Search

Aim: Neoadjuvant treatment of locally advanced disease with BRAF inhibitors is expected to increase the likelihood of a R0 resection. We present six patients with stage III unresectable melanoma, neoadjuvantly treated with BRAF inhibitors.Methods: Patients with unresectable, BRAF-mutated, stage III melanoma, were treated with BRAF inhibitors between 2012 and 2015. Unresectability was determined based on clinical and/or radiological findings. At maximal response, resection was performed. The specimen was reviewed to determine the degree of response.Results: In five of six patients a radical resection was achieved. Postoperative complications were unremarkable. In five of six resected specimens, vital tumor tissue was found.Conclusion: Neoadjuvant BRAF inhibitor treatment of locally advanced melanoma is feasible and has the potential to facilitate an R0 resection.

Background D+T has been approved for several indications, including BRAF V600–mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma and as adjuvant therapy following resected BRAF V600–mutant stage III melanoma. Pyrexia is a common adverse event but is generally low-grade and manageable; further characterization may optimize management and reduce permanent treatment (tx) discontinuation due to pyrexia. Methods Trial databases were queried for reports of pyrexia in pts treated with D and/or T, including adjuvant therapy. Indications included unresectable, metastatic, or resected stage III melanoma; non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); colorectal cancer, and other BRAF–mutation positive solid tumors. Data for D+T was compiled from the following trials: COMBI-AD (NCT01682083), COMBI-d (NCT01584648), COMBI-v (NCT01597908), and BRF113928 (NCT01336634). Pyrexia was graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. Results A total of 1991 pts were included from clinical trials (D+T, n=1076; D, n=586; T, n=329). Pyrexia was observed in 904 pts: D+T, 61% (660/1076); D, 33% (196/586); T, 15% (48/329). Of pts treated with D+T, 6% (62/1076) experienced grade 3 events and 1 of 1076 pts experienced a grade 4 event. The median time to onset was 27 d (range, 1-716 d). Recurrent any-grade pyrexia occurred in 41% (442/1076) of pts; 29% had ≥ 3 episodes. Of the 442 pts with recurrent pyrexia, 377 (85%) experienced a subsequent event within 3mo of the first pyrexia episode. No pyrexia-related deaths were reported. Outcomes were reported for 2252 of 2253 events in pts treated with D+T across trials. Pyrexia management strategies included: tx interruption (939/2253 events [42%]), dose reduction (225/2253 [10%]), and tx discontinuation (62/2253 [3%]); ≥ 98% of events were reported to be resolved following each of the aforementioned interventions. Conclusions Pyrexia in pts treated with D+T is typically low-grade, occurs early during tx exposure, and most pts experience ≤ 1 episode. Tx interruption was the most frequent intervention strategy used in clinical trials. Pyrexia can be effectively managed with nearly all events reported to have been resolved at the time of the analysis. Clinical trial identification Pooled analysis of data from the following trials: NCT01227889, NCT01153763, NCT01266967, NCT01072175, NCT00880321, NCT01336634, NCT01584648, NCT01597908, NCT01682083, NCT01245062, NCT01037127, NCT00687622. Editorial acknowledgement Allison Lytle, PhD, from ArticulateScience LLC, funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. Legal entity responsible for the study Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. Funding Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. Disclosure C. Robert: Non-remunerated activity/ies, Medical writing assistance: ArticulateScience LLC; Advisory / Consultancy: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre; Advisory / Consultancy: Array; Advisory / Consultancy: Sanofi; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck. D. Schadendorf: Non-remunerated activity/ies, Medical writing assistance: ArticulateScience LLC; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Roche/Genentech; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Novartis; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Merck Sharp & Dohme; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Merck Serono; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Amgen; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Immunocore; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Incyte; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: 4SC; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Pierre Fabre; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Mologen; Advisory / Consultancy: Sanofi/Regeneron; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Roche; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Merck; Honoraria (self): Sysmex; Honoraria (self): Grunenthal Group; Honoraria (self): Agenus; Honoraria (self): Array BioPharma; Honoraria (self): AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self): LEO Pharma; Honoraria (self): Pfizer; Honoraria (self): Philogen; Honoraria (self): Regeneron. R. Dummer: Non-remunerated activity/ies, Medical writing assistance: ArticulateScience LLC; Advisory / Consultancy, Intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationship: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy, Intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationship: Merck Sharp & Dhome; Advisory / Consultancy, Intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationship: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Advisory / Consultancy, Intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationship: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy, Intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationship: Amgen; Advisory / Consultancy, Intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationship: Takeda; Advisory / Consultancy, Intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationship: Pierre Fabre; Advisory / Consultancy, Intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationship: Sun Pharma; Advisory / Consultancy, Intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationship: Sanofi; Advisory / Consultancy, Intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationship: Catalym. K.T. Flaherty: Non-remunerated activity/ies, Medical writing assistance: ArticulateScience LLC; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Genentech; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck; Advisory / Consultancy: Lilly; Advisory / Consultancy: Amgen; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Sanofi; Advisory / Consultancy, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Oncoceutics; Advisory / Consultancy: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Advisory / Consultancy: Adaptimmune; Advisory / Consultancy: Aeglea Biotherapeutics; Advisory / Consultancy, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Loxo; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: Asana Biosciences; Advisory / Consultancy: Incyte; Advisory / Consultancy, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Shattuck Labs; Advisory / Consultancy: Tolero Pharmaceuticals; Advisory / Consultancy: Array BioPharma; Advisory / Consultancy, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: FOGPharma; Advisory / Consultancy: Neon Therapeutics; Advisory / Consultancy, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Tvardi; Advisory / Consultancy: Takeda; Advisory / Consultancy: Varestem; Advisory / Consultancy: Boston Biomedical; Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Pierre Fabre; Advisory / Consultancy: Cell Medica; Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Debiopharm Group; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Clovis Oncology; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: X4 Pharma; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: PIC Therapeutics; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Fount Therapeutics; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Apricity Health; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Vivid Biosciences; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Checkmate Pharmaceuticals; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Strata Oncology. H.A. Tawbi: Non-remunerated activity/ies, Medical writing assistance: ArticulateScience LLC; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Bristol-Myers Squibb; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck; Research grant / Funding (institution): GlaxoSmithKline; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: Array; Research grant / Funding (institution): Celgene. A.M. Menzies: Non-remunerated activity/ies, Medical writing assistance: ArticulateScience LLC; Advisory / Consultancy: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre. A. D'Amelio: Non-remunerated activity/ies, Medical writing assistance: ArticulateScience LLC; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Novartis; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: GlaxoSmithKline. E. de Jong: Non-remunerated activity/ies, Medical writing assistance: ArticulateScience LLC; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Novartis. E. Gasal: Non-remunerated activity/ies, Medical writing assistance: ArticulateScience LLC; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Novartis. G.V. Long: Non-remunerated activity/ies, Medical writing assistance: ArticulateScience LLC; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche/Genentech; Advisory / Consultancy: Amgen; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Merck; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Array BioPharma; Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre.

