitoring Board/ Advisory Board from Genentech. TR declared speaker’s honoraria and travel grants from Therakos and SUN. AR, CE, MK, VM have declared no conflicts of interest. BR received support from BMS, Merck and Astrazeneca. BR received honoraria (for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events) from BMS, Merck and Astrazeneca. BR reports on participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from BMS, Merck and Astrazeneca. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Crown Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Pembrolizumab has a manageable safety profile as described in its label, which was primarily based on 2799 patients who participated in clinical trials for melanoma or non-small cell lung cancer. Here, we evaluated the safety of pembrolizumab in a broader population of patients from 31 advanced cancer clinical trials across 19 cancer types., Methods: Safety was analyzed in patients who received at least one dose of pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks [Q3W], 10 mg/kg Q2W or Q3W, or 2 mg/kg Q3W). Adverse events (AEs) and immune-mediated AEs and infusion reactions were evaluated., Results: Safety data from 8937 patients in 31 trials of pembrolizumab monotherapy were pooled (median, seven administrations; range, 1-59). Median duration on treatment was 4.1 months (range, 0.03-40.1). AEs occurred in 96.6% of patients. Grade 3-5 AEs occurred in 50.6% of patients. AEs led to pembrolizumab discontinuation in 12.7% of patients and death in 5.9%. Immune-mediated AEs and infusion reactions occurred in 23.7% of patients (4.6% experienced multiple immune-mediated AEs/infusion reactions) and led to pembrolizumab discontinuation in 3.6% and death in 0.2%. Grade 3-5 immune-mediated AEs occurred in 6.3% of patients. Serious immune-mediated AEs and infusion reactions occurred in 6.0% of patients. Median time to immune-mediated AE onset was 85 days (range, 13-163). Of 2657 immune-mediated AEs, 22.3% were initially treated with prednisone ≥ 40 mg/day or equivalent, and 8.3% were initially treated with lower steroid doses., Conclusions: This pooled analysis of 31 clinical trials showed that pembrolizumab has a consistent safety profile across indications., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships that may be considered as potential competing interests:, (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Ipilimumab plus nivolumab (COMBO) is the standard treatment in asymptomatic patients with melanoma brain metastases (MBM). We report a retrospective study aiming to assess the outcome of patients with MBM treated with COMBO outside clinical trials., Methods: Consecutive patients treated with COMBO have been included. Demographics, steroid treatment, Central Nervous System (CNS)-related symptoms, BRAF status, radiotherapy or surgery, response rate (RR), progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) have been analyzed., Results: 376 patients were included: 262 received COMBO as first-line and 114 as a subsequent line of therapy, respectively. In multivariate analysis, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) (≥1 vs 0) [HR 1.97 (1.46-2.66)], extracerebral metastases [HR 1.92 (1.09-3.40)], steroid use at the start of COMBO [HR 1.59 (1.08-2.38)], CNS-related symptoms [HR 1.59 (1.08-2.34)], SRS (Stereotactic radiosurgery) [HR 0.63 (0.45-0.88)] and surgery [HR 0.63 (0.43-0.91)] were associated with OS. At a median follow-up of 30 months, the median OS (mOS) in the overall population was 21.3 months (18.1-24.5), whilst OS was not yet reached in treatment-naive patients, steroid-free at baseline. In patients receiving COMBO after BRAF/MEK inhibitors(i) PFS at 1-year was 15.7%. The dose of steroids (dexamethasone < vs ≥ 4 mg/day) was not prognostic. SRS alongside COMBO vs COMBO alone in asymptomatic patients prolonged survival. (p = 0.013). Toxicities were consistent with previous studies. An independent validation cohort (n = 51) confirmed the findings., Conclusions: Our results demonstrate remarkable long-term survival in treatment-naïve, asymptomatic, steroid-free patients, as well as in those receiving SRS plus COMBO. PFS and OS were poor in patients receiving COMBO after progressing to BRAF/MEKi., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in delayed access to medical care. Restrictions to health care specialists, staff shortages, and fear of SARS-CoV-2 infection led to interruptions in routine care, such as early melanoma detection; however, premature mortality and economic burden associated with this postponement have not been studied yet., Objective: To determine the premature mortality and economic costs associated with suspended melanoma screenings during COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns by estimating the total burden of delayed melanoma diagnoses for Europe., Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter economic evaluation used population-based data from patients aged at least 18 years with invasive primary cutaneous melanomas stages I to IV according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) seventh and eighth editions, including melanomas of unknown primary (T0). Data were collected from January 2017 to December 2021 in Switzerland and from January 2019 to December 2021 in Hungary. Data were used to develop an estimation of melanoma upstaging rates in AJCC stages, which was verified with peripandemic data. Years of life lost (YLL) were calculated and were, together with cost data, used for financial estimations. The total financial burden was assessed through direct and indirect treatment costs. Models were building using data from 50 072 patients aged 18 years and older with invasive primary cutaneous melanomas stages I to IV according to the AJCC seventh and eighth edition, including melanomas of unknown primary (T0) from 2 European tertiary centers. Data from European cancer registries included patient-based direct and indirect cost data, country-level economic indicators, melanoma incidence, and population rates per country. Data were analyzed from July 2021 to September 2022., Exposure: COVID-19 lockdown-related delay of melanoma detection and consecutive public health and economic burden. As lockdown restrictions varied by country, lockdown scenario was defined as elimination of routine medical examinations and severely restricted access to follow-up examinations for at least 4 weeks., Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were the total burden of a delay in melanoma diagnosis during COVID-19 lockdown periods, measured using the direct (in US$) and indirect (calculated as YLL plus years lost due to disability [YLD] and disability-adjusted life-years [DALYs]) costs for Europe. Secondary outcomes included estimation of upstaging rate, estimated YLD, YLL, and DALY for each European country, absolute direct and indirect treatment costs per European country, proportion of the relative direct and indirect treatment costs for the countries, and European health expenditure., Results: There were an estimated 111 464 (range, 52 454-295 051) YLL due to pandemic-associated delay in melanoma diagnosis in Europe, and estimated total additional costs were $7.65 (range, $3.60 to $20.25) billion. Indirect treatment costs were the main cost driver, accounting for 94.5% of total costs. Estimates for YLD in Europe resulted in 15 360 years for the 17% upstaging model, ranging from 7228 years (8% upstaging model) to 40 660 years (45% upstaging model). Together, YLL and YLD constitute the overall disease burden, ranging from 59 682 DALYs (8% upstaging model) to 335 711 DALYs (45% upstaging model), with 126 824 DALYs for the real-world 17% scenario., Conclusions and Relevance: This economic analysis emphasizes the importance of continuing secondary skin cancer prevention measures during pandemics. Beyond the personal outcomes of a delayed melanoma diagnosis, the additional economic and public health consequences are underscored, emphasizing the need to include indirect economic costs in future decision-making processes. These estimates on DALYs and the associated financial losses complement previous studies highlighting the cost-effectiveness of screening for melanoma.