Search

To assess efficacy and toxicity of combination immunotherapy with ipilimumab plus nivolumab in routine practice in a retrospective multicentre cohort of patients with advanced melanoma.This retrospective analysis included patients with advanced melanoma treated with ipilimumab and nivolumab between October 2015 and January 2020 at six centres in Australia, Europe and the United States of America. We describe efficacy outcomes (overall survival [OS], progression-free survival [PFS] and objective response rate [ORR]) in treatment-naïve and pre-treated patients, with and without brain metastases, plus treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) in all patients treated.A total of 697 patients were identified; 472 were treatment-naïve of which 138 (29.2%) had brain metastases, and 225 were previously treated of which 102 (45.3%) had brain metastases. At baseline, 32.3% had stage M1c and 34.4% stage M1d disease. Lactate dehydrogenase was high in 280 patients (40.2%). With a median follow-up of 25.9 months, median OS in the 334 treatment-naïve patients without brain metastases was 53.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 40.8-NR) and 38.7 months (95% CI 18.6-NR) for the 138 treatment-naïve patients with brain metastases. For the entire cohort the ORR was 48%, for treatment-naïve patients without brain metastases ORR was 56.6% with a median PFS of was 13.7 months (95% CI 9.6-26.5). Median PFS was 7.9 months (95% CI 5.8-10.4) and OS 38 months (95% CI 31-NR) for the entire cohort. Grade 3-4 trAE were reported in 44% of patients, and 4 (0.7%) treatment-related deaths (1 pneumonitis, 2 myocarditis and 1 colitis) were recorded.The outcome and toxicity of combination immunotherapy with ipilimumab and nivolumab in a real-world patient population are similar to those reported in pivotal trials.

PURPOSE Currently, there are no robust biomarkers that predict immunotherapy outcomes in metastatic melanoma. We sought to build multivariable predictive models for response and survival to anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (anti–PD-1) monotherapy or in combination with anticytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4 (ipilimumab [IPI]; anti–PD-1 ± IPI) by including routine clinical data available at the point of treatment initiation. METHODS One thousand six hundred forty-four patients with metastatic melanoma treated with anti–PD-1 ± IPI at 16 centers from Australia, the United States, and Europe were included. Demographics, disease characteristics, and baseline blood parameters were analyzed. The end points of this study were objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). The final predictive models for ORR, PFS, and OS were determined through penalized regression methodology (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator method) to select the most significant predictors for all three outcomes (discovery cohort, N = 633). Each model was validated internally and externally in two independent cohorts (validation-1 [N = 419] and validation-2 [N = 592]) and nomograms were created. RESULTS The final model for predicting ORR (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.71) in immunotherapy-treated patients included the following clinical parameters: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, presence/absence of liver and lung metastases, serum lactate dehydrogenase, blood neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, therapy (monotherapy/combination), and line of treatment. The final predictive models for PFS (AUC = 0.68) and OS (AUC = 0.77) included the same variables as those in the ORR model (except for presence/absence of lung metastases), and included presence/absence of brain metastases and blood hemoglobin. Nomogram calculators were developed from the clinical models to predict outcomes for patients with metastatic melanoma treated with anti–PD-1 ± IPI. CONCLUSION Newly developed combinations of routinely collected baseline clinical factors predict the response and survival outcomes of patients with metastatic melanoma treated with immunotherapy and may serve as valuable tools for clinical decision making.

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

Background Patients with synchronous clinical stage III melanoma can present with primary melanoma lesions, locally recurrent melanoma or in-transit metastases. Neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab induces high pathologic response rates and an impressive relapse-free survival in patients with nodal macroscopic stage III melanoma. Whether primary site melanoma and in-transit metastases respond similarly to lymph node metastases with neoadjuvant immunotherapy is largely unknown. Such data would clarify whether surgical excision of these melanoma lesions should be performed before neoadjuvant therapy or whether it could be deferred and performed in conjunction with lymphadenectomy following neoadjuvant immunotherapy. Patients Patients with synchronous clinical stage III melanoma were identified from the OpACIN, OpACIN-neo and PRADO neoadjuvant trials, where all patients were treated with ipilimumab plus nivolumab. An additional case treated outside those clinical trials was included. Results Seven patients were identified; six patients had a concordant response in primary site melanoma lesions or in-transit metastasis and the lymph node metastases. One patient had concordant progression in both the primary and nodal tumour lesions and developed stage IV disease during neoadjuvant treatment, and thus, no resection was performed. Conclusion Pathologic response following neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab in primary site melanoma lesions or in-transit metastasis is concordant with a response in the lymph node metastases, indicating that there may be no need to perform upfront surgery to these melanoma lesions prior to neoadjuvant treatment.

Neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab showed high pathologic response rates (pRRs) in patients with macroscopic stage III melanoma in the phase 1b OpACIN ( NCT02437279 ) and phase 2 OpACIN-neo ( NCT02977052 ) studies1,2. While the results are promising, data on the durability of these pathologic responses and baseline biomarkers for response and survival were lacking. After a median follow-up of 4 years, none of the patients with a pathologic response (n = 7/9 patients) in the OpACIN study had relapsed. In OpACIN-neo (n = 86), the 2-year estimated relapse-free survival was 84% for all patients, 97% for patients achieving a pathologic response and 36% for nonresponders (P

BackgroundAcral melanoma is a rare melanoma subtype with poor prognosis. Importantly, these patients were not identified as a specific subgroup in the landmark melanoma trials involving ipilimumab and the anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) agents nivolumab and pembrolizumab. There is therefore an absence of prospective clinical trial evidence regarding the efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) in this population. Acral melanoma has lower tumor mutation burden (TMB) than other cutaneous sites, and primary site is associated with differences in TMB. However the impact of this on the effectiveness of immune CPIs is unknown. We examined the efficacy of CPIs in acral melanoma, including by primary site.MethodsPatients with unresectable stage III/IV acral melanoma treated with CPI (anti-PD-1 and/or ipilimumab) were studied. Multivariable logistic and Cox regression analyses were conducted. Primary outcome was objective response rate (ORR); secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).ResultsIn total, 325 patients were included: 234 (72%) plantar, 69 (21%) subungual and 22 (7%) palmar primary sites. First CPI included: 184 (57%) anti-PD-1, 59 (18%) anti-PD-1/ipilimumab combination and 82 (25%) ipilimumab. ORR was significantly higher with initial anti-PD-1/ipilimumab compared with anti-PD-1 (43% vs 26%, HR 2.14, p=0.0004) and significantly lower with ipilimumab (15% vs 26%, HR 0.49, p=0.0016). Landmark PFS at 1 year was highest for anti-PD-1/ipilimumab at 34% (95% CI 24% to 49%), compared with 26% (95% CI 20% to 33%) with anti-PD-1 and 10% (95% CI 5% to 19%) with ipilimumab. Despite a trend for increased PFS, anti-PD-1/ipilimumab combination did not significantly improve PFS (HR 0.85, p=0.35) or OS over anti-PD-1 (HR 1.30, p=0.16), potentially due to subsequent therapies and high rates of acquired resistance. No outcome differences were found between primary sites.ConclusionWhile the ORR to anti-PD-1/ipilimumab was significantly higher than anti-PD-1 and PFS numerically higher, in this retrospective cohort this benefit did not translate to improved OS. Future trials should specifically include patients with acral melanoma, to help determine the optimal management of this important melanoma subtype.