Approximately half of melanomas are driven by a point mutation in the BRAF kinase gene, targetable with vemurafenib. However, the chief limitation of continuous BRAF inhibition is that the majority of patients develop resistance within 8 months, including those with surgically unresectable stage III melanoma. Researchers retrospectively reviewed medical records of all patients at our institution with surgically incurable BRAF V600E mutated stage III or limited stage IV melanoma treated with induction vemurafenib, stopped electively during ongoing response, followed by consolidative radiation therapy with or without intervening surgery to debulk nodal metastases. In our six-patient cohort, the median duration of vemurafenib was 5.8 months and the median radiation dose was 57 Gy using conventional fractionation. This algorithm produced 100% locoregional control at 29+ months following radiation and a median progression-free survival of 32.5+ months. Three of six patients remained progression free, and three relapsed in a single organ and achieved ongoing complete response to subsequent therapy. Outcomes greatly exceeding those reported with either BRAF inhibition or radiation alone suggest unanticipated synergies with this therapeutic sequence for both in-field and distant melanoma control, which may be mediated by radiosensitization and immune activation, respectively. In patients with surgically incurable melanoma encompassed within a radiation field, induction vemurafenib and consolidative radiation therapy, rather than continuing vemurafenib until progression, also limit the duration of vemurafenib toxicity and preserve sensitivity to future BRAF inhibition.

Vulvar melanoma is a rare and deadly cancer in women, and the prognosis is often poor. There are limited studies on the dermoscopic features of vulvar melanoma. Described criteria include the presence of blue, gray, or white colors. Herein we present the clinical and dermoscopic characteristics of a hypopigmented and heavily pigmented nodule in a 92-year-old and an 80-year-old woman. Dermoscopy in the former revealed structureless milky-red to white areas, remnants of brown pigmentation at the base and polymorphic vessels, while the latter displayed structureless blue-gray areas with black dots and peripheral lines at the base. In both cases, histopathology revealed a stage III melanoma. Our two cases along with a review of the literature suggest that the dermoscopic features described for diagnosing cutaneous nodular melanoma, apply also for vulvar melanoma. Clinicians should always raise the suspicion if observing plaques or nodules with a dermoscopic polymorphic vascular pattern and blue-black color on the genitals of postmenopausal women.

The article by Jakub and colleagues describes the adoption of a minimally invasive inguinal lymph node dissection (MILND) for stage III melanoma patients in ten large-volume centers across the United States (1).

BACKGROUND Ipilimumab (Yervoy®) therapy improves outcomes in patients with resected stage III melanoma, and ipilimumab alone or combined with nivolumab (Opdivo®) does so in those with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. These immunotherapies are associated with immune-related adverse events (irAEs). With prompt recognition and appropriate management, serious sequelae or unnecessary treatment discontinuation can be prevented. . OBJECTIVES This article presents consensus statements to guide oncology nurses in the recognition and management of irAEs associated with ipilimumab and nivolumab. . METHODS Members of the Melanoma Nursing Initiative reviewed the current literature and clinical experience regarding nursing interventions related to irAEs associated with ipilimumab or ipilimumab and nivolumab therapy. . FINDINGS The care step pathways provided represent a proactive, evidence-based, and comprehensive plan to support optimal patient outcomes.

New treatment options for patients with resected stage III melanoma have been established with the publication of the results of four pivotal randomized clinical trials, resulting in three drug approvals, with a forth expected, all within only 4 years. Herein, we put these advances into context.

