Search

BACKGROUND: The oncogenic BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib improves outcomes for patients with advanced BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma compared with cytotoxic chemotherapy. Vemurafenib is now approved for use in this patient population.PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this open-label, multicentre study, patients with previously treated or untreated melanoma and the BRAFV600 mutation received vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was safety. In a post hoc analysis, overall survival (OS) was analysed according to a prognostic scoring system developed using Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, existence of brain metastases and baseline serum lactate dehydrogenase level. The index was validated using data from patients treated with vemurafenib or dacarbazine in three clinical trials and data from patients treated with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in two studies. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01307397).RESULTS: Between March 2011 and January 2013, 3224 patients were enrolled, and 3219 patients received ≥1 dose of vemurafenib (safety population); median follow-up time was 33.4 months. Vemurafenib's long-term benefits were confirmed, and no new safety signals identified. The prognostic index showed between-group differences in OS, with tight, non-overlapping confidence intervals. Validation in a pooled group of 666 vemurafenib-treated clinical trial patients revealed a similar pattern; the pattern was similar in 280 patients treated with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib.CONCLUSIONS: Final results from the vemurafenib safety study confirm vemurafenib's tolerability in BRAFV600 mutation-positive patients and resemble those seen in real-world clinical practice. This index may be useful in patients on combination therapy and as a basis for further work.

Background: In the randomized, two-part, phase 3 COLUMBUS study (NCT01909453), encorafenib (enco) + binimetinib (bini) and enco alone improved 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) vs vemurafenib (vem) in patients (pts) with advanced BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma. ctDNA offers a less invasive alternative to tissue biopsy for identifying mutations in pts with advanced melanoma and may have prognostic value. We evaluated whether ctDNA from pts enrolled in COLUMBUS Part 1 correlate with pts’ efficacy outcomes. Methods: In COLUMBUS Part 1, 577 pts were randomized 1:1:1 to enco + bini, enco, or vem. 650 plasma samples were collected at baseline (Cycle 0 or Cycle 1 Day 1; all arms) and during treatment (Cycle 2 Day 1 [C2D1]; enco + bini and enco arms); 426 samples from COLUMBUS Part 1 were successfully analyzed using the GuardantOMNI assay. Analyses were exploratory with no multiplicity adjustments. Results: Survival outcomes in the biomarker cohort were similar to those in the intent-to-treat population. ctDNA was detected in 279 (96%) pts at baseline and 107 (79%) pts at C2D1. 92% concordance was observed between two plasma genomics assays (Inostics and Guardant) and 75% between tumor and plasma with respect to BRAF mutation status. BRAF V600 variant allele frequency (VAF) at baseline was prognostic for PFS and OS (P Conclusions: These exploratory analyses of Part 1 of the COLUMBUS study suggested that treatment with enco + bini significantly reduced BRAF V600 VAF, which was prognostic for PFS and OS at both baseline and C2D1. ctDNA provides a powerful tool for understanding the molecular basis for response and resistance to treatment and may impact future treatment decisions. Citation Format: Reinhard Dummer, Nuzhat Pathan, Zhou Zhu, Caroline Robert, Ana Arance, Jan Willem B. de Groot, Claus Garbe, Helen J. Gogas, Ralf Gutzmer, Ivana Krajsová, Gabriella Liszkay, Carmen Loquai, Mario Mandala, Dirk Schadendorf, Naoya Yamazaki, Michelle Edwards, Jean Cantey-Kiser, Alessandra di Pietro, Shibing Deng, Paolo A. Ascierto, Keith Flaherty. Molecular correlates of clinical benefit from circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA): Analysis of the COLUMBUS study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 6403.

The dabrafenib plus trametinib (dab + tram) combination has demonstrated durable long-term efficacy in patients with BRAF V600–mutant metastatic melanoma. However, real-world data characterizing patients with long-term benefit are limited. DESCRIBE III was a global, observational, retrospective, chart review study in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma treated with dab monotherapy and/or dab + tram combination therapy as part of the Named Patient Program or Individual Patient Program. Overall, 509 patients were enrolled. Patients were categorized into three groups based on their observed treatment duration: long-term (on therapy ≥12 months), intermediate (on therapy ≥6 months and &lt, 12 months), and short-term (on therapy &lt, 6 months) duration of benefit. More patients in the short-term duration of benefit group had baseline characteristics associated with poor prognosis compared with the other two groups. Median lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels (368 U/L) at baseline were also higher in the short-term duration of benefit group. No new safety signals were identified. DESCRIBE III identified baseline characteristics associated with long-term benefit of dab + tram. Lower LDH level and &lt, 3 metastatic sites at baseline were associated with a longer duration of benefit, confirming that the findings from COMBI-d and COMBI-v are relevant to patients treated in a real-world setting.

Aim: To evaluate the safety of rechallenge with a different anti-PD-1 antibody after an immune-related adverse event (irAE) that has prompted the discontinuation of anti-PD-1 therapy. Patients & methods: We describe two patients with metastatic melanoma who developed potentially disabling and early irAEs following anti-PD-1 treatment. Therapy was discontinued and toxicities resolved with corticosteroids. Results: Rechallenge switching to an alternative anti-PD-1 antibody did not lead to a new or recurrent irAE. Conclusion: Switching to a different anti-PD-1 antibody when resuming therapy after an irAE might be a safe strategy and warrants further investigation. Structural and biological differences between antibodies might explain the different safety outcomes.

Objective Patients with melanoma and early stable disease (SD) with pembrolizumab have unclear prognosis. We present post hoc analyses of long-term outcomes for patients with early SD, partial response (PR) or complete response (CR) with pembrolizumab. Patients and methods Patients who received pembrolizumab in the KEYNOTE-001 and KEYNOTE-006 studies and had SD, PR or CR at weeks 12 or 24 were included. Results Of 294 patients in the week 12 analysis, 107 (36.4%) had SD at week 12, of whom 7 (6.5%) had a best overall response of CR, 43 (40.2%) had PR and 57 (53.3%) had SD. Forty-eight–month overall survival (OS) rates were 95.2%, 73.0% and 47.7%, respectively, for patients with CR, PR and SD at week 12. Similar results were observed in the 241 patients in the week 24 analysis. Forty-eight–month OS rates were 72.1% for patients with SD at week 12 followed by subsequent response and 75.0% for patients with PR at week 12 followed by no change in response or progression. Thirty-six–month and 48-month OS rates were 11.6% and not reached, respectively, for patients with SD at week 12 followed by progression before week 24. Conclusions A substantial proportion of patients (46.7%) with early (week 12) SD with pembrolizumab achieved subsequent PR or CR. Patients with SD at week 12 and subsequent CR/PR had similar survival to those who maintained PR. In contrast, patients with SD at week 12 and subsequent progression had poor survival outcomes. These findings may guide treatment decisions for patients achieving early SD. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov : NCT01295827 (KEYNOTE-001); NCT01866319 (KEYNOTE-006).

Background Ipilimumab has shown long-term overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced melanoma in clinical trials, but robust real-world evidence is lacking. We present long-term outcomes from the IMAGE study (NCT01511913) in patients receiving ipilimumab and/or non-ipilimumab (any approved treatment other than ipilimumab) systemic therapies. Methods IMAGE was a multinational, prospective, observational study assessing adult patients with advanced melanoma treated with ipilimumab or non-ipilimumab systemic therapies between June 2012 and March 2015 with ≥3 years of follow-up. Adjusted OS curves based on multivariate Cox regression models included covariate effects. Safety and patient-reported outcomes were assessed. Results Among 1356 patients, 1094 (81%) received ipilimumab and 262 (19%) received non-ipilimumab index therapy (systemic therapy [chemotherapy, anti–programmed death 1 antibodies, or BRAF ± MEK inhibitors], radiotherapy, and radiosurgery). In the overall population, median age was 64 years, 60% were male, 78% were from Europe, and 78% had received previous treatment for advanced melanoma. In the ipilimumab-treated cohort, 780 (71%) patients did not receive subsequent therapy (IPI-noOther) and 314 (29%) received subsequent non-ipilimumab therapy (IPI-Other) on study. In the non-ipilimumab–treated cohort, 205 (78%) patients remained on or received other subsequent non-ipilimumab therapy (Other-Other) and 57 (22%) received subsequent ipilimumab therapy (Other-IPI) on study. Among 1151 patients who received ipilimumab at any time during the study (IPI-noOther, IPI-Other, and Other-IPI), 296 (26%) reported CTCAE grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events, most occurring in year 1. Ipilimumab-treated and non-ipilimumab–treated patients who switched therapy (IPI-Other and Other-IPI) had longer OS than those who did not switch (IPI-noOther and Other-Other). Patients with prior therapy who did not switch therapy (IPI-noOther and Other-Other) showed similar OS. In treatment-naive patients, those in the IPI-noOther group tended to have longer OS than those in the Other-Other group. Patient-reported outcomes were similar between treatment cohorts. Conclusions With long-term follow-up (≥ 3 years), safety and OS in this real-world population of patients treated with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg were consistent with those reported in clinical trials. Patient-reported quality of life was maintained over the study period. OS analysis across both pretreated and treatment-naive patients suggested a beneficial role of ipilimumab early in treatment. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01511913. Registered January 19, 2012 – Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01511913

9503 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy has revolutionized the treatment of patients with advanced melanoma. However, novel combinations are needed to optimize the benefit-risk profile. Lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3) regulates an immune checkpoint pathway, which inhibits T-cell activity, and is upregulated in many tumor types including melanoma. Relatlimab (RELA), a human IgG4 LAG-3-blocking antibody, restores effector function of exhausted T cells. RELA in combination with nivolumab (NIVO; anti-programmed death [PD]-1) modulates potentially synergistic immune checkpoint pathways and can enhance antitumor immune responses. RELATIVITY-047 is a global, randomized, double-blind, phase II/III study evaluating a novel immune checkpoint inhibitor combination of RELA+NIVO as a fixed-dose combination (FDC) treatment in first-line advanced melanoma. Methods: Patients with previously untreated advanced melanoma were randomized 1:1 to receive RELA 160 mg + NIVO 480 mg FDC intravenously (IV) every 4 weeks (Q4W) or NIVO monotherapy 480 mg IV Q4W, stratified by LAG-3 expression, programmed death ligand 1 expression, BRAF mutation status, and AJCC (v8) M stage. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST v1.1 as assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary endpoints were overall survival and objective response rate. PFS in prespecified subgroups and safety were additional objectives. Results: 714 patients were randomized to RELA+NIVO FDC (n = 355) or NIVO (n = 359). Patient characteristics were well balanced between treatment groups. Median follow-up was 13.2 months. Median PFS in the RELA+NIVO FDC group (10.1 months [95% CI, 6.4–15.7]) was significantly longer than in the NIVO group (4.6 months [95% CI, 3.4–5.6]; hazard ratio, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.6–0.9]; P = 0.0055). PFS rates at 12 months were 47.7% (95% CI, 41.8–53.2) and 36.0% (95% CI, 30.5–41.6) for RELA+NIVO FDC and NIVO, respectively. PFS favored RELA+NIVO FDC across key prespecified subgroups. The incidence of grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) was higher in the RELA+NIVO FDC group (18.9%) versus NIVO (9.7%). There were 3 treatment-related deaths with RELA+NIVO FDC and 2 with NIVO. TRAEs (any grade) led to treatment discontinuation in 14.6% and 6.7% of patients in the RELA+NIVO FDC and NIVO groups, respectively. Conclusions: First-line treatment with RELA+NIVO FDC demonstrated a statistically significant PFS benefit compared to NIVO monotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma. RELA+NIVO FDC was well tolerated with a manageable safety profile and without unexpected safety signals. This is the first phase III study of a novel FDC to demonstrate a clinically meaningful benefit by dual inhibition of the LAG-3 and PD-1 pathways. Clinical trial information: NCT03470922.