Background The previous OpACIN and OpACIN-neo studies investigating neoadjuvant IPI plus NIVO have demonstrated high pathologic response rates (74–78%) and favorable long-term outcomes for patients (pts) with a pathological response; at 36 and 18 months follow up only 1/71 (1.4%) responders has relapsed. In contrast, pathological non-responders have a poor prognosis; 15/23 (65.2%) have relapsed so far. This emphasizes the need for baseline biomarkers predictive of non-response and new neoadjuvant treatment combinations for these pts. In our previous studies, baseline IFN-γ signature high pts were more likely to respond to IPI plus NIVO. The DONIMI study tests the combination of NIVO ± IPI combined with a class 1 histone deacetylase inhibitor, domatinostat (DOM), according to the pts IFN-γ signature. We have developed a neoadjuvant IFN-γ signature, based on the signature previously described by Ayers et al., that will be used for the first time to classify pts in this prospective trial. Trial design This two-center investigator-initiated phase 1b study aims to assess the safety and feasibility of neoadjuvant NIVO ± DOM ± IPI in 45 stage III melanoma pts with macroscopic de-novo or recurrent disease. IFN-γ signature high pts (n=20) will be randomized (stratified by center) to Arm A (2 cycles NIVO 240 mg q3wk) or Arm B (2 cycles NIVO 240 mg q3wk + DOM 200 mg twice daily (BID), d1-14, q3wk). IFN-γ signature low pts (n=25) will be randomized to Arm C (2 cycles NIVO 240 mg q3wk + DOM 200 mg BID, d1-14, q3wk) or Arm D (2 cycles NIVO 240 mg q3wk + IPI 80 mg q3wk + DOM 200 mg once daily (OD), d1-14, q3wk). Based on safety data of the first 5 pts in arm D, the remaining pts will be treated with either a higher dosing scheme (200 mg BID, d1-14, q3wks), a lower dosing scheme (100 mg OD, d1-14, q3wks) or the same dosing scheme (200 mg OD, d1-14, q3wks). The primary endpoint is safety and feasibility. A treatment arm will be declared as not feasible if 2/5 or 3/10 patients cannot adhere to the planned time of surgery (week 6 ± 1week) due to treatment-related adverse events. Biopsies (week 0, 3), blood samples (week 0, 3, 6, 12) and feces (week 0, 3, 6) will be collected for translational research. To date, 7 patients have been enrolled. Clinical trial information NCT04133948 Disclosure Information I.L.M. Reijers: None. E.A. Rozeman: None. P. Dimitriadis: None. O. Krijgsman: C. Other Research Support (supplies, equipment, receipt of drugs or other in-kind support); Modest; BMS. L.J.W. Bosch: None. S. Cornelissen: None. J. Bouwman: None. J.M. Versluis: None. D. Rao: None. B. van de Wiel: None. A.J. Spillane: None. R.A. Scolyer: F. Consultant/Advisory Board; Modest; MSD, Neracare, Myriad, Novartis. A.M. Menzies: F. Consultant/Advisory Board; Modest; BMS, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche. A.C.J. van Akkooi: B. Research Grant (principal investigator, collaborator or consultant and pending grants as well as grants already received); Modest; Amgen, BMS, Novartis. F. Consultant/Advisory Board; Modest; Amgen, BMS, Novartis, MSD, Merck, Merck-Pfizer, 4SC. G.V. Long: F. Consultant/Advisory Board; Modest; Aduro, Amgen, BMS, Mass-Array, Pierre-Fabre, Novartis, Merck MSD, Roche. C.U. Blank: B. Research Grant (principal investigator, collaborator or consultant and pending grants as well as grants already received); Modest; BMS, Novartis, Nanostring. F. Consultant/Advisory Board; Modest; BMS, MSD, Roche, Novartis, GSK, AZ, Pfizer, Lilly, Genmab, Pierre Fabre.

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

9533 Background: First line IPI+PD1 induces long-term response in 36% of MM patients (pts); however, the majority of pts will progress and may require further treatment, which is yet to be established. We studied the patterns of progressive disease (PD) on 1st line IPI+PD1, and the management and outcomes in MM pts. Methods: Demographics, disease characteristics, nature of PD, subsequent treatments and outcomes were examined in MM pts with PD on 1st line IPI+PD1. Multivariable analyses (MVA) identified factors associated with patterns of PD: innate resistance (IR) = PD as best response or stable disease (SD) < 6 mo; acquired resistance (AR) = PD after initial response or SD ≥ 6 mo. Results: 310 MM pts from 14 melanoma centres were included; 208 (67%) had PD during and 102 (33%) after ceasing IPI+PD1. Overall med. progression-free survival (mPFS) was 2.8 mo (CI 95% 2.7 – 3.0); 187 pts (60%) had IR (mPFS 2.2 [2.1 – 2.5]), 112 pts (36%) had AR (mPFS 8.5 [7.2 – 10.2]) and 11 pts (4%) had pseudoprogression, i.e. PD followed by response without changing treatment (mPFS 2.7 mo [1.4 – NA]). On MVA, pts with ECOG PS ≥ 1 were more likely to have IR vs AR; and within IR pts, those with head & neck primary melanomas and lung metastases were more likely to have PD < 1.5 mo. Most pts with IR (68%) had PD in multiple sites, while 61% AR pts had PD in a single site. Brain was most common site of single organ PD; 49% of IR and 41% of AR. Med. follow-up from PD was 32.7 mo (28.1 – 36.8). After PD, 61 pts (20%) had best supportive care (26% of IR and 11% of AR pts). 259 pts (80%) received further treatment: 39% IR pts had systemic treatment (ST) only and 27% had ST + local; 31% AR pts had ST only and 39% had ST + local. Of 200 pts (65%) who had ST(+/-local), 54% had 1 line of ST and 46% had ≥ 2; 1st line ST (ST1) was BRAF/MEKi in 36% of pts, PD1 in 32%, IPI+PD1 in 7%, investigational drugs in 11%, chemotherapy in 9% and others in 5%. ORR in IR pts was lower than in AR pts for every type of ST1 (see Table). Med. OS from PD was 11.4 mo (CI 95% 9.6 – 16.1); IR 6.4 mo (CI 95% 5.6 – 10.2) and AR 26.1 mo (CI 95% 17.1 – NA). Conclusions: These data suggest longer OS from PD for AR vs IR pts independent of ST type. BRAF/MEKi, rechallenge with PD1+/-IPI and investigational drugs showed activity after PD on IPI+PD1, while chemotherapy has no role in this context.[Table: see text]

