Search

Introduction: The COVID‐19 pandemic caused rapid implementation of telehealth for melanoma follow‐up care in Australia. This study explores Australian melanoma patients and clinicians' level of satisfaction with telehealth. Methods: A cross‐sectional study was conducted across three specialist melanoma centres in Sydney, Australia. Melanoma patients (all stages) and clinicians completed mixed methods surveys seeking socio‐demographic and clinical information and questionnaires to assess satisfaction with telehealth. Additionally, patients completed measures of quality of life, fear of cancer recurrence and trust in their oncologist. Patients and clinicians provided open‐ended responses to qualitative questions about their perceptions of telehealth. Results: One hundred and fifteen patients and 13 clinicians responded to surveys. Telephone was used by 109 (95%) patients and 11 (85%) clinicians. Fifty‐seven (50%) patients and nine (69%) clinicians preferred face‐to‐face consultations, 38 (33%) patients and 3 (23%) clinicians preferred a combination of face‐to‐face and telehealth consultations. Five (4%) patients and nil clinicians preferred telehealth consultations. Patients diagnosed with early‐stage melanoma, using telehealth for the first time, who have lower trust in their oncologist, and having higher care delivery, communication and supportive care concerns were likely to report lower satisfaction with telehealth. Open‐ended responses were consistent between patients and clinicians, who reported safety, convenience and improved access to care as major benefits, while identifying personal, interpersonal, clinical and system‐related disadvantages. Discussion: While telehealth has been widely implemented during COVID‐19, the benefits identified by patients and clinicians may extend past the pandemic. Telehealth may be considered for use in conjunction with face‐to‐face consultations to provide melanoma follow‐up care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The SunSafe Student Ambassador Program (SSSAP) in Australia uses the peer‐to‐peer learning environment to educate high‐school students about sun‐safety. Aims: To assess whether the SSSAP would improve knowledge, attitudes and behaviours towards sun safety in high‐school students and whether this would be sustained at 3 months. Methods: An assessment survey was delivered before, immediately after and 3 months after participation in the SSSAP in 2019. Results: In total, 503 participants completed the pre‐presentation survey, 274 completed the post‐presentation survey, and 218 completed both. Immediately following presentation, the total composite score for all 18 knowledge questions increased from a mean ± SD of 11.8 ± 3.5 to 13.8 ± 4.7 (P < 0.001). There was strong evidence for an improvement in one attitude‐based question 'Is it healthy to have a tan?' (P < 0.01) and one behaviour question about wearing sunscreen daily (P = 0.02). After 3 months, 235 students were matched to their pre‐presentation survey. The composite score of all knowledge questions had improved from 11.2 ± 3.5 to 12.1 ± 4.5 (out of a total of 18) (P < 0.01). There was also an improvement in two attitude questions 'Do you feel better when you have a tan?' (P = 0.03) and 'Is it healthy to have a tan?' (very strong evidence: P < 0.001), and evidence for a reduction in time spent outdoors on a weekday (P = 0.04). Conclusion: The SSSAP was associated with improvements in knowledge, attitude and behaviour towards sun safety immediately and at 3 months post‐presentation. Further research is required to determine whether these positive effects are sustained and whether they ultimately reduce skin cancers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors have improved survival in advanced stage melanoma patients. Rates of new primary melanomas (NPM) in patients with prior melanoma have been reported to be as high as 12%. Little is currently known regarding the frequency or characteristics of NPMs occurring in melanoma patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Aim: To determine the frequency and describe clinicopathologic characteristics of NPMs diagnosed in patients during or after treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors for metastatic melanoma. Methods: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the Melanoma Institute Australia and Westmead Hospital Dermatology databases. Clinicopathological data for the initial primary melanoma (IPM) and NPM were compared. Results: Between 2013–2017, 14 NPMs in 13 patients (out of a total of 1047) treated with checkpoint inhibitors were identified. NPMs were significantly thinner than the IPM (median Breslow thickness 0.35 mm vs 2.0 mm, P = 0.0003), less likely to be ulcerated (0/14 vs 6/13, P = 0.004) and less likely to have nodal metastases (0/14 vs 6/13, P = 0.004). NPMs were significantly more likely to be detected in the in‐situ stage (6/14 vs 0/13, P = 0.0016). Conclusion: NPMs are infrequent in patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors. When they occur, they are usually detected at an early stage and have features associated with a favourable prognosis, most likely reflecting close surveillance. Further study is required to determine long‐term risk in patients achieving a durable response to immune checkpoint inhibitors, and to determine whether the immunotherapy itself influences both their development and biology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab is a highly active systemic therapy for metastatic melanoma but can cause significant toxicity. We explore the safety and efficacy of this treatment in routine clinical practice, particularly in the setting of serine/threonine‐protein kinase B‐Raf (BRAF)‐targeted therapy. Consecutive patients with unresectable stage IIIC/IV melanoma commenced on ipilimumab and nivolumab