PURPOSE The CheckMate 066 trial investigated nivolumab monotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with previously untreated BRAF wild-type advanced melanoma. Five-year results are presented herein. PATIENTS AND METHODS In this multicenter, double-blind, phase III study, 418 patients with previously untreated, unresectable, stage III/IV, wild-type BRAF melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or dacarbazine 1,000 mg/m2 every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), and secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. RESULTS Patients were followed for a minimum of 60 months from the last patient randomly assigned (median follow-up, 32.0 months for nivolumab and 10.9 months for dacarbazine). Five-year OS rates were 39% with nivolumab and 17% with dacarbazine; PFS rates were 28% and 3%, respectively. Five-year OS was 38% in patients randomly assigned to dacarbazine who had subsequent therapy, including nivolumab (n = 37). ORR was 42% with nivolumab and 14% with dacarbazine; among patients alive at 5 years, ORR was 81% and 39%, respectively. Of 42 patients treated with nivolumab who had a complete response (20%), 88% (37 of 42) were alive as of the 5-year analysis. Among 75 nivolumab-treated patients alive and evaluable at the 5-year analysis, 83% had not received subsequent therapy; 23% were still on study treatment, and 60% were treatment free. Safety analyses were similar to the 3-year report. CONCLUSION Results from this 5-year analysis confirm the significant benefit of nivolumab over dacarbazine for all end points and add to the growing body of evidence supporting long-term survival with nivolumab mono-therapy. Survival is strongly associated with achieving a durable response, which can be maintained after treatment discontinuation, even without subsequent systemic therapies.

IMPORTANCE: The optimal sequencing of immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapy for BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma is not well established. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of BRAF wild-type (WT) or BRAF V600E/K-mutant status and BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi) with or without MEK inhibitor (MEKi) therapy with response to pembrolizumab. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This study is a post hoc subgroup analysis of pooled data from 3 multinational, multisite studies: KEYNOTE-001 (data cutoff September 1, 2017), KEYNOTE-002 (data cutoff May 30, 2018), and KEYNOTE-006 (data cutoff December 4, 2017). Patients included in this analysis were adults with advanced melanoma and known BRAF V600E/K tumor status who had received pembrolizumab. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received pembrolizumab in dosages of 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks, 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: End points were objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, and overall survival (OS). Objective response rates, 4-year PFS, and OS rates were compared in the following patient subgroups: BRAF WT vs BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma and BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma with vs without previous treatment with BRAFi with or without MEKi therapy. RESULTS: The overall study population (N = 1558) included 944 men (60.6%) and 614 women (39.4%). The mean (SD) age was 60.0 years (14.0). The ORR was 38.3% (596/1558), 4-year PFS rate was 22.0%, and 4-year OS rate was 36.9%. For patients with BRAF WT (n = 1124) and BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma (n = 434), ORR was 39.8% (n = 447) and 34.3% (n = 149), 4-year PFS rate was 22.9% and 19.8%, and 4-year OS rate was 37.5% and 35.1%, respectively. Patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma who had (n = 271) vs had not (n = 163) previously received BRAFi with or without MEKi therapy had baseline characteristics with worse prognosis; ORR was 28.4% (n = 77) and 44.2% (n = 72), 4-year PFS rate was 15.2% and 27.8%, and 4-year OS rate was 26.9% and 49.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Results of this subgroup analysis support the use of pembrolizumab for treatment of advanced melanoma regardless of BRAF V600E/K mutation status or receipt of prior BRAFi with or without MEKi therapy.

Summary Background Previously, findings from CheckMate 238, a double-blind, phase 3 adjuvant trial in patients with resected stage IIIB–C or stage IV melanoma, showed significant improvements in recurrence-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival with nivolumab versus ipilimumab. This report provides updated 4-year efficacy, initial overall survival, and late-emergent safety results. Methods This multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial was done in 130 academic centres, community hospitals, and cancer centres across 25 countries. Patients aged 15 years or older with resected stage IIIB–C or IV melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive nivolumab or ipilimumab via an interactive voice response system and stratified according to disease stage and baseline PD-L1 status of tumour cells. Patients received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or intravenous ipilimumab 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, and then every 12 weeks until 1 year of treatment, disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival by investigator assessment, and overall survival was a key secondary endpoint. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned patients). All patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included in the safety analysis. The results presented in this report reflect the 4-year update of the ongoing study with a database lock date of Jan 30, 2020. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02388906 . Findings Between March 30 and Nov 30, 2015, 906 patients were assigned to nivolumab (n=453) or ipilimumab (n=453). Median follow-up was 51·1 months (IQR 41·6–52·7) with nivolumab and 50·9 months (36·2–52·3) with ipilimumab; 4-year recurrence-free survival was 51·7% (95% CI 46·8–56·3) in the nivolumab group and 41·2% (36·4–45·9) in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·71 [95% CI 0·60–0·86]; p=0·0003). With 211 (100 [22%] of 453 patients in the nivolumab group and 111 [25%] of 453 patients in the ipilimumab group) of 302 anticipated deaths observed (about 73% of the originally planned 88% power needed for significance), 4-year overall survival was 77·9% (95% CI 73·7–81·5) with nivolumab and 76·6% (72·2–80·3) with ipilimumab (HR 0·87 [95% CI 0·66–1·14]; p=0·31). Late-emergent grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in three (1%) of 452 and seven (2%) of 453 patients. The most common late-emergent treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events reported were diarrhoea, diabetic ketoacidosis, and pneumonitis (one patient each) in the nivolumab group, and colitis (two patients) in the ipilimumab group. Two previously reported treatment-related deaths in the ipilimumab group were attributed to study drug toxicity (marrow aplasia in one patient and colitis in one patient); no further treatment-related deaths were reported. Interpretation At a minimum of 4 years' follow-up, nivolumab demonstrated sustained recurrence-free survival benefit versus ipilimumab in resected stage IIIB–C or IV melanoma indicating a long-term treatment benefit with nivolumab. With fewer deaths than anticipated, overall survival was similar in both groups. Nivolumab remains an efficacious adjuvant treatment for patients with resected high-risk melanoma, with a safety profile that is more tolerable than that of ipilimumab. Funding Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical.

10013 Background: 5-year follow-up of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-006 study (NCT01866319) showed pembro improved OS vs ipilimumab (ipi) in patients (pts) with advanced melanoma. 3-y OS rate from pembro completion for pts who completed 2 y of pembro was 93.8%. Results with 8 mo of additional follow-up are presented to inform clinical care. Methods: Eligible pts with ipi-naive advanced melanoma, ≤1 prior therapy for BRAF-mutant disease, and ECOG PS 0 or 1 were randomized to pembro 10 mg/kg Q2W or Q3W for ≤2 y or ipi 3 mg/kg Q3W for 4 doses. Pts discontinuing pembro with CR, PR, or SD after ≥94 weeks were considered pts with 2-y pembro. Pts who stopped pembro with SD, PR or CR could receive ≤12 mo of additional pembro (2nd course) upon disease progression if still eligible. ORR was assessed per immune-related response criteria by investigator review. OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Pembro arm data were pooled. Post hoc ITT efficacy analyses are shown. Results: Median follow-up from randomization to data cutoff (Jul 31, 2019) was 66.7 mo in the pembro and 66.9 mo in the ipi arms. OS outcomes are shown in Table. For the 103 pts with 2-y pembro (30 CR, 63 PR, 10 SD), median follow-up from completion was 42.9 mo (95% CI, 39.9-46.3).Median DOR was not reached. 36-mo OS from pembro completion was 100% (95% CI, 100.0-100.0) for pts with CR, 94.8% (95% CI, 84.7-98.3) for pts with PR, and 66.7% (95% CI, 28.2-87.8) for pts with SD. 15 pts received 2nd-course pembro; BOR in 1st course was 6 CR, 6 PR, and 3 SD. Median time from end of 1st course to start of 2ndcourse was 24.5 mo (range, 4.9-41.4). Median follow-up in pts who received 2nd-course pembro was 25.3 mo (range, 3.5-39.4). Median duration of 2nd-course pembro was 8.3 mo (range, 1.4-12.6). BOR on 2ndcourse was 3 CR, 5 PR (ongoing responses, 7 pts), 3 SD (ongoing, 2 pts), and 2 PD (1 death); 2 pts pending. Conclusions: Pembro improves the long-term survival vs ipi in pts with advanced melanoma, with all pts who completed therapy in CR still alive at 5 years. Retreatment with pembro at progression in pts who stopped at SD or better can provide additional clinical benefit in a majority of pts. Clinical trial information: NCT01866319. [Table: see text]

10028 Background: Treatment (tx) with checkpoint inhibitors or targeted therapy improves outcomes in patients (pts) with BRAF V600–mutant advanced melanoma; however, many pts subsequently progress and die. Preliminary evidence suggests that targeted therapy may enhance the impact of checkpoint inhibitors and improve efficacy compared with either treatment alone. Methods: COMBI-i is investigating first-line spartalizumab 400 mg every 4 wk + dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily + trametinib 2 mg once daily in pts with unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600–mutant melanoma (NCT02967692). We report efficacy and safety data from parts 1 (run-in cohort) and 2 (biomarker cohort), with a median follow-up of 24.3 mo. Response was assessed per RECIST v1.1. The randomized part 3 is ongoing. Results: 36 pts were enrolled (part 1: n = 9; part 2: n = 27); 20 (56%) had stage IV M1c disease and 15 (42%) had elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels (≥ upper limit of normal). At the data cutoff (August 19, 2019), tx was ongoing in 10 pts (28%). The confirmed investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) was 78% (n = 28), with 16 complete responses (CRs; 44%) and 12 partial responses (33%). Median duration of response (DOR; 10/28 responders with events) was not reached (NR); 24-mo DOR rate was 53.4% (95% CI, 29%-73%). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 22.7 mo; 24-mo PFS rate was 41.4% (95% CI, 23%-59%). At the cutoff, median overall survival (OS) was NR, with a 24-mo OS rate of 74.1% (95% CI, 56%-86%). In pts with elevated LDH, ORR was 67%, with 4 CRs (27%); median PFS was 10.7 mo (95% CI, 4.6-19.1 mo), and median OS was NR. The estimated 24-mo PFS and OS rates in these pts were 26.7% and 52.5%, respectively. All pts had ≥ 1 tx-related adverse event (TRAEs); 26 (72%) had grade ≥ 3 TRAEs. The most common grade ≥ 3 TRAEs were pyrexia (17%), increased lipase (11%), neutropenia (11%), increased blood creatine phosphokinase (8%), and increased γ-glutamyltransferase (8%). AEs leading to discontinuation of all 3 study drugs occurred in 6 pts (17%). All-causality grade ≥ 3 AEs requiring immunosuppressive medication occurred in 19 pts (53%). One pt died of cardiac arrest that was not considered tx related. Conclusions: The combination of spartalizumab + dabrafenib + trametinib resulted in high ORR and CR rates, with a high frequency of durable responses, including in patients with poor prognostic factors. Clinical trial information: NCT02967692.