Background A goal of adjuvant therapy is to prolong disease-free survival, with the risk of mortality approaching that of the general population. From the literature, recurrences in stage III melanoma are most likely to occur within 3 years after surgery. Mixture-cure models (MCMs) capture survival heterogeneity of cancer patients by assuming they are either “cured” or “uncured”, where cured patients are defined as having a low risk of relapse. Methods We applied MCMs to 3-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) outcomes in patients with resected melanoma treated with adjuvant nivolumab (NIVO) or ipilimumab (IPI) in the double-blind, phase III CheckMate 238 trial (NCT02388906) and assumed that the cured fraction has mortality risks similar to that of the general population. Patient age, sex, and geographic region information from CheckMate 238 and mortality rates from the World Health Organization were used to derive a cohort-level background survival distribution representative of “cured” or “disease-free” patients. Parametric functions were used to model uncured population outcomes. Parameters of the MCM were estimated by means of maximum likelihood methods. Statistical goodness-of-fit metrics and visual inspection showed that generalized gamma and log-logistic distributions were best suited for survival analyses of cured and uncured patients, respectively. Results The 3-year RFS rates were explained by the fraction of patients with a low risk of relapse in the NIVO arm at 55.1% (95% CI, 49.2–60.1) and IPI arm at 39.9% (95% CI, 33.6–46.1). Sensitivity analyses indicated that the estimated fraction of patients with a low risk of relapse was > 50% in the NIVO arm. Estimated RFS distributions of the uncured patients exhibited similar patterns for both arms, implying the differences in RFS rates between treatment arms can be explained with the elicited differences in proportions of patients at high vs low risk of relapse. Conclusions MCM analyses from CheckMate 238 suggested that adjuvant treatment with NIVO leads to a higher proportion of patients with low risk of relapse compared with IPI. Validation of the results from MCMs will include analyses of longitudinal RFS and overall survival data from the EORTC 18071 trial. Clinical trial identification NCT02388906. Editorial acknowledgement Kakoli Parai, PhD, and Andrea Lockett at StemScientific, an Ashfield Company, funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Legal entity responsible for the study Bristol-Myers Squibb. Funding Bristol-Myers Squibb. Disclosure J.S. Weber: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: AbbVie; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: AltorBioScience; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Amgen; Research grant / Funding (institution): Astellas Pharma; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: AstraZeneca; Licensing / Royalties, Named on a patent for a PD-1 antibody biomarker: Biodesix; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Biond; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: cCam Biotherapeutics; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Celldex; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Daiichi Sankyo; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Eisai; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Genentech; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: GlaxoSmithKline; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Ichor Medical Systems; Research grant / Funding (institution): Incyte; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Lion Biotechnologies; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Medivation; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Merck; Licensing / Royalties, Named on patent for an ipilimumab biomarker: Moffitt Cancer Center; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Nektar; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Pieris Pharmaceuticals; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Roche; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Sellas Life Sciences; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: WindMIL; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: CytomX Therapeutics; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Novartis. M. Kurt: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Bristol-Myers Squibb. M. Edmondson-Jones: Advisory / Consultancy: Bristol-Myers Squibb. A. Amadi: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Bristol-Myers Squibb. M. Lobo: Full / Part-time employment: Bristol-Myers Squibb. A. Moshyk: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Bristol-Myers Squibb. S. Kotapati: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Bristol-Myers Squibb. P. Mohr: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: GlaxoSmithKline; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Merck, Sharp & Dohme; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Merck Germany; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Sanofi.

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

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

2512 Background: Since 2015, ipilimumab (Ipi) is an approved treatment for stage III melanoma based on a significantly (P=0.0013) prolonged recurrence-free survival (RFS) (Eggermont et al, Lancet Oncology, 2015). At a median follow-up of 5.3 years, RFS (HR=0.76) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) (HR=0.76), assessed by an IRC, and overall survival (OS) (HR=0.72) were prolonged in the Ipi group as compared to the placebo (Pbo) group (Eggermont et al, NEJM, 2016), despite a 53.3% (Ipi) vs 4.6% (Pbo) treatment discontinuation rate due to adverse events. Methods: In this randomized double-blind trial, eligible patients (pts) included those ≥18 yrs of age who underwent complete resection of stage III cutaneous melanoma (excluding lymph node metastasis ≤1 mm or in-transit metastasis). 951 pts were randomized (stratified by stage and region) 1:1 to Ipi 10 mg/kg (n=475) or placebo (Pbo, n=476) q3w for 4 doses, then every 3 mos for up to 3 yrs until completion, disease recurrence, or unacceptable toxicity. Here, we report the comparison between the Ipi and Pbo groups regarding the long-term efficacy outcomes using the local investigator assessments. Results: Overall, 20%/44%/36% of pts had AJCC-7 stage IIIA/IIIB/IIIC, 42% ulcerated primary, and 58% macroscopic lymph node involvement. Median follow-up was 6.9 yrs. The RFS, DMFS and OS benefit observed in the Ipi group was long-lasting (almost 10% difference at 7 years) and consistent across subgroups: no significant predictive factors could be detected. Conclusions: In this phase III trial, Ipi, administered at 10 mg/kg, as adjuvant therapy provided, at a 6.9 yr median follow-up, a sustained improvement in the RFS, DMFS, and OS long-term results in patients with high-risk stage III melanoma. Clinical trial information: NCT00636168. [Table: see text]