across 10 tertiary melanoma institutions in Australia were identified retrospectively. Data collected included demographics, response and survival outcomes. A total of 152 patients were included for analysis, 39% were treatment‐naïve and 22% failed first‐line BRAF/MEK inhibitors. Treatment‐related adverse events occurred in 67% of patients, grade 3–5 in 38%. The overall objective response rate was 41%, 57% in treatment‐naïve and 21% in BRAF/MEK failure patients. Median progression‐free survival was 4.0 months (95% CI, 3.0–6.0) in the whole cohort, 11.0 months (95% CI, 6.0‐NR) in treatment‐naïve and 2.0 months (95% CI, 1.4–4.6) in BRAF/MEK failure patients. The combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab can be used safely and effectively in a real‐world population. While first‐line efficacy appears comparable to trial populations, BRAF‐mutant patients failing prior BRAF/MEK inhibitors show less response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Anti-PD-1 therapy (hereafter referred to as anti-PD-1) induces long-term disease control in approximately 30% of patients with metastatic melanoma; however, two-thirds of patients are resistant and will require further treatment. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (pembrolizumab or nivolumab) compared with ipilimumab monotherapy in patients who are resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 therapy (hereafter referred to as anti-PD-[L]1).Methods: This multicentre, retrospective, cohort study, was done at 15 melanoma centres in Australia, Europe, and the USA. We included adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with metastatic melanoma (unresectable stage III and IV), who were resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 (innate or acquired resistance) and who then received either ipilimumab monotherapy or ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (pembrolizumab or nivolumab), based on availability of therapies or clinical factors determined by the physician, or both. Tumour response was assessed as per standard of care (CT or PET-CT scans every 3 months). The study endpoints were objective response rate, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety of ipilimumab compared with ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1.Findings: We included 355 patients with metastatic melanoma, resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 (nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or atezolizumab), who had been treated with ipilimumab monotherapy (n=162 [46%]) or ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (n=193 [54%]) between Feb 1, 2011, and Feb 6, 2020. At a median follow-up of 22·1 months (IQR 9·5-30·9), the objective response rate was higher with ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (60 [31%] of 193 patients) than with ipilimumab monotherapy (21 [13%] of 162 patients; p<0·0001). Overall survival was longer in the ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 group (median overall survival 20·4 months [95% CI 12·7-34·8]) than with ipilimumab monotherapy (8·8 months [6·1-11·3]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·50, 95% CI 0·38-0·66; p<0·0001). Progression-free survival was also longer with ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (median 3·0 months [95% CI 2·6-3·6]) than with ipilimumab (2·6 months [2·4-2·9]; HR 0·69, 95% CI 0·55-0·87; p=0·0019). Similar proportions of patients reported grade 3-5 adverse events in both groups (59 [31%] of 193 patients in the ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 group vs 54 [33%] of 162 patients in the ipilimumab group). The most common grade 3-5 adverse events were diarrhoea or colitis (23 [12%] of 193 patients in the ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 group vs 33 [20%] of 162 patients in the ipilimumab group) and increased alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase (24 [12%] vs 15 [9%]). One death occurred with ipilimumab 26 days after the last treatment: a colon perforation due to immune-related pancolitis.Interpretation: In patients who are resistant to anti-PD-(L)1, ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 seemed to yield higher efficacy than ipilimumab with a higher objective response rate, longer progression-free, and longer overall survival, with a similar rate of grade 3-5 toxicity. Ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 should be favoured over ipilimumab alone as a second-line immunotherapy for these patients with advanced melanoma.Funding: None. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The brain is a common site of metastatic disease for patients with advanced melanoma. Brain metastasis portends a poor prognosis, often causing deterioration in neurological function and quality of life, and leading to neurological death. Treatment approaches including surgery, radiotherapy and systemic therapy can lead to better control of this problem. Therefore, appropriate guidelines for the management of melanoma brain metastases need to be established, with regular updating when new treatment options become available. A multidisciplinary working party established by Cancer Council Australia has produced up-to-date, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the management of melanoma. After selecting key clinical questions, a comprehensive literature search for relevant studies was conducted, followed by systematic review of those studies. Data were summarised and the evidence was assessed, leading to the development of recommendations. Symptomatic lesions are best treated with surgery, when possible; this provides safe and effective local control. For patients with single or a small number of asymptomatic brain metastases, stereotactic radiotherapy is recommended, but in asymptomatic patients who have not previously