10034 Background: Spartalizumab + dabrafenib + trametinib has previously shown a high response rate of 78% (28 of 36 pts), with a complete response (CR) rate of 42%. A correlative analysis of gene expression signatures (GES)/pathways using whole-transcriptome RNA-seq data from tissue showed that pts with a CR had significantly lower expression levels of immunosuppressive factors in the tumor microenvironment (TME) at baseline (BL). Here we analyze BL peripheral blood markers in the same cohort of pts to assess whether liquid markers can also predict response and clinical outcome to spartalizumab + dabrafenib + trametinib. Methods: The Phase III COMBI-i study (NCT02967692) is evaluating spartalizumab + dabrafenib + trametinib in pts with previously untreated BRAF V600–mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma. In parts 1 (safety run-in; n = 9) and 2 (biomarker cohort; n = 27), blood and tissue samples were collected at BL, on treatment after 2-3 wk and 8-12 wk, and at disease progression. Lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and other blood-based markers (including cytokine profiling [n = 45] and blood RNA-seq [114 signatures]) were assessed in all 36 pts. Pts were divided into 2 groups of 24 and 12 pts based on progression-free survival (PFS) of > 1 or < 1 y. Results: In addition to LDH, previously described blood markers such as neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and plasma IL-8 were identified among other neutrophil and immunosuppressive features as top candidates associated with PFS > 1 y. Low plasma IL-8 levels were also associated with CR, and multivariate models suggested that IL-8 may add independent predictive value to LDH and NLR for PFS > 1 y and CR. Pts with high IL-8 levels in the circulation were characterized by high neutrophil chemokine signaling (ρ = 0.553) and high neutrophil markers (ρ = 0.466) in the tumor as measured by RNA-seq GES levels. We observed a decrease in plasma IL-8 levels from BL upon treatment with spartalizumab + dabrafenib + trametinib. Conclusions: Our peripheral blood marker analysis confirmed recent findings from tissue samples that intratumoral immunosuppressive features may preclude a CR and are associated with poor outcomes. High BL plasma IL-8 levels may be associated with an immunosuppressive TME. Further validation is warranted; the randomized placebo-controlled part 3 of COMBI-i is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT02967692.

Immune and targeted therapies achieve long-term survival in metastatic melanoma; however, new treatment strategies are needed to improve patients’ outcomes1,2. We report on the efficacy, safety and biomarker analysis from the single-arm safety run-in (part 1; n = 9) and biomarker (part 2; n = 27) cohorts of the randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 COMBI-i trial (NCT02967692) of the anti-PD-1 antibody spartalizumab, in combination with the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib and MEK inhibitor trametinib. Patients (n = 36) had previously untreated BRAF V600-mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma. In part 1, the recommended phase 3 regimen was identified based on the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs; primary endpoint): 400 mg of spartalizumab every 4 weeks plus 150 mg of dabrafenib twice daily plus 2 mg of trametinib once daily. Part 2 characterized changes in PD-L1 levels and CD8+ cells following treatment (primary endpoint), and analyzed additional biomarkers. Assessments of efficacy and safety were key secondary endpoints (median follow-up, 24.3 months). Spartalizumab plus dabrafenib and trametinib led to an objective response rate (ORR) of 78%, including 44% complete responses (CRs). Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were experienced by 72% of patients. All patients had temporary dose modifications, and 17% permanently discontinued all three study drugs due to TRAEs. Early progression-free survival (PFS) events were associated with low tumor mutational burden/T cell–inflamed gene expression signature (GES) or high immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME) GES levels at baseline; an immunosuppressive TME may also preclude CR. Overall, the efficacy, safety and on-treatment biomarker modulations associated with spartalizumab plus dabrafenib and trametinib are promising, and biomarkers that may predict long-term benefit were identified. Clinical activity and biomarker analysis from the COMBI-i trial evaluating PD-1, BRAF and MEK inhibition in patients with metastatic melanoma demonstrate high response rates and uncover molecular correlates of long-term treatment benefit.

BackgroundWe have previously reported significantly longer overall survival (OS) with ipilimumab 10 mg/kg versus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg in patients with advanced melanoma, with higher incidences of adverse events (AEs) at 10 mg/kg. This follow-up analysis reports a 5-year update of OS and safety.MethodsThis randomized, multicenter, double-blind, phase III trial included patients with untreated or previously treated unresectable stage III or IV melanoma. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for 4 doses. The primary end point was OS.ResultsAt a minimum follow-up of 61 months, median OS was 15.7 months (95% CI 11.6 to 17.8) at 10 mg/kg and 11.5 months (95% CI 9.9 to 13.3) at 3 mg/kg (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.99; p=0.04). In a subgroup analysis, median OS of patients with asymptomatic brain metastasis was 7.0 months (95% CI 4.0 to 12.8) in the 10 mg/kg group and 5.7 months (95% CI 4.2 to 7.0) in the 3 mg/kg group. In patients with wild-type or mutantBRAFtumors, median OS was 13.8 months (95% CI 10.2 to 17.0) and 33.2 months (95% CI 19.4 to 45.2) in the 10 mg/kg group, and 11.2 months (95% CI 9.2 to 13.8) and 19.7 months (95% CI 11.6 to 25.3) in the 3 mg/kg group, respectively. The incidence of grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs was 36% in the 10 mg/kg group vs 20% in the 3 mg/kg group, and deaths due to treatment-related AEs occurred in four (1%) and two patients (1%), respectively.ConclusionsThis 61-month follow-up of a phase III trial showed sustained long-term survival in patients with advanced melanoma who started metastatic treatment with ipilimumab monotherapy, and confirmed the significant benefit for those who received ipilimumab 10 mg/kg vs 3 mg/kg. These results suggest the emergence of a plateau in the OS curve, consistent with previous ipilimumab studies.Trial registration numberNCT01515189.

Summary Background Encorafenib plus binimetinib and encorafenib alone improved progression-free survival compared with vemurafenib in patients with BRAF V600 -mutant melanoma in the COLUMBUS trial. Here, we report the results of the secondary endpoint of overall survival. Methods COLUMBUS was a two-part, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study done at 162 hospitals in 28 countries. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years with histologically confirmed, locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, or unknown primary melanoma, BRAF V600E or BRAF V600K mutation, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and were treatment naive or had progressed on or after first-line immunotherapy. In part 1 of the study, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) by use of interactive response technology to receive oral encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus oral binimetinib 45 mg twice daily (encorafenib plus binimetinib group), oral encorafenib 300 mg once daily (encorafenib group), or oral vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily (vemurafenib group). Randomisation was stratified by the American Joint Committee on Cancer stage, ECOG performance status, and BRAF mutation status. The primary outcome of the trial, progression-free survival with encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib, was reported previously. Here we present the prespecified interim overall survival analysis. Efficacy analyses were by intent to treat. Safety was analysed in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. Part 2 of the study was initiated at the request of the US Food and Drug Administration to better understand the contribution of binimetinib to the combination therapy by comparing encorafenib 300 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily with encorafenib 300 mg once daily alone. Results of part 2 will be published separately. This trial is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01909453, and EudraCT, number 2013-001176-38. Findings Between Dec 30, 2013, and April 10, 2015, 577 of 1345 screened patients were randomly assigned to receive encorafenib plus binimetinib (n=192), encorafenib (n=194), or vemurafenib (n=191). Median follow-up for overall survival was 36·8 months (95% CI 35·9–37·5). Median overall survival was 33·6 months (95% CI 24·4–39·2) with encorafenib plus binimetinib and 16·9 months (14·0–24·5) with vemurafenib (hazard ratio 0·61 [95% CI 0·47–0·79]; two-sided p Interpretation The combination of encorafenib plus binimetinib provided clinically meaningful efficacy with good tolerability as shown by improvements in both progression-free survival and overall survival compared with vemurafenib. These data suggest that the combination of encorafenib plus binimetinib is likely to become an important therapeutic option in patients with BRAF V600 -mutant melanoma. Funding Array BioPharma, Novartis.

Immunotherapy; Toxicity; irAEs Inmunoterapia; Toxicidad; irAEs Immunoteràpia; Toxicitat; irAEs The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors has emerged as an effective treatment option for patients with several tumor types. By increasing the activity of the immune system, they can induce inflammatory side effects, which are often termed immune-related adverse events. These are pathophysiologically unique toxicities, compared with those from other anticancer therapies. In addition, the spectrum of the target organs is very broad. Immune-inflammatory adverse events can be life threatening. Prompt diagnosis and pharmacological intervention are instrumental to avoid progression to severe manifestations. Consequently, clinicians require new skills to successfully diagnose and manage these events. These SEOM guidelines have been developed with the consensus of ten medical oncologists. Relevant studies published in peer-review journals were used for the guideline elaboration. The Infectious Diseases Society of America grading system was used to assign levels of evidence and grades of recommendation.

Summary Background Combined BRAF-MEK inhibitor therapy is the standard of care for BRAF V600 -mutant advanced melanoma. We investigated encorafenib, a BRAF inhibitor with unique target-binding properties, alone or in combination with the MEK inhibitor binimetinib, versus vemurafenib in patients with advanced BRAF V600 -mutant melanoma. Methods COLUMBUS was conducted as a two-part, randomised, open-label phase 3 study at 162 hospitals in 28 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had histologically confirmed locally advanced (American Joint Committee on Cancer [AJCC] stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV), unresectable or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, or unknown primary melanoma; a BRAF V600E or BRAF V600K mutation; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1; and were treatment naive or had progressed on or after previous first-line immunotherapy. In part 1 of the study, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via interactive response technology to receive either oral encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus oral binimetinib 45 mg twice daily (encorafenib plus binimetinib group), oral encorafenib 300 mg once daily (encorafenib group), or oral vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily (vemurafenib group). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by blinded independent central review for encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib. Efficacy analyses were by intention-to-treat. Safety was analysed in patients who received at least one dose of study drug and one postbaseline safety assessment. The results of part 2 will be published separately. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01909453, and EudraCT, number 2013-001176-38. Findings Between Dec 30, 2013, and April 10, 2015, 577 of 1345 screened patients were randomly assigned to either the encorafenib plus binimetinib group (n=192), the encorafenib group (n=194), or the vemurafenib group (n=191). With a median follow-up of 16·6 months (95% CI 14·8–16·9), median progression-free survival was 14·9 months (95% CI 11·0–18·5) in the encorafenib plus binimetinib group and 7·3 months (5·6–8·2) in the vemurafenib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54, 95% CI 0·41–0·71; two-sided p Interpretation Encorafenib plus binimetinib and encorafenib monotherapy showed favourable efficacy compared with vemurafenib. Overall, encorafenib plus binimetinib appears to have an improved tolerability profile compared with encorafenib or vemurafenib. Encorafenib plus binimetinib could represent a new treatment option for patients with BRAF -mutant melanoma. Funding Array BioPharma, Novartis.