TPS9596 Background: Adjuvant pembrolizumab showed significantly longer recurrence-free survival than placebo in patients with resected stage III melanoma in the KEYNOTE-054 study. KEYNOTE-716 (NCT03553836) is a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter phase 3 study of adjuvant pembrolizumab in patients with surgically resected high-risk stage II melanoma. Methods: Key eligibility criteria are age ≥12 y with newly diagnosed, completely resected stage IIB/IIC cutaneous melanoma, defined by the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 8th edition (wide excision and negative sentinel lymph node biopsy with no evidence of distant metastasis). Patients with mucosal or uveal melanoma or prior treatment (including radiation) for melanoma beyond resection of primary disease within 12 wk of the start of study treatment were excluded. In this 2-part study, in the double-blind phase (part 1), patients will be randomly assigned 1:1 to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg for patients ≥18 y or 2 mg/kg for patients ≥12 y to < 18 y (maximum dose, 200 mg) or placebo every 3 wk for 17 cycles. Study treatment will begin within 12 wk of complete resection. Tumor imaging will be performed every 24 wk while treatment is ongoing, at the end of treatment, every 6 mo for the first 3 y off treatment, and then yearly for up to 2 y or until recurrence (up to 5 y of total imaging). Adverse events will be recorded until 30 d after treatment end (90 d for serious AEs) and graded per National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0. In the unblinded phase (part 2), patients with confirmed recurrence may be rechallenged (patients received pembrolizumab in part 1) or crossed over to pembrolizumab (patients received placebo in part 1). Resected local or distant recurrence or unresectable disease will be treated for an additional 17 or 35 cycles, respectively. Tumor imaging in part 2 will occur every 12 wk during treatment. The primary end point is recurrence-free survival; secondary end points are distant metastasis-free survival, overall survival, and safety. Approximately 954 patients will be enrolled. Clinical trial information: NCT03553836.

TPS9605 Background: Adjuvant (adj) immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) improves relapse free survival (RFS) in stage III melanoma patients (pts). However, preclinical and translational data suggest that neo-adjuvant (neoadj) treatment might be favorable due to broader immune activation. The phase 1b OpACIN study comparing neoadj to adj IPI plus NIVO demonstrated a high pathological response rate (pRR) of 78% complicated by 90% gr 3-4 immune-related adverse events (irAEs). The phase 2 OpACIN-neo trial tested safety and efficacy of three different schemes of neoadj IPI+NIVO and identified two cycles of IPI 1mg/kg + NIVO 3mg/kg as well tolerated (20% gr 3-4 irAEs), with a high pRR of 77%. In both trials, none of the pts with a pathologic response have relapsed after a median follow-up of 30 and 8.3 months. In stage IV melanoma, long-term benefit is observed in patients achieving CR with ICI, even after cessation of therapy. This raises the question of whether a therapeutic lymph node dissection (TLND) can be omitted when a deep pathologic response with neoadj IPI+NIVO is achieved. Methods: The aim of this international multi-center investigator-initiated phase 2 PRADO extension study is to confirm the pRR and toxicity of 2 cycles of neoadjuvant IPI 1mg/kg + NIVO 3mg/kg (the preferred OPACIN-neo regimen) and to test response-driven subsequent therapy i.e. omitting surgery and adjuvant ICI based on the pathological response. 100-110 pts with stage IIIB/C melanoma and a measurable lymph node (≥15mm according to RECIST 1.1) will receive two cycles of IPI 1mg/kg + NIVO 3mg/kg after marker placement into the largest lymph node metastasis. After six weeks, pts will undergo resection of the index lymph node. For pCR/near pCR, pts will not undergo TLND; For pPR, pts will undergo TLND; and for pNR, pts will undergo TLND and start adjuvant NIVO or targeted therapy +/- radiotherapy for 52 weeks. Primary endpoints are pRR of marked lymph node and RFS at 24 months. Baseline biopsies, blood samples (week 0, 6, 12) and faeces (week 0, 6) will be collected for translational research analyses. The first patient in this trial was included in October 2018; 22 patients have been enrolled. Clinical trial information: NCT02977052.

2517 Background: Several studies suggested that patients (pts) with an immune-related adverse event (irAE) during immunotherapy have better outcomes than those without. It remains uncertain whether these observations can be explained by guarantee-time bias or the role of irAE as an indicator of drug activity. Here, we investigated the association between irAEs and recurrence-free survival (RFS) in the double-blind EORTC 1325/KEYNOTE-054 trial that compared pembrolizumab and placebo in high-risk stage III melanoma pts. Methods: Eligible pts included adults with complete resection of cutaneous melanoma metastatic to lymph node(s), classified as stage IIIA (lymph node metastasis > 1 mm), IIIB or IIIC (without in-transit metastasis) and with no active autoimmune disease that required systemic treatment in past 2 years. We used a Cox model adjusted for sex, age, and stage with a time-varying covariate taking a value zero before the irAE onset and a value one afterwards to estimate the association between the occurrence of irAEs and RFS. Results: Consistent with the main analysis in the ITT population (n = 1019, Eggermont et al, NEJM, 2018), RFS was longer in the pembrolizumab than in the placebo arm (HR = 0.56, 98.4% CI: 0.43-074) among pts who started the treatment (n = 1011). The incidence of irAE on study was 37.3% in the pembrolizumab (n = 509) and 9.0% in the placebo arm (n = 502) and, in each treatment group, it was similar in males and females. The occurrence of an irAE was significantly associated with a longer RFS in the pembrolizumab arm (HR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.39-0.95, P = 0.03). This was true for both males and females. However, in the placebo arm, no association was observed (HR = 1.39, 95% CI: 0.83-2.32, P = 0.21). Compared to the placebo arm, the reduction in the hazard of recurrence or death in the pembrolizumab arm was greater (P = 0.028) after an onset of an irAE (HR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.24-0.57) than without/before an irAE (HR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.49-0.77). Conclusions: In the EORTC 1325/KEYNOTE-054 study conducted in high-risk stage III melanoma pts, the occurrence of an irAE was strongly associated with a longer RFS in those treated with pembrolizumab, but not with placebo. Clinical trial information: NCT02362594.