received systemic treatment, drug therapy can be considered as a first-line treatment option. Whole brain radiotherapy may provide palliative benefits in patients with multiple brain metastases. Whenever possible, melanoma patients with brain metastases should be managed by a multidisciplinary team of melanoma specialists that considers the optimal combination and sequencing of surgery, radiotherapy and systemic therapy. • This study provides evidence-based guidelines for the management of melanoma brain metastases. • The melanoma multidisciplinary team must consider the optimal treatment combination. • Symptomatic lesions are best treated with surgery. • Stereotactic radiosurgery can be recommended for small number of metastases. • In asymptomatic patients, drug therapy can be considered as a first-line treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Immunotherapy has revolutionised the treatment of many malignancies. Along with their success, there have been inflammatory and immune-related adverse events (irAE). There is a paucity of literature describing the Australian experience of rheumatic irAE., Aims: To describe and characterise the Royal North Shore Hospital and Westmead Hospital cohort with rheumatic irAE., Methods: This case series reports on 17 patients with advanced cancer treated at two sites in Sydney, Australia who were referred for rheumatological evaluation from 2013 to 2016. Data were collected retrospectively and inspected for clinical signs, duration of immunotherapy prior to onset of symptoms, management strategies and cancer outcomes., Results: Patients presented with arthralgias, myalgias, periarticular and systemic symptoms. Onset of rheumatological symptoms was variable, with a median of 4 months (range 0.2-24) for monotherapy and 5.05 months (range 0.2-6.9) for combination. The predominant findings were of tenosynovitis (23%) and large joint involvement (65%). All patients were seronegative for RF and anti-CCP. Most patients responded well to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or low-dose prednisone (59%) and remained on immunotherapy (77%). The majority (76%) of patients experienced concomitant irAE in other organ systems. Sixty-five percent of patients had complete response of their malignancy to immunotherapy., Conclusion: Rheumatic irAE are heterogenous clinical entities, which require further evaluation into classification, patient susceptibility and response. From our study, there was no clear clinical pattern. The present case series supports that rheumatic irAE may be associated with tumour response. However, there is still limited experience in rheumatic irAE management and outcomes., (© 2020 Royal Australasian College of Physicians.)

Targeted therapy (BRAF inhibitor plus MEK inhibitor) is now among the possible treatment options for patients with BRAF mutation-positive stage III or stage IV melanoma. This makes prompt BRAF mutation testing an important step in the management of patients diagnosed with stage III or IV melanoma; one that can help better ensure that the optimal choice of systemic treatment is initiated with minimal delay. This article offers guidance about when and how BRAF mutation testing should be conducted when patients are diagnosed with melanoma in Australia. Notably, it recommends that pathologists reflexively order BRAF mutation testing whenever a patient is found to have American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC)/Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) stage III or IV melanoma (i.e., any metastatic spread beyond the primary tumour) and that patient's BRAF mutation status is hitherto unknown, even if BRAF mutation testing has not been specifically requested by the treating clinician (in Australia, Medicare-subsidised BRAF V600 mutation testing does not need to be requested by the treating clinician). When performed in centres with appropriate expertise and experience, immunohistochemistry (IHC) using the anti-BRAF V600E monoclonal antibody (VE1) can be a highly sensitive and specific means of detecting BRAF V600E mutations, and may be used as a rapid and relatively inexpensive initial screening test. However, VE1 immunostaining can be technically challenging and difficult to interpret, particularly in heavily pigmented tumours; melanomas with weak, moderate or focal BRAF V600E immunostaining should be regarded as equivocal. It must also be remembered that other activating BRAF V600 mutations (including BRAF V600K ), which account for ∼10-20% of BRAF V600 mutations, are not detected with currently available IHC antibodies. For these reasons, if available and practicable, we recommend that DNA-based BRAF mutation testing always be performed, regardless of whether IHC-based testing is also conducted. Advice about tissue/specimen selection for BRAF mutation testing of patients diagnosed with stage III or IV melanoma is also offered in this article; and potential pitfalls when interpreting BRAF mutation tests are highlighted., (Copyright © 2021 Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Adjuvant immunotherapy is revolutionising care for patients with resected stage III and IV melanoma. However, immunotherapy may be associated with toxicity, making treatment decisions complicated. This study aimed to identify factors physicians and nurses considered regarding adjuvant immunotherapy for melanoma., Methods: In-depth interviews were conducted with physicians (medical oncologists, surgeons and dermatologists) and nurses managing patients with resected stage III melanoma at three Australian tertiary melanoma centres between July 2019 and March 2020. Factors considered regarding adjuvant immunotherapy were explored. Recruitment continued until data saturation and thematic analysis was undertaken., Results: Twenty-five physicians and nurses, aged 28-68 