Search

Alexander M Menzies,1 Georgina V Long,1,2 Rajmohan Murali3,41Melanoma Institute Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; 2Westmead Institute for Cancer Research and Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre Westmead, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; 3Department of Pathology; 4Human Oncology and Pathogensis Program, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USAAbstract: The purpose of this study is to review the development of BRAF inhibitors, with emphasis on the trials conducted with dabrafenib (GSK2118436) and the evolving role of dabrafenib in treatment for melanoma patients. Fifty percent of cutaneous melanomas have mutations in BRAF, resulting in elevated activity of the mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling pathway. Dabrafenib inhibits the mutant BRAF (BRAFmut) protein in melanomas with BRAFV600E and BRAFV600K genotypes. BRAFV600E metastatic melanoma patients who receive dabrafenib treatment exhibit high clinical response rates and compared with dacarbazine chemotherapy, progression-free survival. Efficacy has also been demonstrated in BRAFV600K patients and in those with brain metastases. Dabrafenib has a generally mild and manageable toxicity profile. Cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas and pyrexia are the most significant adverse effects. Dabrafenib appears similar to vemurafenib with regard to efficacy but it is associated with less toxicity. It is expected that new combinations of targeted drugs, such as the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib (GSK1120212, a MEK inhibitor), will provide higher response rates and more durable clinical benefit than dabrafenib monotherapy.Keywords: BRAF mutation, BRAF inhibitor, clinical trial, GSK1120212, GSK2118436, vemurafenib

Background/Objectives: In melanoma management, sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is used to stage patients and to indicate prognosis. More recently, it has been used to select patients for adjuvant therapy. This study aimed to report knowledge of and attitudes towards SLNB for patients with melanoma among Australian dermatologists. Methods: Mixed methods study using cross‐sectional questionnaires (n = 88) and semi‐structured interviews (n = 13), May–September 2019. Results: Of the dermatologists surveyed, 56% thought SLNB had an important role in melanoma management, 26% were unsure and 18% thought SLNB unimportant. Of the 92% who would discuss SLNB with their patients, the main stated value of SLNB was for assessing eligibility for adjuvant therapies (79%); only 60% indicated SLNB was of value for providing prognostic information, and just over half (53%) thought it could improve staging. Interview data indicated that attitudes towards SLNB are shifting among dermatologists, driven by data from landmark clinical trials and the influence of professional networks. Accordingly, interviewees adopted one of three positions in relation to SLNB: (a) believed in utility of SLNB and adhered to the guidelines; (b) were unconvinced about utility of SLNB but adhered to the guidelines; and (c) were unconvinced about utility of SLNB and did not adhere to the guidelines. Conclusion: Although most of the dermatologists surveyed were familiar with and follow the SLNB recommendations, some disagreement with and distrust of the recommendations was evident. Greater acceptance of the SLNB recommendations appeared to be driven by the improved outcomes demonstrated in stage III patients receiving adjuvant systemic therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Keywords: Melanoma; Surgical oncology EN Melanoma Surgical oncology 208 209 2 08/17/22 20220815 NES 220815 Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is a staging procedure for assessing metastatic spread from a primary melanoma to the draining lymph nodes. During 2018 and 2019, 892 of 1855 people diagnosed with invasive melanomas of greater than 1.0 mm thickness (48%) and 151 of 597 with melanomas of 0.8-1.0 mm thickness (25%) underwent SLNB. [Extracted from the article]