9593 Background: With the approval of adjuvant therapy for stage III melanoma, accurate staging in melanoma patients is important more than ever to prevent over- or undertreatment. Sentinel node biopsy (SNB) is an accurate staging tool, yet the presence of capsular nevi (CN) can lead to a false positive diagnosis. We compared positive SNB and CN patient outcomes and aimed to evaluate the cause of false positive SNB and discern diagnostic pitfalls in their evaluation. Methods: Retrospective analysis of AJCC 7th Edition stage IIIA melanoma patients (N1-2a, non-ulcerated primary tumor) who were treated at our institute between 2000 and 2015. SNB slides were reviewed for this study by an expert melanoma pathologist. Baseline characteristics were assessed for SN+ and CN+ patients. Concordance rates for SNB evaluation before and after revision were documented and diagnostic pitfalls were discerned. Results: 169 patients were diagnosed, 10 could not be reviewed due to lack of evaluable slides. Of these 159 cases, 14 patients originally diagnosed with metastatic melanoma were shown to have capsular nevi (8.8%). Another 2 patients were shown to have melanophages that were incorrectly interpreted as metastases (1.3%). Thus, 10.1% was considered false positive after revision. In 14 patients the SN tumor burden was originally reported > 1 mm, but turned out to have < 1 mm SN tumor burden. 4 patients originally reported as SN tumor burden < 1 mm before revision turned out to have > 1 mm SN tumor burden. These 32 patients (20%) might have potentially been over- or undertreated in the current era of adjuvant therapy for stage III melanoma. Conclusions: False positive sentinel node results in melanoma are real, they can occur for a number of reasons, but distinguishing metastatic melanoma from benign capsular nevi and melanophages can be a diagnostic challenge. We plead for an expert pathologists’ review in any case, but certainly when using the SNB+ results to determine treatment consequences for SN+ melanoma patients.

TPS145 Background: Adjuvant pembrolizumab showed significantly longer recurrence-free survival compared with placebo in resected stage III melanoma in the KEYNOTE-054 study [1]. KEYNOTE-716 is a randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter phase 3 study of adjuvant pembrolizumab in patients with surgically resected high-risk stage II melanoma. Methods: Patients must be ≥12 years of age and have newly diagnosed, completely resected stage IIB/IIC cutaneous melanoma, defined by the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 8th edition [2] (wide excision and negative sentinel lymph node biopsy, with no evidence of distant metastasis). Patients cannot have mucosal or uveal melanoma or have received prior treatment for melanoma, including radiation, beyond resection of primary disease within 12 weeks of the start of study therapy. The study has a 2-part design. In the double-blind phase (part 1), patients will be randomly assigned 1:1 to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg for patients ≥18 years or 2 mg/kg for patients 12-17 years (maximum dose, 200 mg) or placebo every 3 weeks for 17 cycles. Stratification: 1 stratum for pediatric patients (12-17 years); 3 strata for adult patients per T stage (T3b/T4a/T4b). Study treatment will begin within 12 weeks of complete resection. Tumor imaging will be performed every 24 weeks while treatment is ongoing, at the end of treatment, every 6 months for the first 3 years off treatment, and then yearly for up to 2 years or until recurrence (up to 5 years of total imaging). Adverse events will be graded per NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0. In the unblinded phase (part 2), patients with confirmed recurrence may be rechallenged (patients received pembrolizumab in part 1) or crossed over to pembrolizumab (patients received placebo in part 1). Resected local or distant recurrence or unresectable disease will be treated for an additional 17 or 35 cycles, respectively. Tumor imaging in part 2 will occur every 12 weeks while treatment is ongoing. The primary end point is recurrence-free survival; secondary end points are distant metastasis-free survival, overall survival, and safety. Approximately 954 patients will be enrolled. Clinical trial information: NCT03553836.