Melanoma develops as a result of several genetic alterations, with UV radiation often acting as a mutagenic risk factor. Deep knowledge of the molecular signaling pathways of different types of melanoma allows better characterization and provides tools for the development of therapies based on the intervention of signals promoted by these cascades. The latest World Health Organization classification acknowledged the specific genetic drivers leading to melanoma and classifies melanocytic lesions into nine distinct categories according to the associate cumulative sun damage (CSD), which correlates with the molecular alterations of tumors. The largest groups are melanomas associated with low-CSD or superficial spreading melanomas, characterized by frequent presentation of the BRAFV600 mutation. High-CSD melanomas include lentigo maligna type and desmoplastic melanomas, which often have a high mutation burden and can harbor NRAS, BRAFnon-V600E, or NF1 mutations. Non-CSD-associated melanomas encompass acral and mucosal melanomas that usually do not show BRAF, NRAS, or NF1 mutations (triple wild-type), but in a subset may have KIT or SF3B1 mutations. To improve survival, these driver alterations can be treated with targeted therapy achieving significant antitumor activity. In recent years, relevant improvement in the prognosis and survival of patients with melanoma has been achieved, since the introduction of BRAF/MEK tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors. In this review, we describe the current knowledge of molecular pathways and discuss current and potential therapeutic targets in melanoma, focusing on their clinical relevance of development.

Introduction Le NIVO a demontre une amelioration de la survie sans recidive (SSR) vs l’IPI chez les patients (pts) atteints d’un melanome de stade III/IV operes dans l’etude de phase 3, CheckMate 238. Les donnees mises a jour de SSR, de survie sans metastases a distance (SSMD) et de SG a 48 mois sont presentees. Materiel et methodes Des pts âges de ≥ 15 ans avec un melanome de stade IIIB/C ou IV entierement reseque ont ete stratifies selon le stade et le statut PDL-1, et randomises selon un rapport 1 : 1 pour recevoir NIVO (3 mg/kg toutes les 2 semaines [sem] ; n = 453) ou IPI (10 mg/kg toutes les 3 sem pour 4 doses, puis toutes les 12 sem ; n = 453) pendant une duree maximale d’1 an ou jusqu’a recidive de la maladie/toxicite inacceptable. Le critere d’evaluation principal etait la SSR. Les criteres d’evaluation secondaires comprenaient la SG et la tolerance ; la SSMD pour le stade III de la maladie etait exploratoire. Resultats A 4 ans de suivi, NIVO a continue de demontrer une SSR superieure a l’IPI (HR : 0,71 ; IC95 % : 0,60–0,86 ; p = 0,0003). La SSMD chez les pts atteints d’une maladie de stade III etait en faveur du NIVO (HR : 0,79 ; IC95 % : 0,63–0,99). A 48 mois, le nombre d’evenements en SG (n = 211) etait plus faible que prevu (n = 302) et les taux de SG etaient comparables : 78 % (IC95 % : 73,7–81,5) avec NIVO et 77 % (IC95 % : 72,2–80,3) avec IPI (HR : 0,87 ; IC95 % : 0,66–1,14 ; p = 0,3148). Un traitement systemique ulterieur etait recu par 150 (33 %) pts traites par NIVO et 189 (42 %) pts traites par IPI ; plus de pts traites par IPI (34 % vs 23 %) ont recu une immunotherapie systemique ulterieure. Des evenements indesirables lies au traitement (EILT) d’apparition retardee (rapportes plus de 100 jours apres la derniere dose) et de tous grades confondus ont ete observes chez 18 (4 %) pts traites par NIVO et 25 (6 %) pts traites par IPI, avec un grade 3/4 dans 3 (1 %) et 7 (2 %) des cas, respectivement. Discussion Le NIVO a continue de demontrer une amelioration de la SSR et de la SSMD par rapport a l’IPI a 48 mois chez les pts avec un melanome de stade III/IV a haut risque de recidive. Les evenements de SG (n = 211) etaient inferieurs aux previsions (n = 302). Les taux de SG etaient similaires pour NIVO et IPI, bien que l’utilisation d’un traitement ulterieur par immunotherapie systemique ait ete plus elevee dans le bras IPI. Les EILT d’apparition tardive etaient conformes au profil de tolerance etabli pour NIVO et IPI, avec plus d’evenements rapportes avec IPI.

Background: BO-112 is a double stranded synthetic RNA formulated with polyethyleneimine (PEI), that acts as an agonist to toll-like receptor 3 and targets the cytosolic helicase melanoma differentiation-associated gene 5 and retinoic acid-inducible gene I. By mimicking the effect of a viral infection, it mobilizes the immune system, including activation of dendritic cells, CD8 T-cell infiltration, induction of interferons (IFNs), induction of apoptosis and enhancement of immunogenic cell death. Clinical data are available from the first-in-human study (NCT02828098) which evaluated single intratumoral (IT) BO-112 (Part 1; N = 16) and the combination of IT BO-112 with pembrolizumab or nivolumab (Part 2; N = 28). Part 2 showed an ORR of 11% and DCR of 46% in patients with multiple tumor types. Of them, 2 out of 10 (20%) patients with melanoma resistant to anti PD-1 achieved a partial response. Safety profile of BO-112, both as single agent and in combination with anti-PD-1, is manageable and currently characterized by Grade 1 fever and other flu-like symptoms. A phase 2 clinical study of IT BO-112 in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with liver metastases from colorectal or gastric/gastro-esophageal junction cancer patients is currently ongoing. Methods: Phase 2, single arm, open label study of IT BO-112 in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced and/or metastatic melanoma that have progressed on anti-PD-1-containing treatment (NCT04570332). BO-112 will be administered once weekly (QW) in 1 to 8 tumor lesions, total dose 1-2 mg (depending on the number of injected lesions), for the first 7 weeks and then once every three weeks (Q3W); pembrolizumab 200 mg will be administered Q3W. Key eligibility criteria include histologically confirmed, unresectable cutaneous or mucosal melanoma with known BRAF status. Patients must have progressed on or after treatment with an anti-PD-1/L1 mAb. At least one lesion RECIST 1.1 measurable and amenable for weekly IT injection is needed. Primary efficacy variable is ORR by RECIST 1.1, assessed by independent central radiologist (by QUIBIM Precision platform). Secondary efficacy variables include clinical activity in terms of DCR, DOR, PFS, OS, iRECIST, safety and PKs. Exploratory objectives include itRECIST and evaluation of tumor microenvironment (by Pangaea laboratory). A 1-sided alpha of 4.19% and power of 81.8% are used. A total of 40 patients will be enrolled. If less than 8 patients out of 40 have ORR, the study will not meet the statistical bar. Study was approved on 14 December in Spain; enrollment is open; two sites are active as of 18 December 2020. Nineteen sites (12 in Spain and 7 in France) are planned to be activated. Citation Format: Iván Márquez-Rodas, Miguel Fernández de Sanmamed Gutiérrez, María González Cao, Ana M. Arance, Alfonso Berrocal, Eduardo Castañon, Sofía España, Pablo Cerezuela-Fuentes, Juan F. Rodríguez-Moreno, Pilar López Criado, Juana Oramas, Luis de la Cruz Merino, Stéphane Dalle, Caroline Dutriaux, Julie Charles, Caroline Robert, Brigitte Dréno, Henri Montaudié, Philippe Saiag, Javier Sánchez-López, María Rojas, Helena Escuin-Ordinas, Vanesa Pons Sanz, Sonia Maciá, Marisol Quintero. Phase 2 clinical study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intratumoral BO-112 in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced melanoma that have progressive disease on anti-PD-1-based therapy [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr CT233.

Background: In the multicenter, open-label, nonrandomized, phase 2 KEYNOTE-629 trial, pembro has demonstrated clinically meaningful and durable antitumor activity with a manageable safety profile for R/M cSCC based on the first interim analysis (IA). Here, we present the second IA of KEYNOTE-629, which reports the initial efficacy and safety data for the LA cohort and updated data for the R/M cohort in cSCC.Methods: Eligible patients (pts) were ≥18 years old, had histologically confirmed cSCC (LA or R/M) with measurable disease per RECIST 1.1 by blinded independent central review (BICR), an ECOG PS score of 0 or 1, and adequate organ function. Pts received intravenous pembro 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 35 infusions (~ 2 years) or until protocol-specified treatment discontinuation criteria were met. The primary endpoint was ORR per RECIST 1.1 by BICR. Secondary endpoints were DOR, DCR, and PFS, all per RECIST 1.1 by BICR; OS; and safety and tolerability. Results: A total of 159 pts were enrolled and treated with pembro (LA, n=54; R/M, n=105). The median time from the first dose to data cutoff (July 29, 2020) was 14.9 (range, 10.1-19.4) mo for the LA cohort and 27.2 (range, 24.6-32.0) mo for the R/M cohort. In the LA cohort, 22.2% of pts were treated with prior systemic therapy with curative intent. In the R/M cohort, 86.7% of pts received ≥1 prior systemic therapy. Updated efficacy outcomes are summarized in the table. Across cohorts, grade 3-5 treatment-related AEs occurred in 11.9% of pts. Grade 3-5 immune-related AEs occurred in 8.2% of pts. Conclusions: Pembro confirmed robust and durable antitumor activity, with promising survival in LA and R/M cSCC. AEs with pembro in this study were generally consistent with its established safety profile. These data support the use of pembro for cSCC. LA cSCC(N=54)R/M cSCC(N=105)Total(N=159)ORR, % (95% CI)50.0 (36.1-63.9)35.2 (26.2-45.2)40.3 (32.6-48.3)DCR (SD ≥12 wks + ORR), % (95% CI)64.8 (50.6-77.3)52.4 (42.4-62.2)56.6 (48.5-64.4)Best overall response, n (%)CR9 (16.7)11 (10.5)20 (12.6)PR18 (33.3)26 (24.8)44 (27.7)SD13 (24.1)30 (28.6)43 (27.0)SD≥12 wks8 (14.8)18 (17.1)26 (16.4)PD9 (16.7)28 (26.7)37 (23.3)NE1 (1.9)2 (1.9)3 (1.9)No assessment4 (7.4)8 (7.6)12 (7.5)DOR, median (range), moNR (1.0+-17.2+)NR (2.7-30.4+)NR (1.0+-30.4+)Patients with extended responses≥12 months, n (%)10 (84.1)25 (77.8)35 (80.3)PFS, median (95% CI), moNR (5.5-NR)5.7 (3.1-8.5)7.8 (5.3-12.3)12-mo PFS rate, % (95% CI)54.4 (39.6-67.0)36.4 (27.0- 45.9)42.4 (34.3-50.2)OS, median (95% CI), moNR (NR-NR)23.8 (13.4-29.8)26.4 (19.5-NR)12-mo OS rate, % (95% CI)73.6 (59.5-83.4)61.0 (50.9-69.5)65.1 (57.1-72.0) Citation Format: Brett G.M. Hughes, Eva Munoz-Couselo, Laurent Mortier, Åse Bratland, Ralf Gutzmer, Osama Roshdy, Rene González Mendoza, Jacob Schachter, Ana Arance, Florent Grange, Nicolas Meyer, Abhishek Joshi, Salem Billan, Pingye Zhang, Burak Gumuscu, Ramona F. Swaby, Jean-Jacques Grob. Phase 2 study of pembrolizumab (pembro) for locally advanced (LA) or recurrent/metastatic (R/M) cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC): KEYNOTE-629 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr CT006.