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

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

TPS10087 Background: Previous OpACIN and OpACIN-neo studies, investigating neoadjuvant ipilimumab (IPI) plus nivolumab (NIVO), demonstrated high pathologic response rates (74-78%) and favorable long-term outcomes in patients (pts) achieving pathologic response; at 36 and 18 months follow-up, respectively, only 1/71 (1.4%) pts with response has relapsed. In contrast, pts without pathologic response (pNR) have a poor prognosis; 15/23 (65.2%) have relapsed so far. This emphasizes the need for baseline biomarkers predictive of non-response and new neoadjuvant treatment combinations for these pts. In our previous studies, baseline interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) signature low pts were less likely to respond to neoadjuvant IPI plus NIVO. The DONIMI study tests the combination of NIVO +/- IPI with domatinostat (DOM), a class 1 histone deacetylase inhibitor, according to the IFN-γ signature in the tumor. Based on the signature previously described by Ayers et al. we have developed a neoadjuvant IFN-γ signature algorithm that will be used for the first time to classify pts in this prospective trial. Methods: The aim of this two-center investigator-initiated phase 1b study is to assess the safety and feasibility of neoadjuvant NIVO +/- DOM +/- IPI in 45 stage III melanoma pts with RECIST 1.1 measurable de-novo or recurrent disease. IFN-γ signature high pts (n = 20) will be randomized (stratified by center) to Arm A (2 cycles NIVO 240mg q3wk) or Arm B (2 cycles NIVO 240mg q3wk + DOM 200mg twice daily (BID), d1-14, q3wk). IFN-γ signature low pts (n = 25) will be randomized to Arm C (2 cycles NIVO 240mg q3wk + DOM 200mg BID, d1-14, q3wk) or Arm D (2 cycles NIVO 240mg q3wk + IPI 80mg q3wk + DOM 200mg once daily (OD), d1-14, q3wk). Based on safety data of the first 5 pts in arm D, the remaining pts will be treated with either a higher dosing scheme (200mg BID, d1-14, q3wks), a lower dosing scheme (100mg OD, d1-14, q3wks) or the same dosing scheme (200mg OD, d1-14, q3wks). The primary endpoint is safety and feasibility. A treatment arm will be declared as not feasible if 2/5 or 3/10 pts cannot adhere to the preplanned time of surgery (week 6 +/- 1week) due to treatment-related adverse events. Biopsies (week 0, 3), blood samples (week 0, 3, 6, 12) and feces (week 0, 3, 6) will be collected for translational research. The first patient was enrolled on January 23th, 2020. Clinical trial information: NCT04133948.