There are insufficient numbers of prognostic factors available for prediction of clinical outcome in patients with stage III malignant cutaneous melanoma, even when known adverse pathological risk factors, such as macrometastasis, number of lymph node metastases, and ulceration are taken into consideration. The aim of this study was therefore to identify additional prognostic factors to better predict patients with a high risk of relapse, thus enabling us to better determine the need for adjuvant treatment in stage III disease. An RNA oligonucleotide microarray study was performed on first regional lymph node metastases in 42 patients with stage III melanoma: 23 patients with short-term survival (≤ 13 months) and 19 with long-term survival (≥ 60 months), to identify genes associated with clinical outcome. Candidate genes were validated by real-time PCR and immunohistochemical analysis. Several gene ontology (GO) categories were highly significantly differentially expressed including glycolysis (GO: 0006096; P0.001) and the pigment biosynthetic process (GO: 0046148; P0.001), in which overexpression was associated with short-disease-specific survival. Three overexpressed glycolytic genes, GAPDHS, GAPDH, and PKM2, and two pigment-related genes, TYRP1 and OCA2, were selected for validation. A significant difference in GAPDHS protein expression between short- and long-term survivors (P=0.021) and a trend for PKM2 (P=0.093) was observed in univariate analysis. Positive expression of at least two of four proteins (GAPDHS, GAPDH, PKM2, TYRP1) in immunohistochemical analysis was found to be an independent adverse prognostic factor for disease-specific survival (P=0.011). Our results indicate that this prognostic panel in combination with established risk factors may contribute to an improved prediction of patients with a high risk of relapse.

Measures of prognosis are typically estimated from the time of diagnosis. However, these estimates become less relevant as the time from diagnosis increases for a patient. Conditional survival measures the probability that a cancer patient will survive some additional number of years, given that the patient has already survived for a certain number of years. In the current study, the authors analyzed data regarding patients with stage III melanoma to demonstrate that survival estimates from the time of diagnosis underestimate long-term survival as the patient is followed over time. The probability of surviving to year 5 for patients at the time of presentation compared with patients who had already survived for 4 years increased from 72% to 95%, 48% to 90%, and 29% to 86%, respectively, for patients with substage IIIA, IIIB, and IIIC disease. Considering the major role played by survival estimates during follow-up in patient counseling and the development of survivorship programs, the authors strongly recommend the routine use of conditional survival estimates.

Stage III melanoma, defined as regionally advanced disease based on the presence of either microscopic or gross lymph node involvement, remains a challenge for clinicians to treat secondary to the limited therapies that have clearly shown any benefit in overall survival compared with observation alone. The US FDA approved peginterferon alfa-2b (pegIFN alfa-2b) in March 2010 for use in the adjuvant setting to treat stage III malignant melanoma. The approval of pegIFN alfa-2b was based on results from the EORTC 18991 trial, which showed pegIFN alfa-2b had superior relapse-free survival compared with observation alone. PegIFN alfa-2b is administered subcutaneously and, aside from the nonpegylated IFN-α, is the only systemic therapy approved by the FDA to treat stage III melanoma. In this review, emphasis will be placed on describing the history of the use of IFN-α in regionally advanced melanoma, with a primary focus on the efficacy and safety profile of pegIFN alfa-2b as an adjuvant therapy in treating mali...

Introduction: High preoperative serum S-100B values and Standardized Uptake Values (SUV) of Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) in PET for clinically stage III melanoma patients could be indicators of recurrence after surgical treatment. Aim was to assess the correlation and the prognostic value of these markers.Methods: All melanoma patients with palpable nodal metastases, without distant metastases, were included from February 2004 to December 2007. Preoperative SUV and S-100B was determined. The correlation between SUV and S-100B and their relations with DFS and DSS were calculated by Cox Proportional Hazard Analysis.Results: 62 Patients, median age 56.9 years, were included in the study. An elevated S-100B was found in 31 patients (50%) and elevated SUV in 24 patients (38.7%). No relation was found between S-100B and SUV. DFS was reduced (31.1%) for patients with an elevated S-100B (HR = 3.1; p = 0.02) in comparison to a normal S-100B (44.6%). The DFS was 42.0% for patients with a SUV below the cut-off point and 29.0% for patients with an elevated SUV (HR = 1.1; p = 0.8). DSS was 60.7% in a normal S-100B and 44.7% for patients with an elevated S-100B (HR = 2.2; p = 0.07). DSS was 59.1% for patients with a normal SUV and 43.5% for patients with elevated SUV (HR = 1.1; p = 0.8).Conclusion: S-100B and SUV in stage III melanoma are not correlated and each have different associations with various histopathological factors. S-100B, in contrast with SUV, is associated with nodal tumor load, and when elevated, predicts a shorter DFS. Synopsis: Preoperative serum S-100B and Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) Standardized Uptake Value (SUV) in clinically stage III melanoma are not correlated. S-100B is a strong predictor for Disease Free Survival (DFS) in stage Ill melanoma. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

9591Background: The COMBI-AD trial demonstrated that adjuvant treatment with D + T in patients (pts) with resected stage III BRAF-mutant melanoma significantly reduced the risk of melanoma recurren...

e21574Background: Adjuvant treatment options for stage III melanoma patients (pts) are increasing with the approval of new agents. Little has been reported about the real world treatment patterns i...