Purpose: Encorafenib, a selective BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi), has a pharmacologic profile that is distinct from that of other clinically active BRAFis. We evaluated encorafenib in a phase I study in patients with BRAFi treatment-naïve and pretreated BRAF-mutant melanoma.Experimental Design: The pharmacologic activity of encorafenib was first characterized preclinically. Encorafenib monotherapy was then tested across a range of once-daily (50–700 mg) or twice-daily (75–150 mg) regimens in a phase I, open-label, dose-escalation and -expansion study in adult patients with histologically confirmed advanced/metastatic BRAF-mutant melanoma. Study objectives were to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and/or recommended phase II dose (RP2D), characterize the safety and tolerability and pharmacokinetic profile, and assess the preliminary antitumor activity of encorafenib.Results: Preclinical data demonstrated that encorafenib inhibited BRAF V600E kinase activity with a prolonged off-rate and suppressed proliferation and tumor growth of BRAF V600E–mutant melanoma models. In the dose-escalation phase, 54 patients (29 BRAFi-pretreated and 25 BRAFi-naïve) were enrolled. Seven patients in the dose-determining set experienced dose-limiting toxicities. Encorafenib at a dose of 300 mg once daily was declared the RP2D. In the expansion phase, the most common all-cause adverse events were nausea (66%), myalgia (63%), and palmar–plantar erythrodysesthesia (54%). In BRAFi-naïve patients, the overall response rate (ORR) and median progression-free survival (mPFS) were 60% and 12.4 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 7.4–not reached (NR)]. In BRAFi-pretreated patients, the ORR and mPFS were 22% and 1.9 months (95% CI, 0.9–3.7).Conclusions: Once-daily dosing of single-agent encorafenib had a distinct tolerability profile and showed varying antitumor activity across BRAFi-pretreated and BRAFi-naïve patients with advanced/metastatic melanoma. Clin Cancer Res; 23(18); 5339–48. ©2017 AACR.

Antibody targeting of the immune checkpoint receptor PD1 produces therapeutic activity in a variety of solid tumors, but most patients exhibit partial or complete resistance to treatment for reasons that are unclear. In this study, we evaluated tumor specimens from 65 patients with melanoma, lung nonsquamous, squamous cell lung or head and neck cancers who were treated with the approved PD1-targeting antibodies pembrolizumab or nivolumab. Tumor RNA before anti-PD1 therapy was analyzed on the nCounter system using the PanCancer 730-Immune Panel, and we identified 23 immune-related genes or signatures linked to response and progression-free survival (PFS). In addition, we evaluated intra- and interbiopsy variability of PD1, PD-L1, CD8A, and CD4 mRNAs and their relationship with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) and PD-L1 IHC expression. Among the biomarkers examined, PD1 gene expression along with 12 signatures tracking CD8 and CD4 T-cell activation, natural killer cells, and IFN activation associated significantly with nonprogressive disease and PFS. These associations were independent of sample timing, drug used, or cancer type. TIL correlated moderately (∼0.50) with PD1 and CD8A mRNA levels and weakly (∼0.35) with CD4 and PD-L1. IHC expression of PD-L1 correlated strongly with PD-L1 (0.90), moderately with CD4 and CD8A, and weakly with PD1. Reproducibility of gene expression in intra- and interbiopsy specimens was very high (total SD

Background: The orally available BRAF kinase inhibitor vemurafenib is an effective and tolerable treatment option for patients with metastatic melanoma harbouring BRAF(V600) mutations. We assessed the safety of vemurafenib in a large population of patients with few alternative treatment options; we report updated 2-year safety.Methods: This was an open-label, multicentre study of vemurafenib (960 mg bid) in patients with previously treated or untreated BRAF mutation-positive metastatic melanoma (cobas (R) 4800 BRAF(V600) Mutation Test). The primary end-point was safety; efficacy end-points were secondary. An exploratory analysis was performed to assess safety outcomes in patients with long duration of response (DOR) (>= 12 or >= 24 months).Results: After a median follow-up of 32.2 months (95% CI, 31.1-33.2 months), 3079/3219 patients (96%) had discontinued treatment. Adverse events (AEs) were largely consistent with previous reports; the most common all-grade treatment-related AEs were arthralgia (37%), alopecia (25%) and hyperkeratosis (23%); the most common grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs were squamous cell carcinoma of the skin (8%) and keratoacanthoma (8%). In the exploratory analysis, patients with DOR >= 12 months (n = 287) or >= 24 months (n = 133) were more likely to experience grade 3/4 AEs than the overall population. No new specific safety signals were observed with longer vemurafenib exposure.Conclusions: After 2 years' follow-up, safety was maintained in this large group of patients with BRAF(V600) mutation-positive metastatic melanoma who are more representative of routine clinical practice than typical clinical trial populations. These data suggest that longterm vemurafenib treatment is effective and tolerable without the development of new safety signals. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The objective of this study was to describe health care resource utilization and health care costs associated with the management of advanced melanoma patients receiving ipilimumab., Background. There are limited real‐world data on health care resource utilization (HCRU) among advanced melanoma patients. The objective of this study was to describe HCRU and health care costs associated with the management of advanced melanoma patients receiving ipilimumab. Methods. This retrospective multinational, observational study included advanced melanoma patients from Australia, Germany, Italy, and Spain who had received at least 1 dose of ipilimumab. Data extracted from medical charts included inpatient admissions, outpatient visits, surgical procedures, laboratory investigations, radiation therapy, imaging studies, and concomitant medications. Cost estimates were based on unit costs from country‐specific standard reimbursement sources. Subgroup analyses were performed for BRAF mutation status and ipilimumab refractory patients, who had disease progression within 24 weeks of their last dose of ipilimumab. Results. Mean age of 362 enrolled patients was 60.6 years (standard deviation [SD] 14.4). During a median follow‐up period of 30.2 weeks, 57% of patients were admitted to hospital and 16% underwent surgery. Health care resource utilization rates varied substantially across countries and were highest in Germany. Concomitant medications to treat adverse events were commonly used. Subgroup analyses showed higher utilization rates among ipilimumab refractory and BRAF mutant patients. Mean weekly total costs associated with HCRU were lower in the pre‐progression period (€107; 95% confidence interval (CI): 79–145) than in the post‐progression period (€216; 95% CI: 180–259). Conclusion. Health care resource utilization pattern and associated costs among patients treated with ipilimumab varied greatly among countries and between pre‐ and post‐progression periods. There is a high economic burden associated with ipilimumab refractory melanoma. Implications for Practice. Metastatic melanoma patients treated with the anti‐CTLA‐4 inhibitor ipilimumab have a high utilization of various types of health care services, such as inpatient hospital stays or doctor visits. There are differences across countries regarding patterns of health care utilization and economic burden of the disease. Health care services are used more frequently after patients experience progression of their disease. The study highlights that better therapies leading to durable response in patients with metastatic melanoma have the potential to decrease health care costs and patient burden in terms of hospitalizations and other health care services.

BACKGROUND: A phase 2 trial suggested increased overall survival and increased incidence of treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events with ipilimumab 10 mg/kg compared with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg in patients with advanced melanoma. We report a phase 3 trial comparing the benefit-risk profile of ipilimumab 10 mg/kg versus 3 mg/kg.METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial was done in 87 centres in 21 countries worldwide. Patients with untreated or previously treated unresectable stage III or IV melanoma, without previous treatment with BRAF inhibitors or immune checkpoint inhibitors, were randomly assigned (1:1) with an interactive voice response system by the permuted block method using block size 4 to ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or 3 mg/kg, administered by intravenous infusion for 90 min every 3 weeks for four doses. Patients were stratified by metastasis stage, previous treatment for metastatic melanoma, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. The patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population and safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is completed and was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01515189.FINDINGS: Between Feb 29, and July 9, 2012, 727 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to ipilimumab 10 mg/kg (365 patients; 364 treated) or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (362 patients; all treated). Median follow-up was 14·5 months (IQR 4·6-42·3) for the ipilimumab 10 mg/kg group and 11·2 months (4·9-29·4) for the ipilimumab 3 mg/kg group. Median overall survival was 15·7 months (95% CI 11·6-17·8) for ipilimumab 10 mg/kg compared with 11·5 months (9·9-13·3) for ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (hazard ratio 0·84, 95% CI 0·70-0·99; p=0·04). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea (37 [10%] of 364 patients in the 10 mg/kg group vs 21 [6%] of 362 patients in the 3 mg/kg group), colitis (19 [5%] vs nine [2%]), increased alanine aminotransferase (12 [3%] vs two [1%]), and hypophysitis (ten [3%] vs seven [2%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 133 (37%) patients in the 10 mg/kg group and 66 (18%) patients in the 3 mg/kg group; four (1%) versus two (INTERPRETATION: In patients with advanced melanoma, ipilimumab 10 mg/kg resulted in significantly longer overall survival than did ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, but with increased treatment-related adverse events. Although the treatment landscape for advanced melanoma has changed since this study was initiated, the clinical use of ipilimumab in refractory patients with unmet medical needs could warrant further assessment.FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Aim: While both efficacy and safety of anti-PD-1 agents seem to be independent of previous treatment with anti-CTLA-4, limited data exist of efficacy and toxicity of ipilimumab after progression on anti-PD-1 therapy. This retrospective analysis describes the efficacy and safety of sequential therapy with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma who progressed on anti-PD-1 antibody. Methods: Nine patients who progressed on anti-PD-1 therapy received four cycles of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Results: Two out of nine patients (2/9; 22.2%) showed a partial response, and seven patients (7/9; 77.8%) experienced disease progression. Median progression-free survival was 3.14 months (95% CI: 2.56–3.71), and the median overall survival since the start of anti-PD-1 therapy was 16.8 months (95% CI: 8.1–25.4). Five (5/9; 55.6%) patients experienced grade 3 immune-related adverse events. No grade 4 or 5 adverse events were reported. Conclusion: In this small retrospective series of cases, the efficacy of ipilimumab post-anti-PD-1 was similar to that described in the previous reports on ipilimumab.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab improved progression-free survival and overall survival versus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma and is now a standard of care in the first-line setting. However, the optimal duration of anti-PD-1 administration is unknown. We present results from 5 years of follow-up of patients in KEYNOTE-006. METHODS: KEYNOTE-006 was an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study done at 87 academic institutions, hospitals, and cancer centres in 16 countries. Patients aged at least 18 years with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, ipilimumab-naive histologically confirmed advanced melanoma with known BRAFV600 status and up to one previous systemic therapy were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to intravenous pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks or every 3 weeks or four doses of intravenous ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Treatments were assigned using a centralised, computer-generated allocation schedule with blocked randomisation within strata. Exploratory combination of data from the two pembrolizumab dosing regimen groups was not protocol-specified. Pembrolizumab treatment continued for up to 24 months. Eligible patients who discontinued pembrolizumab with stable disease or better after receiving at least 24 months of pembrolizumab or discontinued with complete response after at least 6 months of pembrolizumab and then progressed could receive an additional 17 cycles of pembrolizumab. Co-primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival. Efficacy was analysed in all randomly assigned patients, and safety was analysed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. Exploratory assessment of efficacy and safety at 5 years' follow-up was not specified in the protocol. Data cutoff for this analysis was Dec 3, 2018. Recruitment is closed; the study is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01866319. FINDINGS: Between Sept 18, 2013, and March 3, 2014, 834 patientswere enrolled and randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab (every 2 weeks, n=279; every 3 weeks, n=277), or ipilimumab (n=278). After a median follow-up of 57·7 months (IQR 56·7-59·2) in surviving patients, median overall survival was 32·7 months (95% CI 24·5-41·6) in the combined pembrolizumab groups and 15·9 months (13·3-22·0) in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·73, 95% CI 0·61-0·88, p=0·00049). Median progression-free survival was 8·4 months (95% CI 6·6-11·3) in the combined pembrolizumab groups versus 3·4 months (2·9-4·2) in the ipilimumab group (HR 0·57, 95% CI 0·48-0·67, p