years, 60% females, including eleven (44%) medical oncologists, eight (32%) surgeons, five (20%) nurses, and one (4%) dermatologist were interviewed. Over half the sample managed five or more new resected stage III patients per month who could be eligible for adjuvant immunotherapy. Three themes about adjuvant immunotherapy recommendations emerged: [1] clinical and patient factors, [2] treatment information provision, and [3] individual physician/nurse factors. Melanoma sub-stage and an individual patient's therapy risk/benefit profile were primary considerations. Secondary factors included uncertainty about adjuvant immunotherapy's effectiveness and their views about treatment burden patients might consider acceptable., Conclusions: Patients' disease sub-stage and their treatment risk versus benefit drove the melanoma health care professionals' adjuvant immunotherapy endorsement. Findings clarify clinician preferences and values, aiding clinical communication with patients and facilitating clinical decision-making about management options for resected stage III melanoma., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Introduction: In patients with metastatic melanoma, progression of a single tumour lesion (solitary progression) after response to immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) is increasingly treated with local therapy. We evaluated the role of local therapy for solitary progression in melanoma., Patients and Methods: Patients with metastatic melanoma treated with ICI between 2010 and 2019 with solitary progression as first progressive event were included from 17 centres in 9 countries. Follow-up and survival are reported from ICI initiation., Results: We identified 294 patients with solitary progression after stable disease in 15%, partial response in 55% and complete response in 30%. The median follow-up was 43 months; the median time to solitary progression was 13 months, and the median time to subsequent progression after treatment of solitary progression (TTSP) was 33 months. The estimated 3-year overall survival (OS) was 79%; median OS was not reached. Treatment consisted of systemic therapy (18%), local therapy (36%), both combined (42%) or active surveillance (4%). In 44% of patients treated for solitary progression, no subsequent progression occurred. For solitary progression during ICI (n = 143), the median TTSP was 29 months. Both TTSP and OS were similar for local therapy, ICI continuation and both combined. For solitary progression post ICI (n = 151), the median TTSP was 35 months. TTSP was higher for ICI recommencement plus local therapy than local therapy or ICI recommencement alone (p = 0.006), without OS differences., Conclusion: Almost half of patients with melanoma treated for solitary progression after initial response to ICI had no subsequent progression. This study suggests that local therapy can benefit patients and is associated with favourable long-term outcomes., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement All authors declare no direct conflict with this work. For unrelated conflicts, K.P.M.S. has an advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, AbbVie and Pierre Fabre and has received honoraria from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis and Roche. L.Z. has an advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi and Sun Pharma; has received research funding from Novartis; has received honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Roche and has received travel support from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi and Sun Pharma. E.W.K. has an advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis and Pierre Fabre; has received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb and has received travel support from Roche. C.A. has received travel support from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb and Roche. D.B.J. has an advisory role for Array BioPharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Incyte, Merck and Novartis; has received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb and Incyte and has received travel support from Genentech. Adriana H. is an employee of AstraZeneca with stock options in the company, has received honoraria from Novartis; has an advisory role for L.E.K. Consulting and has received travel support from Roche. J.M. has received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck-Pfizer, MSD, Novartis and Pierre Fabre; has an advisory role for Amgen, Merck-Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis and Pierre Fabre and has received travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, L'Oreal, MSD, Pierre Fabre and Ultrasun. P.B. has received travel support from MSD. Y.J.L.J. has received travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD and Pfizer. V.A. has received honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis and Pierre Fabre; has an advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Roche and has received travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, OncoSec and Pierre Fabre. P.A.A. has an advisory role for 4SC, Alkermes, Amgen, Array BioPharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Genmab, Idera, Immunoscore, Incyte, Italfarmaco, MedImmune, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Nektar, NewLink Genetics, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sandoz, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, Syndax and Ultimovacs; has received research funding from Array BioPharma, Bristol Myers Squibb and Genentech; has received travel support from Merck Sharp & Dohme and is a stockowner of PrimeVax. Andrew H. has received honoraria from Merck and Novartis and has an advisory role for Novartis and Pierre Fabre. A.M.M. has an advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Roche. G.V.L. is