The EORTC 18991 trial assessed the effect of long-term adjuvant pegylated interferon (Peg-IFN) alpha-2b administered weekly in patients with lymph node-positive melanoma. Serum concentrations were analyzed to determine exposure to Peg-IFN alpha-2b.After surgery, patients were randomized to receive Peg-IFN alpha-2b or to observation only. The treatment group received 6 microg/kg/week Peg-IFN alpha-2b subcutaneously for 8 weeks, followed by a maintenance dose of 3 microg/kg/week for up to 5 years. Blood samples were collected between months 3 and 60.A total of 208 Peg-IFN alpha-2b concentrations from 48 patients were available. Serum trough concentrations increased in a dose-related manner. Mean dose-normalized serum concentrations and intersubject variability over the 5-year study period in patients with melanoma were similar to those observed in patients with chronic hepatitis.Data suggest that the exposure to Peg-IFN alpha-2b was sustained during long-term adjuvant treatment with Peg-IFN alpha-2b in patients with melanoma, consistent with the EORTC 18991 trial's conclusion of a significant, sustained, and relapse-free survival benefit.

Purpose: Patients with macroscopic stage III melanoma represent a heterogeneous cohort with average 5-year overall survival rates of Experimental Design: Lymph node sections from 29 patients with stage IIIB and IIIC melanoma, with divergent clinical outcome including 16 “poor-prognosis” and 13 “good-prognosis” patients as defined by time to tumor progression, were subjected to molecular profiling using oligonucleotide arrays as an initial training set. Twenty-one differentially expressed genes were validated using quantitative PCR and the 15 genes with strongest cross-platform correlation were used to develop two predictive scores, which were applied to two independent validation sets of 10 and 14 stage III tumor samples. Results: Supervised analysis using differentially expressed genes was able to differentiate the prognostic groups in the training set. The developed predictive scores correlated directly with clinical outcome. When the predictive scores were applied to the two independent validation sets, clinical outcome was accurately predicted in 90% and 85% of patients, respectively. Conclusion: We describe a gene expression profile that is capable of distinguishing clinical outcomes in a previously homogeneous group of stage III melanoma patients.

Contains fulltext : 170905.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) PURPOSE: To determine the effectiveness of adjuvant dendritic cell (DC) vaccination to induce tumor-specific immunological responses in stage III melanoma patients. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of stage III melanoma patients, vaccinated with autologous monocyte-derived DC loaded with tumor-associated antigens (TAA) gp100 and tyrosinase after radical lymph node dissection. Skin-test infiltrating lymphocytes (SKILs) obtained from delayed-type hypersensitivity skin-test biopsies were analyzed for the presence of TAA-specific CD8(+) T cells by tetrameric MHC-peptide complexes and by functional TAA-specific T cell assays, defined by peptide-recognition (T2 cells) and/or tumor-recognition (BLM and/or MEL624) with specific production of Th1 cytokines and no Th2 cytokines. RESULTS: Ninety-seven patients were analyzed: 21 with stage IIIA, 34 with stage IIIB, and 42 had stage IIIC disease. Tetramer-positive CD8(+) T cells were present in 68 patients (70%), and 24 of them showed a response against all 3 epitopes tested (gp100:154-162, gp100:280-288, and tyrosinase:369-377) at any point during vaccinations. A functional T cell response was found in 62 patients (64%). Rates of peptide-recognition of gp100:154-162, gp100:280-288, and tyrosinase:369-377 were 40%, 29%, and 45%, respectively. Median recurrence-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival of the whole study population were 23.0 mo and 36.8 mo, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: DC vaccination induces a functional TAA-specific T cell response in the majority of stage III melanoma patients, indicating it is more effective in stage III than in stage IV melanoma patients. Furthermore, performing multiple cycles of vaccinations enhances the chance of a broader immune response.

Learning Objectives After completing this course, the reader will be able to: Describe the benefits of adjuvant high-dose interferon-α therapy to melanoma patients.List the toxicities most commonly associated with adjuvant high-dose interferon-α therapy in melanoma patients.Assist patients with melanoma to decide whether to choose adjuvant high-dose interferon-α therapy. Access and take the CME test online and receive 1 hour of AMA PRA category 1 credit at CME.TheOncologist.com High-dose interferon-α2b is a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved adjuvant treatment for stage III melanoma, and yet, because of its limited efficacy and well-known toxicity, it is not universally accepted by patients and oncologists. In this paper, we evaluate the benefits and risks of adjuvant high-dose interferon-α2b and try to provide a framework to help oncologists guide patients trying to decide whether to undergo adjuvant high-dose interferon therapy.

Evaluation of: Moreau S, Saiag P, Aegerter P et al. Prognostic value of BRAF (V600) mutations in melanoma patients after resection of metastatic lymph nodes. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 19(13), 4314–4321 (2012).Recently introduced systemic agents have shown promising results in melanoma patients with distant metastases. However, the durability of the effect of these agents is still disappointing. In melanoma patients with palpable regional lymph node metastases, these new systemic drugs might induce longer efficacy as tumor load is low compared to patients with distant metastases. However, before administering these potentially toxic and still very expensive systemic drugs the selection of patients who will most probably benefit from them is important. In this key paper evaluation, the use of BRAF mutation status as a prognostic marker in stage III melanoma is discussed.

Immunotherapy for melanoma patients is a promising treatment option, as clinical evidence of the use of systemic CTLA4- and PD1-antibodies has demonstrated. With the exception of unresectable melanoma patients, there is a great need for an adequate therapeutic option for patients with locally advanced melanoma (stage III). In this issue of the European Journal of Dermatology, Seledtsova et al.[1] report their investigations on the treatment of stage III melanoma patients with a xenogeneic cell-based [...]