Summary Background Immunotherapy combination treatments can improve patient outcomes. Epacadostat, an IDO1 selective inhibitor, and pembrolizumab, a PD-1 inhibitor, showed promising antitumour activity in the phase 1–2 ECHO-202/KEYNOTE-037 study in advanced melanoma. In this trial, we aimed to compare progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma receiving epacadostat plus pembrolizumab versus placebo plus pembrolizumab. Methods In this international, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trial, eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma previously untreated with PD-1 or PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors, an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, and had a known BRAFV600 mutant status or consented to BRAFV600 mutation testing during screening. Patients were stratified by PD-L1 expression and BRAFV600 mutation status and randomly assigned (1:1) through a central interactive voice and integrated web response system to receive epacadostat 100 mg orally twice daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks or placebo plus pembrolizumab for up to 2 years. We used block randomisation with a block size of four in each stratum. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The safety analysis population included randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. The study was stopped after the second interim analysis; follow-up for safety is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT02752074 . Findings Between June 21, 2016, and Aug 7, 2017, 928 patients were screened and 706 patients were randomly assigned to receive epacadostat plus pembrolizumab (n=354) or placebo plus pembrolizumab (n=352). Median follow-up was 12·4 months (IQR 10·3–14·5). No significant differences were found between the treatment groups for progression-free survival (median 4·7 months, 95% CI 2·9–6·8, for epacadostat plus pembrolizumab vs 4·9 months, 2·9–6·8, for placebo plus pembrolizumab; hazard ratio [HR] 1·00, 95% CI 0·83–1·21; one-sided p=0·52) or overall survival (median not reached in either group; epacadostat plus pembrolizumab vs placebo plus pembrolizumab: HR 1·13, 0·86–1·49; one-sided p=0·81). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse event was lipase increase, which occurred in 14 (4%) of 353 patients receiving epacadostat plus pembrolizumab and 11 (3%) of 352 patients receiving placebo plus pembrolizumab. Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 37 (10%) of 353 patients receiving epacadostat plus pembrolizumab and 32 (9%) of 352 patients receiving placebo plus pembrolizumab. There were no treatment-related deaths in either treatment group. Interpretation Epacadostat 100 mg twice daily plus pembrolizumab did not improve progression-free survival or overall survival compared with placebo plus pembrolizumab in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. The usefulness of IDO1 inhibition as a strategy to enhance anti-PD-1 therapy activity in cancer remains uncertain. Funding Incyte Corporation, in collaboration with Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Background Dual inhibition of the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway with BRAF/MEK inhibitor (BRAFi/MEKi) therapy is a standard treatment for BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma and has historically been associated with grade III pyrexia or photosensitivity depending on the combination used. The objective of this study was to fully describe adverse events from the COLUMBUS study evaluating the most recent BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination encorafenib+binimetinib. Patients and methods Patients with locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic BRAFV600-mutant melanoma were randomised to receive encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily, encorafenib 300 mg once daily or vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily. Adverse events that represent known effects of available BRAFi and/or MEKi were evaluated. Results The safety population included a total of 570 patients (encorafenib+binimetinib = 192; encorafenib = 192; vemurafenib = 186). Median duration of exposure was longer with encorafenib+binimetinib (51 weeks) than with encorafenib (31 weeks) or vemurafenib (27 weeks). Common BRAFi/MEKi toxicities with encorafenib+binimetinib were generally manageable, reversible and infrequently associated with discontinuation. Pyrexia was less frequent with encorafenib+binimetinib (18%) and encorafenib (16%) than with vemurafenib (30%) and occurred later in the course of therapy with encorafenib+binimetinib (median time to first onset: 85 days versus 2.5 days and 19 days, respectively). The incidence of photosensitivity was lower with encorafenib+binimetinib (5%) and encorafenib (4%) than with vemurafenib (30%). The incidence of serous retinopathy was higher with encorafenib+binimetinib (20%) than with encorafenib (2%) or vemurafenib (2%), but no patients discontinued encorafenib+binimetinib because of this event. Conclusion Encorafenib+binimetinib is generally well tolerated and has a low discontinuation rate in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma, with a distinct safety profile as compared with other anti-BRAF/MEK targeted therapies. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT01909453 ) and with EudraCT (number 2013-001176-38).

To describe patient characteristics by disease stage, resectability status and current treatment management after first diagnosis of IIIB to IV1c advanced (AM)/metastatic melanoma (MM). Multicentre, retrospective study based on data from medical charts of patients > 18 years at MM first diagnosis, visited by oncologists at 4 reference centres in Spain: Hospital Universitario Gregorio Maranon (Madrid), Hospital General de Valencia (Valencia), Clinica Universidad de Navarra (Pamplona), and Hospital Clinic (Barcelona). Metastatic non-visceral melanoma (IIIB, IIIC, IV M1a) was reported in 139 (48.6%) patients and 40.9% (n = 117) were diagnosed with IV-M1c disease. 160 (55.9%) metastases were resectable. Available therapies under clinical practice were used in 210 patients; 74 were treated under clinical trials (CT). Intention-to-cure surgery (47.6%) was the most common treatment at time of MM diagnosis. Systemic (45.1% overall) therapy included chemo-, targeted- and immunotherapy (19.6%, 14.3%, 8.4%, respectively). At time of data collection, 26 patients were still alive and 120 had progressed to IV-M1c. Median overall survival (OS) was significantly larger in IIIB patients, 28.9 m (25.2–32.7); the shortest for IV-M1c patients, 11.0 m (8.7–13.3). Novel treatments are undoubtedly a major step forward in AM/MM, however these are often only available in the CT setting because early stages of development or country-specific regulations. Further prospective studies and multifactorial analysis should be performed to clearly identify possible clinical associations for outcome in Spanish patients with AM/MM.

Background Pertuzumab combined with trastuzumab and docetaxel is the standard first-line therapy for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, based on results from the phase III CLEOPATRA trial. PERUSE was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of investigator-selected taxane with pertuzumab and trastuzumab in this setting. Patients and methods In the ongoing multicentre single-arm phase IIIb PERUSE study, patients with inoperable HER2-positive advanced breast cancer (locally recurrent/metastatic) (LR/MBC) and no prior systemic therapy for LR/MBC (except endocrine therapy) received docetaxel, paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel with trastuzumab [8mg/kg loading dose, then 6mg/kg every 3weeks (q3w)] and pertuzumab (840mg loading dose, then 420mg q3w) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was safety. Secondary end points included overall response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results Overall, 1436 patients received at least one treatment dose (initially docetaxel in 775 patients, paclitaxel in 589, nab-paclitaxel in 65; 7 discontinued before starting taxane). Median age was 54years; 29% had received prior trastuzumab. Median treatment duration was 16months for pertuzumab and trastuzumab and 4months for taxane. Compared with docetaxel-containing therapy, paclitaxel-containing therapy was associated with more neuropathy (all-grade peripheral neuropathy 31% versus 16%) but less febrile neutropenia (1% versus 11%) and mucositis (14% versus 25%). At this preliminary analysis (52 months' median follow-up), median PFS was 20.6 [95% confidence interval (CI) 18.9–22.7] months overall (19.6, 23.0 and 18.1months with docetaxel, paclitaxel and nab-paclitaxel, respectively). ORR was 80% (95% CI 78%–82%) overall (docetaxel 79%, paclitaxel 83%, nab-paclitaxel 77%). Conclusions Preliminary findings from PERUSE suggest that the safety and efficacy of first-line pertuzumab, trastuzumab and taxane for HER2-positive LR/MBC are consistent with results from CLEOPATRA. Paclitaxel appears to be a valid alternative taxane backbone to docetaxel, offering similar PFS and ORR with a predictable safety profile. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01572038.

9515 Background: Although pts with both low tumor mutation burden (TMB) and T-cell–inflamed gene expression profiles (TI-GEPs) usually have poor outcomes with anti–PD-1 therapy, an analysis in the adjuvant melanoma setting suggested that these pts benefited from adjuvant D+T therapy. Here we analyze TMB/TI-GEPs and other biomarkers in pts receiving a combination of anti–PD-1 and D+T therapy. Methods: The phase 3 COMBI-i study (NCT02967692) is evaluating S in combination with D+T in previously untreated pts with BRAF V600–mutant unresectable/metastatic melanoma. In the safety run-in (part [p] 1) and biomarker (p2) cohorts, blood/tissue samples were collected at baseline (BL), after 2-3 and 8-12 wk of treatment, and at disease progression. TMB/circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and TI-GEPs were examined by targeted DNA-seq and RNA-seq, respectively. Results: At data cutoff, 6 of 22 pts with DNA- and RNA-seq data available had a PFS event. At BL, these pts had low TMB, low TI-GEPs (4 of 6), or high levels of immunosuppressive TME signatures (eg, fibroblast, M2 macrophages) vs pts without a PFS event. Elevated BL ctDNA was significantly associated with PFS events ( P< .001). Pts with a complete response (CR) on S+D+T had significantly lower levels of BL immunosuppressive TME signatures (eg, M2 macrophages; P< .01) than pts without a CR. We observed a consistent increase in TI-GEPs and decrease in MAPK pathway activity score (MPAS) from BL to biopsy at 2-3 wk in all pts regardless of subsequent progression. Pts with a PFS event and available longitudinal biomarker data were characterized by a subsequent decrease in TI-GEPs and an increase in MPAS per the 8- to 12- wk biopsy sample. Conclusions: These results suggest that S+D+T had an early impact on tumor cells and the TME, potentially promoting antitumor activity. The majority of PFS events occurred in the TMB-low/TI-GEP-low subgroup. An immunosuppressive TME might preclude early CRs. The predictive implications of coupling TMB/GEP subgroups with other TME marker subgroups need further validation. The randomized placebo-controlled p3 of COMBI-i is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT02967692.