a consultant advisor for Aduro Biotech, Inc., Amgen Inc., Array BioPharma Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Bristol Myers Squibb, Highlight Therapeutics S.L., Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis Pharma AG, QBiotics Group Limited, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and SkylineDX B.V. C.L. had received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Incyte, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre and Roche; has an advisory role for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche and Sanofi; has received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb and Roche and has received travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Sharp & Dohme. A.A.M.v.d.V. has an advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, MSD Oncology, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche and Sanofi and has received research funding from Bayer and travel support from Bayer, MSD Oncology, Novartis and Roche. M.S.C. has an advisory role for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, IDEAYA Biosciences, Merck and Co, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Nektar, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi and QBiotics and has received honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Novartis. S.S. has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck and Merck Serono; has an advisory role for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis and Roche outside the submitted work and has received research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Endocyte, Genentech and Merck Sharp & Dohme. E.G.E.d.V. has an advisory role for Daiichi Sankyo, NSABP and Sanofi; has received research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Chugai Pharma, CytomX Therapeutics, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech, Nordic Nanovector, Radius Health, Regeneron, Roche, Servier and Synthon and is the chair of ESMO Cancer Medicines Working Group, chair of RECITS committee and member of the ESMO-MCBS working group. C.U.B. has received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis and NanoString; has an advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Lilly, Genmab and Pierre Fabre and is a stockowner of Uniti Cars. M.J. has an advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Tesaro and Pierre Fabre., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Improved understanding of the incidence, risk factors, and timing of CNS metastasis is needed to inform surveillance strategies for patients with melanoma., Patients and Methods: Clinical data were extracted from the databases of 2 major melanoma centers in the United States and Australia for 1,918 patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th edition stage III melanoma, diagnosed from 1998-2014, who had (negative) baseline CNS imaging within 4 months of diagnosis. The cumulative incidence of CNS metastasis was calculated in the presence of the competing risk of death, from stage III presentation and at benchmark time points 1, 2, and 5 years postdiagnosis., Results: At a median follow-up of 70.2 months, distant recurrence occurred in 711 patients (37.1%). The first site of distant metastasis was CNS only for 3.9% of patients, CNS and extracranial (EC) for 1.8%, and EC only for 31.4%. Overall, 16.7% of patients were diagnosed with CNS metastasis during follow-up. The cumulative incidence of CNS metastasis was 3.6% (95% CI, 2.9% to 4.6%) at 1 year, 9.6% (95% CI, 8.3% to 11.0%) at 2 years, and 15.8% (95% CI, 14.1% to 17.6%) at 5 years. The risk of CNS metastasis was significantly influenced by patient sex, age, AJCC stage, primary tumor site, and primary tumor mitotic rate in multivariable and conditional analyses. High primary tumor mitotic rate was significantly associated with increased risk of CNS metastasis at diagnosis and all subsequent time points examined., Conclusion: Similar rates of CNS metastasis were observed in 2 large, geographically distinct cohorts of patients with stage III melanoma. The results highlight the importance of primary tumor mitotic rate. Furthermore, they provide a framework for developing evidence-based surveillance strategies and evaluating the impact of contemporary adjuvant therapies on the risk of CNS metastasis development.

Background: The treatment response to new immunotherapy in advanced melanoma patients remains varied between individuals. Immune-related cutaneous side effects might have prognostic value., Objective: To determine whether development of ≥1 of the 3 immune-mediated cutaneous events (eczema, lichenoid reaction, or vitiligo-like depigmentation) is associated with improved progression-free survival., Methods: A cohort study of adults with stage IIIC-IV melanoma treated with pembrolizumab or nivolumab during May 1, 2012-February 1, 2018, at Westmead Hospital, Sydney, Australia. Treatment response was based on iRECIST version 1.1., Results: In total, 82 patients of an average age of 59.9 years were included. Median follow-up was 40.7 months; 33 patients had ≥1 target skin reaction. Skin reactions developed in one-third of individuals by 6 months. At any given time, the instantaneous risk of disease progression and death was lower for individuals who had ≥1 cutaneous adverse event (CAE) develop. Compared with individuals with no CAE, the hazard ratio for disease progression and death for individuals who had ≥1 CAE develop was 0.46 (95% confidence interval 0.23-0.91; P = .025) by the time-dependent Cox proportional hazards model., Limitations: Single-center study., Conclusion: This study demonstrates an association between the development of ≥1 of 3 CAEs and improved progression-free survival in this cohort of patients., (Copyright © 2019 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)