9586 Background: The combination of IPI+NIVO induces high response rates and improved overall survival in late stage melanoma. T cell checkpoint inhibition is of greatest value at the moment of TCR triggering and therefore dependent on the amount of antigen present, indicating that adjuvant immunotherapy may work most efficiently, when initiated prior to surgery. Methods: Two-arm Phase 1b feasibility trial of 20 high risk AJCC stage IIIB and IIIC melanoma patients with palpable nodal disease receiving the combination of IPI 3mg/kg and NIVO 1mg/kg, either adjuvant four courses after surgery, or split two courses neo-adjuvant and two courses adjuvant. Results: In this update all 20 patients are evaluable. Neo-adjuvant application of IPI+NIVO was feasible and no surgery-associated adverse events were attributed to (neo-)adjuvant therapy. 18/20 patients had to stop early due to grade 3/4 toxicities. Neo-adjuvant IPI+NIVO reduced tumor load in 8/10 patients (3 pCR, 4 near-pCRs [minimal remaining micrometastases], 1 pPR [75% reduction], 1 SD and 1 PD). To date, after a median follow-up of 45 weeks (range 13-74), none of the responders in the neoadjuvant arm has relapsed. Relapse was observed for both non-responders within the neo-adjuvant arm and for 3 patients within the adjuvant arm. TCR sequencing and MHC tetramer-based analysis to compare the induction and expansion of tumor (neo-)antigen-specific T cell responses between both treatment arms are underway and will be presented. Conclusions: The combination of IPI+NIVO in the (neo-)adjuvant treatment setting for high risk stage III melanoma patients is feasible and induces very frequent responses. At the same time, severe grade 3/4 toxicity is more frequent than expected from stage IV melanoma patient study data. These results indicate that IPI+NIVO is a promising combination for neo-adjuvant treatment in stage III melanoma. Adjusted combination schemes are currently tested in the phase 2 OpACIN-neo trial, with the aim of reducing toxicity while preserving efficacy. Clinical trial information: NCT02437279.

159 Background: High dose Interferon (IFN) was the standard adjuvant treatment used for stage III melanoma between 2004-2010. To our knowledge, this is the largest study using the NCDB to determine the impact of immunotherapy used prior to 2011 in stage III melanoma. Methods: We identified 19,864 patients with stage III melanoma between 2004-2010. Among these, 5,406 of them received immunotherapy. Chi-square analysis was used to determine demographic differences between those with versus without immunotherapy. Between-therapy survival differences were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and associated log-rank tests; Tukey-Kramer adjusted p < 0.05 indicated statistical significance. Results: Patients who received immunotherapy had a mean survival of 89.8 months while those who did not had a mean survival of 71 months. The percentage of patients alive at 5 and 10 years was 62% and 52% (among those who received immunotherapy) compared to 46% and 32% (among those who did not receive immunotherapy) respectively. A much higher percentage of these patients were privately insured (73% vs. 47.1%, p

visits for patients treated for localized primary cutaneous melanoma. J Clin Oncol 29:4641-4646, 2011 4. Siegel R, Ward E, Brawley O, et al: Cancer statistics, 2011: The impact of eliminating socioeconomic and racial disparities on premature cancer deaths. CA Cancer J Clin 61:212-236, 2011 5. Romano E, Scordo M, Dusza SW, et al: Site and timing of first relapse in stage III melanoma patients: Implications for follow-up guidelines. J Clin Oncol 28:3042-3047, 2010

International audience; Introduction: When sentinel lymph node is positive for metastasis (exclusion for micro-metastasis) and in cases of palpable adenopathy, a lymphadenectomy should be performed. Many incisional surgical approach have been described in literature. We perform two type of incision (vertical with skin excision and transversal) for inguinal lymphadenectomy. The aim of this study was to compare post-operative morbidity between these two approach in cases of Stage III Melanoma. We analyzed chronic lymphoedeme, skin necrosis, wound dehiscence, wound infection and seroma rates between the two techniques.-three patients underwent to inguinal lymphadenectomy for Stage III melanoma at CHU of Rennes. Patients were stratified in 2 groups according to the surgical approach, group 1 with a vertical incision with skin excision and group 2 with a transverse incision. Results: Chronic lymphedema rate for group 1 was 37.04% and for group 2 rate was 26.92%, this complication was lower un group 2 but no significant difference was observed (p=0.558). Skin necrosis (p=0.235), wound dehiscence (p=1.000), wound infection (p=0.236) and seroma (p=0.757) were not significantly different. Two cases of skin necrosis were observed in group 2 (7.69%) and none in group 1. Conclusion: We do not found significant difference for chronic lymphedema between these two approach. However, we had less lymphedema with the transversal technique which has the advantage to reduce the skin suffering when external iliac lymphadenectomy dissection is necessary in addition to the inguinal lymphadenectomy.

The NCCN Guidelines for Melanoma provide multidisciplinary recommendations for the management of patients with melanoma. These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight notable recent updates. Dabrafenib and trametinib, either as monotherapy (category 1) or combination therapy, have been added as systemic options for patients with unresectable metastatic melanoma harboring BRAF V600 mutations. Controversy continues regarding the value of adjuvant radiation for patients at high risk of nodal relapse. This is reflected in the category 2B designation to consider adjuvant radiation following lymphadenectomy for stage III melanoma with clinically positive nodes or recurrent disease.