Background: Immunotherapy combination treatments may improve patient outcomes. Epacadostat, an indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1 (IDO1) selective inhibitor, and pembrolizumab, a programmed death protein (PD)-1 inhibitor, showed promising antitumour activity in the phase 1/2 ECHO-202/KEYNOTE-037 advanced melanoma study. Methods: In the phase 3 ECHO-301/KEYNOTE-252 (NCT02752074) study, patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma previously untreated with checkpoint inhibitors were stratified by PD-ligand-1 expression and BRAF mutation status, and randomised (1:1) to epacadostat 100 mg twice-daily (BID) plus pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks (Q3W) or placebo plus pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W for up to 2 years. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) per modified Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1 and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR) per modified RECIST v1.1, duration of response (DOR), and safety. We report PFS final and OS interim analyses. Findings: 706 patients were randomised (n=354 epacadostat plus pembrolizumab, n=352 placebo plus pembrolizumab). Median follow-up was 12·4 months. No significant difference was found between epacadostat plus pembrolizumab versus placebo plus pembrolizumab for PFS (median 4·7 vs 4·9 months, respectively; HR=1·00; CI, 0·83-1.21; one-sided p=0·517) or OS (HR=1·13; 95% CI 0·86 1·49; one-sided p=0·807). Twelve-month OS rate was 74% (both groups). ORR was 34·2% (epacadostat plus pembrolizumab) and 31·5% (placebo plus pembrolizumab). Median DOR was not reached (both groups). Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 21·8% of patients receiving epacadostat plus pembrolizumab; 17·0% receiving placebo plus pembrolizumab. Interpretation: Epacadostat 100 mg BID plus pembrolizumab did not improve PFS or OS versus pembrolizumab alone in unresectable or metastatic melanoma patients. Utility of IDO1 inhibition as a strategy to enhance anti-PD-1 therapy activity in cancer remains uncertain. Funding: Incyte Corporation (Wilmington, DE, USA) in collaboration with Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. Declaration of Interest: GVL has served as a consultant/advisor for Amgen, Array, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Merck Sharp and Dhome, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Roche; has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Merck Sharp and Dhome, Novartis, and Roche; and personal fees for travel to conferences from Merck Sharp and Dhome and Roche. RD has served as a consultant/advisor for Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dhome, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and Takeda. OH has served as a consultant/advisor for and/or received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Merck, Novartis, and Roche; served on speakers bureau for Amgen, Array, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Novartis, and Sanofi; and his institution has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celldex, Genentech, Immunocore, Incyte, Merck, Merck Serono, Medimmune, Novartis, Pfizer, and Rinat. TFG has served on advisory boards for Merck and his institution has received research grants from Merck and Incyte. CC has served as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp and Dhome; served on speakers bureau for Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, and Merck Sharp and Dhome; received personal fees and for travel and non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bristol-Myers Squibb; and has received research grants from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Medivation, Merck Sharp and Dhome, and Roche. SD received personal fees from Sanofi; non-financial support for travel and research from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merck Sharp and Dhome; and research grant from Bristol-Myers Squibb. AA has served as a consultant and on speakers bureau for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dhome, Novartis, and Roche. MSC has served as a consultant for Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dhome, Novartis, and Pierre Fabre. J-JG has served as a consultant/advisor for and/or received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Merck/Pfizer, Merck Sharp and Dhome, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, and Sun Pharma; has served on speakers bureau for Novartis; and received other support for travel from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dhome, Pierre Fabre, and Roche. TMK declares no competing interests. LD has served as a consultant for and received honoraria and research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dhome, Novartis, and Roche. CR has served as a consultant/advisor for and received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Roche. JL has served as a consultant for Achilles, AstraZeneca, Boston Biomedical, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, EUSA Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Ipsen, Imugene, Incyte, iOnctura, Kymab, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp and Dhome, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Secarna, and Vitaccess; his institute has received grants from Achilles Therapeutics, Aveo, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Covance, Immunocore, Merck Sharp and Dhome, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharmacyclics, and Roche; and has received non-financial support from NIHR RM/ICR Biomedical Research Centre for Cancer. JRA is an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. JM and MJ are employees and stockholders of Incyte. SJD is an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA and stockholder of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. TCM has served as a consultant/advisor for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Merck, and Novartis. Ethical Approval: The study was conducted in accordance with the protocol, Declaration of Helsinki, and International Council for Harmonisation guidelines for Good Clinical Practice. The protocol and amendments were approved by the institutional review boards or independent ethics committees of participating institutions. All patients provided written informed consent.

9510 Background: Ocular melanoma, the most common intraocular malignancy, frequently metastasizes to the liver but to date there is no established standard of care for hepatic-dominant ocular melanoma patients. The FOCUS trial began as a randomized, phase III trial (301) comparing PHP with best alternative care (BAC). The trial was subsequently amended (301A) to remove the BAC arm due to enrollment concerns. Methods: Eligible patients with hepatic-dominant ocular melanoma were randomized 1:1 to receive PHP or BAC (investigator’s choice of TACE, pembrolizumab, ipilimumab, or dacarbazine) on the 301 trial. All eligible patients received PHP on the 301A trial. PHP patients could receive up to 6 PHP treatments, repeated every 6-8 weeks with melphalan dosed at 3.0mg/kg ideal body weight (IBW). Patients with progressive disease (PD) were discontinued from study treatment and all patients are followed until death. Patientswere imaged every 12 (±2) weeks until PD. The primary endpoint, ORR (per RECIST 1.1) as assessed by Independent Review Committee, will be characterized by the point estimate and 95% CI for each group (PHP and BAC). Categorical efficacy variables will be presented as frequency counts and percentages and 95% CI. Time-to-event variables will be summarized using Kaplan-Meier methods (median and 95% CI). Results: 144 patients were enrolled overall; 102 were assigned to PHP (301: n=43; 301A: n=59) and 42 were assigned to BAC. 91 PHP patients received treatment (301: n=40; 301A: n=51) and 32 BAC patients received treatment. At the time of this analysis, 4 PHP patients were still ongoing on study treatment with a minimum follow-up of 24 weeks. 79 PHP-treated patients and 29 BAC-treated patients were evaluable for response. ORR among PHP patients was 32.9% (26/79; 95% CI: 22.75-40.40%). ORR among BAC patients was 13.8% (4/29; 95% CI: 3.89-31.66%). The median PFS was 9.03 months (95% CI: 6.24-11.83) among PHP patients and was 3.06 months (95% CI: 2.69-5.65) among BAC patients; this difference was statistically significant ( p=0.0004). Among the 94 patients assessed for safety after treatment with PHP, 40.4% of patients experienced a serious treatment-emergent adverse event, the majority of which were hematological and resolved without sequelae. There were no treatment related deaths in the trial. Conclusions: In this analysis of preliminary data from the FOCUS trial, PHP demonstrates a statistically superior ORR and significantly prolonged PFS in comparison with BAC in the treatment of hepatic metastases from ocular melanoma. The data is encouraging as efficacious treatments for hepatic metastases from ocular melanoma are desperately needed. These early data show an improvement over the previous phase III study in terms of both efficacy (ORR and PFS) as well as toxicity using second generation filters. Clinical trial information: NCT02678572.

9546 Background: KEYNOTE-629 is a single-arm phase 2 study of pembro for cSCC. At second interim analysis (IA), pembro had robust and durable antitumor activity and manageable safety in LA and R/M cohorts. At first IA, pembro maintained HRQoL in the R/M cohort; LA was not analyzed because of ongoing accrual. HRQoL of pts with LA or R/M cSCC at second IA (database cutoff July 29, 2020; additional 15-mo follow-up since IA1 for the R/M cohort) is shown. Methods: Pts with LA or R/M cSCC received pembro 200 mg IV Q3W for ≤35 cycles. HRQoL was a prespecified exploratory end point assessed using EORTC QLQ-30 and EuroQol EQ-5D-5L instruments administered at baseline, wk 3, and wk 6; then Q6W through y 1; then Q9W until treatment end/discontinuation; and at the 30-day safety follow-up. HRQoL was analyzed in pts who received ≥1 pembro dose and completed baseline and ≥1 postbaseline HRQoL assessments. Mean change from baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS)/quality of life (QoL), physical functioning (PF), and EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale (VAS) scores were evaluated at wk 12 to ensure adequate completion rate and through last pt visit at wk 75 for EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL and PF scores. HRQoL was categorized as improved or deteriorated based on ≥10-point change in EORTC QLQ-C30 scores (considered clinically meaningful). Results: The HRQoL analysis population for LA had 47 pts for EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-5L; the R/M cohort had 99 pts for EORTC QLQ-C30 and 100 for EQ-5D-5L. At wk 12, compliance rates were >75% for LA and >80% for R/M cohorts for EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-5L. Mean change from baseline to wk 12 was minimal for EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL, PF, and EQ-5D-5L VAS scores for both cohorts (Table). Mean change from baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL and PF scores remained stable over 48 wk in the LA cohort (75-wk data unavailable) and over 75 wk in the R/M cohort. Most pts had improved or stable EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL and PF scores relative to baseline during follow-up. Conclusions: HRQoL was generally maintained with pembro in LA and R/M cSCC cohorts and was not negatively impacted by tumor progression or AEs. Clinical trial information: NCT03284424. [Table: see text]

9541 Background: In KEYNOTE-555, a model-based approach suggested expected drug exposure with pembro 400 mg Q6W is similar to that observed with approved doses of pembro 200 mg or 2 mg/kg Q3W. The pembro Q6W dose is now approved. We present interim efficacy, safety and PK of 1L pembro 400 mg Q6W for patients (pts) with advanced melanoma in KEYNOTE-555 Cohort B (NCT03665597). Methods: Eligible pts had unresectable stage III or IV melanoma, ECOG PS ≤1, and no prior systemic therapy for advanced disease.Pts received pembro 400 mg Q6W for up to 18 cycles (≈2 years).The primary efficacy endpoint was ORR per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints included PFS by BICR per RECIST v1.1 and safety. PK profile and exposure were evaluated for cycle 1 and steady state (cycle 4). Results: Between May 2019 and Jan 2020, 101 pts were enrolled and received ≥1 dose of pembro. Baseline characteristics were generally similar to pt cohorts of historical pembro studies in advanced melanoma. As of the data cutoff date of August 6, 2020, all pts had ≥6 mo of follow-up and 40.6% of pts had discontinued study treatment. Median (range) duration of treatment and doses administered were 8.2 mo (1 day–13.9 mo) and 6 (1–11) doses, respectively. Observed exposure with pembro 400 mg Q6W had lower variability than model predictions and was within PK parameters from clinical experience with other pembro regimens (Table). ORR was 50.5% (95% CI 40.4–60.6). 12.9% of pts had CR and 37.6% had PR. Median PFS was 13.8 mo (95% CI 3.0–not reached). Estimated PFS rates were 56.5% at 6 mo and 54.3% at 12 mo. Treatment-related AEs of any grade occurred in 79.2% of pts (grade 3–4: 6.9% of pts; no deaths due to a treatment-related AE). The most common immune-mediated AEs were hyperthyroidism (6.9%) and hypothyroidism (6.9%). Conclusions: 1L treatment with pembro 400 mg Q6W yielded a clinically meaningful ORR in pts with advanced melanoma. PK, efficacy and safety results from KEYNOTE-555 Cohort B support prior findings from the model-based assessment and indicate that the benefit-risk profile for the more practical pembro 400 mg Q6W regimen is consistent with that of 200 mg or 2 mg/kg Q3W regimens. Clinical trial information: NCT03665597. [Table: see text]