10064 Background: Neoadjuvant ipilimumab and nivolumab induces high pathologic response rates of 74-78% (OpACIN and OpACIN-neo trial), thus the role of Therapeutic Lymph Node Dissections (TLND) in patients with major pathologic responses (MPR: pathological (near) complete response) is now unclear. In the PRADO trial, TLND was omitted in patients with MPR in their index lymph node ((ILN), the largest LN marked prior to neoadjuvant therapy). We sought to determine if less extensive surgery is associated with better Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL). These are the first results of the comparison of HRQoL between patients undergoing a TLND or less extensive ILN excision. Methods: HRQoL was assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL questionnaire-C30 (QLQ-C30). A generalized estimation equation was used to assess the difference in HRQoL outcomes between patients who underwent TLND (pathological non- and partial-responders, pNR/pPR) versus those who did not (pathological (near)complete responders, pNCR/pCR). Differences were adjusted for age, gender and follow-up (FU, in weeks), but not for pathological responses (pNR, pPR, pNCR & pCR). Differences in QLQ-C30 scores were classified as clinically important according to published guidelines. Results: A total of 49 patients from the PRADO study had reached at least 24 weeks FU, and were included in the first explorative analysis. The median age of this study population was 58 years (range, 22-84). Questionnaire completion rates were high: 94% at baseline, 100%, 90%, 88% at week 6, 12 and 24, respectively. Sixteen (33%) patients underwent TLND versus 33 (67%) who had ILN excision only. Over a FU period of 24 weeks, patients who underwent TLND scored significantly lower on global (68 vs 78, adjusted difference (diff) = -9.53, p = .005), physical (84 vs 94 diff = -11.1, p = < .001), emotional (69 vs 83, diff = -11.7, p = .001), role (70 vs 85, diff = -13, p = .004), and social functioning (81 vs 91, diff = -8.9, p = .016) and had a higher symptom burden of fatigue (35 vs 23, diff = 11.1, p = .004), insomnia (38 vs 18, diff = 16.6, p = .002) and financial impact (12 vs 4, diff = 7.9, p = .027) than patients undergoing ILN excision only. These differences were indicated as clinically relevant. Conclusions: First results from PRADO suggest that reducing the extent of surgery following neoadjuvant immunotherapy might result in better HRQoL of high-risk stage III melanoma patients. Clinical trial information: NCT02977052.

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

Background Outcome of high-risk stage III melanoma patients (pts) was poor with a 5-year OS rate of Methods Between Augustus 2015 and October 2016, 20 stage IIIB/IIIC melanoma pts with palpable nodal disease were included in the phase Ib feasibility OpACIN trial. Pts were randomized to receive IPI 3 mg/kg + NIVO 1 mg/kg, either adj 4 courses or split 2 courses neoadj and 2 adj. Path response, as reviewed by a blinded pathologist, was defined as Results After a median FU of 36.7 months (minimum 28.3 months FU of pts alive) none of the 7 pts with a path response in the neoadj arm have relapsed. Both non-responding pts in the neoadj have relapsed versus 4 pts in the adj arm. One pt has died in the neoadj arm and 3 in the adj arm. The estimated 3-year RFS rate was 80% for the neoadj arm and 60% for the adj arm. The 3-year OS rates were 90% and 67%, respectively. Of the 18 (90%) pts that had developed 1 or more grade 3-4 adverse events all have recovered to ≤ grade 1, except for grade 2 endocrine toxicities needing hormonal supplementation therapy that are ongoing in 8 (50%) of 16 pts alive. Conclusions OpACIN was the first trial investigating neoadj IPI + NIVO in pts with macroscopic stage III melanoma, thus having the longest FU. At 3 years FU, no new safety events occurred and none of the pts with a path response have relapsed, suggesting that path response could be considered as surrogate marker for RFS and OS in neoadjuvant checkpoint inhibitor trials. Clinical trial identification NCT02437279. Legal entity responsible for the study Netherlands Cancer Institute. Funding BMS. Disclosure C.U. Blank: Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: GSK; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: GenMab; Advisory / Consultancy: Lilly; Research grant / Funding (institution): NanoString; Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre. J.V. van Thienen: Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis. J.B.A.G. Haanen: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: AZ/MedImmune; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche/Genentech; Advisory / Consultancy: Ipsen; Advisory / Consultancy: Bayer; Advisory / Consultancy: Immunocore; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Seattle Genetics; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Neon Therapeutics; Advisory / Consultancy: Celsius Therapautics; Advisory / Consultancy: Gadet; Advisory / Consultancy: GSK. A.C.J. van Akkooi: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Amgen; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD Merck; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck-Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: 4SC. T.N. Schumacher: Advisory / Consultancy: Adaptive Biotechnologies; Advisory / Consultancy, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: AIMM Therapeutics; Advisory / Consultancy, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Allogene Therapeutics; Advisory / Consultancy: Amgen; Advisory / Consultancy, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Merus; Advisory / Consultancy, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Neon Therapeutics; Advisory / Consultancy: Scenic Biotech; Research grant / Funding (institution): MSD; Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS; Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck KGaA; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Neogene Therapeutics; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Venture partner: Third Rock Venture. E.A. Rozeman: Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: MSD; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: NanoString. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

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