TPS9586 Background: Intratumoral immunotherapies are gaining interest in oncology, particularly in melanoma. These therapies, however, have faced some issues. For instance, standard response criteria do not accurately describe tumor burden, and responses may differ for injected/non injected lesions. Besides, target lesions may become non evaluable. Biomarkers provide interesting information for these therapies. In addition, some radiomic signatures have been associated with CD-8 infiltration. BO-112 is a double stranded synthetic RNA formulated with polyethyleneimine (PEI) that mimics a viral infection, mobilizing the immune system and changing tumor microenvironment. Clinical data are available from a first-in-human study, which showed ORR of 11% and DCR of 46% in patients who had developed progressive disease on immunotherapy. In patients with melanoma, this ORR was 20%. A phase 2 clinical study of BO-112 with pembrolizumab in patients with liver metastases from digestive tumors is ongoing. Both studies brought up data regarding how some biomarkers are increased after a single dose of BO-112 and correlated with responses. In this phase II study in patients with pretreated melanoma (NCT04570332), we will prospectively assess CD-8 and PD-L1 by immunohistochemistry, which will be compared with multi-parametric radiologic findings and correlated with clinical benefit. In addition, retrospective DNA sequencing will be performed. This kind of exploratory analysis in intratumoral immunotherapies might be key to identify predictive and prognostic factors. Methods: Phase 2, single arm, open label study of BO-112 with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced melanoma. BO-112 is administered once weekly (QW) in 1 to 8 tumor lesions, total dose 1-2 mg (depending on the number of injected lesions), for the first 7 weeks and then once every three weeks (Q3W); pembrolizumab 200 mg will be administered Q3W. Key eligibility criteria: advanced cutaneous or mucosal melanoma; patients must have progressed on or after treatment with an antiPD-1/L1 mAb; at least one measurable lesion amenable for weekly IT injection. Primary efficacy variable is ORR by RECIST 1.1, assessed by independent central radiologist (QUIBIM Precision platform). A 1-sided alpha of 4.19% and power of 81.8% are used. If less than 8 patients out of 40 have ORR, the study will not meet the statistical bar. Secondary endpoints include clinical activity by RECIST1.1 and iRECIST, overall survival, safety and PKs. Exploratory objectives include itRECIST and evaluation of CD-8 and PD-L1 expression by immunohistochemistry (Pangaea laboratory), which will be correlated with radiomic signatures (first order and second order) from standard-of-care computed tomography (CT) images. Enrollment is open and 1 of planned 40 patients has been enrolled. Nineteen sites are planned to participate. Clinical trial information: NCT04570332.

9504 Background: Initial results of the open-label, single-arm, phase 2 LEAP-004 study (NCT03776136) showed that len and pembro in combination had promising efficacy and manageable safety in pts with unresectable stage III-IV melanoma and confirmed PD on a PD-(L)1 inhibitor given alone or in combination. ORR was 21.4% with a 6.3-mo median DOR; ORR was 31.0% in patients with PD on prior anti–PD-1 + anti–CTLA-4. We present updated data from LEAP-004 and additional ORR subgroup analyses. Methods: Eligible pts with PD confirmed per iRECIST within 12 wk of the last dose of a PD-(L)1 inhibitor given alone or with anti–CTLA-4 or other therapies for ≥2 doses received len 20 mg/d once daily plus ≤35 doses of pembro 200 mg Q3W until PD or unacceptable toxicity. Primary end point is ORR per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary end points are PFS and DOR per RECIST v1.1 by BICR, OS, and safety. ORR was calculated for pts with PD on prior anti–PD-1 + anti–CTLA-4, pts whose only prior anti–PD-(L)1 was in the adjuvant setting, pts with primary resistance (ie, best response of SD or PD to prior anti–PD-(L)1 in the advanced setting) and pts with secondary resistance (ie, PD following best response of CR or PR on prior anti–PD-(L)1 in the advanced setting). Results: 103 pts were enrolled. Median age was 63 y, 68.0% of pts had stage M1c/M1d disease, 55.3% had LDH > ULN (20.4% ≥2 × ULN), 58.3% received ≥2 prior treatments, 94.2% received therapy for advanced disease, and 32.0% received BRAF ± MEK inhibition. With median study follow-up of 15.3 mo (range 12.1-19.0), 17.5% of pts were still receiving study drug. ORR by BICR remained 21.4% (95% CI 13.9-30.5), although the number of CRs increased from 2 to 3. DCR was 66.0%. Median DOR increased to 8.2 mo, and the KM estimate of DOR ≥9 mo was 37.2%. ORR was 33.3% in pts with PD on prior anti–PD-1 + anti–CTLA-4 (n = 30), 18.2% in pts whose only prior anti–PD-1/L1 was in the adjuvant setting (n = 11), 22.6% in pts with primary resistance (n = 62), and 22.7% in pts with secondary resistance (n = 22). Median (95% CI) PFS and OS in the total population were 4.2 mo (3.8-7.1) and 14.0 mo (95% CI 10.8-NR); 12-mo PFS and OS estimates were 17.8% and 54.5%. Incidence of treatment-related AEs was as follows: 96.1% any grade, 45.6% grade 3-4, 1.0% grade 5 (decreased platelet count), 7.8% led to discontinuation of len and/or pembro, and 56.3% led to len dose reduction. Conclusions: The combination of len and pembro continues to show clinically meaningful, durable responses in pts with advanced MEL with confirmed progression on a prior PD-(L)1 inhibitor, including those with PD on anti–PD-1 + anti–CTLA-4 therapy, and regardless of primary or secondary resistance to prior anti–PD-(L)1 therapy. The safety profile was consistent with prior studies of len + pembro. These data support len + pembro as a potential regimen for this population of high unmet need. Clinical trial information: NCT03776136.

9569 Background: In the phase 3 CheckMate 238 study, NIVO has demonstrated improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) vs IPI in pts with resected stage IIIB–C or IV melanoma, which was sustained at the 4-y analysis. Having in-transit metastases/satellites (ITM) is a poor prognostic factor, and pts with ITM are generally omitted from clinical trials. This study was the first and only adjuvant checkpoint inhibitor trial to include pts with ITM. Here, we present post hoc outcomes in this subgroup. Methods: Pts aged ≥15 y with completely resected stage IIIB–C or IV melanoma stratified by stage and tumor PD-L1 status were randomized 1:1 to NIVO (3 mg/kg Q2W; n = 453) or IPI (10 mg/kg Q3W for 4 doses, Q12W thereafter; n = 453) for a maximum of 1 y or until disease recurrence/unacceptable toxicity. Pts with ITM, with or without synchronous nodal involvement, were included. The primary study endpoint was RFS; overall survival (OS) was a secondary endpoint; and DMFS was exploratory. Results: Each of the 2 treatment groups had 164 pts with ITM. Baseline characteristics were generally similar between treatment groups in pts with or without ITM; in pts with ITM vs without ITM, tumor ulceration was less frequent in NIVO-treated pts, and fewer IPI-treated pts had PD-L1 expression ≥5%. RFS and DMFS favored NIVO vs IPI in all ITM subgroups (table). OS was similar to the intention-to-treat (ITT) population with no differences noted between treatment groups or between ITM subgroups. Among pts with or without ITM, dominant metastatic sites were lung and lymph nodes, followed by brain, liver, and soft tissue (in varying order). Similar metastasis patterns were observed in pts with ITM regardless of nodal involvement. Treatment-related adverse events (any grade and grade 3/4) in pts with ITM were similar to those of the ITT population. Conclusions: Results of this post hoc 4-y analysis of CheckMate 238 showed that safety and efficacy were similar in pts with or without ITM, supporting the use of adjuvant NIVO in pts with ITM, regardless of nodal involvement. Clinical trial information: NCT02388906. [Table: see text]

Immunotherapy (IT) agents and BRAF inhibitors (BRAFi) are effective treatments for patients with advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma although the optimal sequence remains to be elucidated. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of two different cohorts of patients treated with BRAFi first, then IT or the reverse sequence.This is a retrospective study on two groups of patients: a cohort was treated first with BRAFi followed by immunotherapy (BRAFi-IT) and the other cohort with the reverse sequence (IT-BRAFi). Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared between the two cohorts.A total of 25 patients were included in the study. Sixteen patients were given BRAFi-IT sequence and nine received IT-BRAFi sequence. No differences were observed in the characteristics of patients prior to each treatment between cohorts. Objective response rate (ORR) achieved by BRAFi were not different among groups. ORR achieved by IT was higher when administered after BRAFi (43.8 vs 0 %). Survival rates at 1-2 years were similar in both cohorts and median overall survival was not different for BRAFi-IT and IT-BRAFi (log rank test p = 0.97).No differences were observed in OS between the two cohorts. These results support the indistinct use of IT or BRAFi as initial treatment in patients with metastatic BRAF-mutant melanoma, although higher rate of response to IT was observed when administered after BRAFi. Prospective randomized clinical trials are needed on this issue.

Vemurafenib tolerability was assessed in a large, open-label, multicentre study in patients with BRAF V600 mutated advanced melanoma. We investigated safety, tolerability and efficacy of vemurafenib in Spanish patients participating in that study. Patients with previously treated or treatment-naive, unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV, BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma received vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent or death. The primary endpoint was safety; secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). 301 Spanish patients were included, 70 % with M1c disease, 22 % with brain metastases and 51 % with prior systemic therapy for metastatic disease. Most frequent adverse events included fatigue (48 %), arthralgia (45 %), rash (41 %), photosensitivity (34 %) and skin neoplasms (21 %). Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 156 patients (52 %), including cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (including keratoacanthoma; 16 %), fatigue (6 %) and arthralgia (5 %). The ORR was 28 % (95 % CI 23–34 %). Responses occurred in patients with brain metastases (18 %), elevated baseline lactate dehydrogenase (19 %) and poor performance status (15 %), and elderly patients (22 %). Median PFS was 5.8 (95 % CI 5.0–6.4) months; median OS was 10.5 (95 % CI 9.5–13.5) months. Our results for Spanish patients in the vemurafenib safety study indicate similar efficacy and a comparable safety profile in Spanish patients with no new safety signals compared with the overall population. Clinical benefit was demonstrated in poor-prognosis patients and in those with favourable baseline characteristics, suggesting that poor-prognosis patients may also benefit from vemurafenib treatment.

BACKGROUND: Desmoplastic melanoma (DM) is a rare subtype of spindle cell malignant melanoma characterized by frequent local recurrences and hematogenous spread, but without molecular classification. The aim of the study was to investigate in a DM series the incidence of relevant gene alterations in cancer, the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression status and the association with clinicopathological features and melanoma progression. METHODS: A total of 38 patients were included. Clinical follow-up and the histopathological features of all cases were retrospectively collected. PD-L1 expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and BRAF genomic alterations by real-time PCR were determined in 34 samples. Additionally, a molecular analysis by next-generation sequencing was performed in 25 DMs. RESULTS: Tumors occurred predominantly in men (76%) and in the head and neck region (50%). Most tumors were pure DMs (66%), containing less than 10% of conventional melanoma. Overall, 48% of our cohort harbored TP53 mutations, most of them showing a molecular signature associated with ultraviolet (UV)-oncogenesis, and 29%, BRAF mutations. A positive correlation between TP53 with depth of invasion (P=0.005) and presence of elastosis (P=0.002) was found. High-expression of PD-L1 in tumor cells was observed in 38% of cases and correlated with depth of tumoral infiltration (P=0.003), TP53 (P=0.016), PD-1 (P