Aim: Merkel Cell Carcinoma (MCC) is a rare skin cancer with a rising incidence worldwide. Anti-programmed death-1/ligand-1 (anti-PD-(L)1) therapies are effective for the treatment of advanced MCC. This study examines patterns of response / progression of advanced MCC to anti-PD-(L)1 therapies and describes subsequent management., Method: This is a multi-centre international retrospective cohort study with data collected up to May 2023 from 17 centres across 6 countries. Outcomes included objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) for anti-PD-(L)1 and subsequent therapy., Results: One-hundred and eighty-five advanced MCC patients received anti-PD-(L)1 therapy. At median follow-up of 28.7 months (95 % CI: 21.4-38.3), ORR was 57.3 %, median DOR was 42.8 months (95 % CI, 25.8 - not reached (NR)), median PFS was 14 months (95 % CI, 8.1- 19.8), and median OS was 42.8 months (95 % CI, 30.3 - NR). One-hundred and eight patients (59 %) experienced progressive disease; 50 % (n = 54/108) with primary resistance and 26 % (n = 28/108) with secondary resistance. Fifty patients (27 %; n = 50/185) received subsequent systemic therapies (+/- local therapy) with response data; 18 (36 %; n = 18/50) received doublet platinum chemotherapy (ORR 67 %, DOR 5.0 months [95 % CI; 3.7 - NR]) and 16 (32 %; n = 16/50) were rechallenged with anti-PD-(L)1 (ORR 56 %, DOR 20.2 months [95 % CI; 8.3 - NR])., Conclusion: The most common subsequent treatment for patients with primary resistance was chemotherapy, while those with secondary resistance most frequently underwent further anti-PD-(L)1 therapy in combination with other therapies. Despite both therapies demonstrating promising ORR, doublet platinum chemotherapy had a poorer DOR compared to anti-PD-(L)1 rechallenge., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Georgina Venetia Long is supported by a National Health And Medical Research Council Investigator grant and the University of Sydney Medical Foundation. Inês Pires da Silva is supported by early career Cancer Institute New South Wales fellowship. Jeremy Mo has received travel support from Novartis, and honoraria from AstraZeneca. Caroline Gaudy-Marqueste has served as consultant and has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, and Sunpharma and travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe & Dohme,Pierre Fabre, and Janssen. Andrisha-Jade Inderjeeth has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer and Astellas. Alexander van Akkooi has served on advisory boards or as a consultant and has received honoraria from: 4SC AG, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono-Pfizer, MSD-Merck, Neracare, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sirius Medical, SkylineDX and Research Grants from Amgen, Merck Serono-Pfizer, SkylineDX. Anne Zaremba has received travel support from Novartis, Sanofi Grenzyme, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Jenny H Lee has received honoraria from MSD, AstraZeneca and travel support from Novartis, Pfizer and MSD. Jenny H Lee has served on advisory boards for MSD and Sanofi. Jenny H Lee has received a research grant from MSD. Wen Xu has served on advisory boards for Merck, MSD, BMS and Novartis and has received honorarium from Merck, MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, and Limbic. Wen Xu has received educational support from Merck, MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Eli Lilly. Wen Xu has received research funding from Merck. Celeste Lebbe has served as a consultant and has received honoraria from BMS, MSD, Peirre Fabre, Erasca and Immunocore. Celeste Lebbe has received travel support from BMS, MSD, and Pierre Fabre. Shahneen Sandhu is supported by a National Health And Medical Research Council Investigator grant and a Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre Foundation Grant. Shahneen Sandhu has served on advisory boards for Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Merck Serono (funds go to a research fund at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre). Shahneen Sandhu has received institutional research grants for an investigator-initiated trial from Novartis, Genentech, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pfizer and Senwha (funds go to a research fund at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre). Serigne Lo has received fees for professional servces from SkylineDx BV and has received honoraria for editorial duties with The British Association of Dermatologists. Lisa Zimmer has served as consultant and has received honoraria from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, and Sunpharma and travel support from MSD, BMS, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma and Novartis. Matteo S Carlino has served on advisory boards or as a consultant for: Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ideaya, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Nektar, Novartis, Oncosec, Pierre-Fabre, Qbiotics, Regeneron, Roche, Merck, and Sanofi, and received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, and Novartis. Georgina Venetia Long is consultant advisor for Agenus, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc, BioNTech SE, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Bristol Myers Squibb, Evaxion Biotech A/S, Hexal AG (Sandoz Company), Highlight Therapeutics S.L., IOBiotech, Immunocore Ireland Limited, Innovent Biologics USA Inc, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis Pharma AG, OncoSec Medical Australia, PHMR Limited, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Scancell Limited, SkylineDX B.V. Inês Pires da Silva declares honoraria speaker fees or advisory roles for Pierre Fabre, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Roche, Novartis, and Bristol Myers Squibb and has served as consultant on advisory boards for MSD and Regeneron. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest, (Copyright © 2025 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with melanoma brain metastases respond well to immunotherapy, but long-term comparative survival data are scarce. We aimed to assess the efficacy of ipilimumab plus nivolumab versus nivolumab alone in patients with melanoma brain metastases at 7 years., Methods: This open-label, randomised, phase 2 study was conducted at four sites (two research institute cancer centres and two university teaching hospitals) in Australia. Patients aged 18 years or older with active, immunotherapy-naive melanoma brain metastases and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were eligible. Asymptomatic patients with no previous brain-directed therapy were randomly assigned (5:4) using the biased-coin minimisation method (after a safety run-in of six patients) to cohort A (intravenous ipilimumab 3 mg/kg plus nivolumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, then nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or cohort B (intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks). Patients with previous brain-directed therapy, neurological symptoms, or leptomeningeal disease were assigned to cohort C (non-randomised; intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks). The primary endpoint was best intracranial response (complete or partial response) from week 12. Secondary survival endpoints included intracranial progression-free survival and overall survival. Safety was assessed from the first dose of treatment to at least 100 days after treatment discontinuation. Analyses were performed in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The main analysis has been reported, and this is a long-term follow up of the ABC trial. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02374242, and is ongoing., Findings: Between Nov 4, 2014, and April 21, 2017, 89 patients were assessed for eligibility, 79 of whom were enrolled and assigned to cohort A (n=36), cohort B (n=27), or cohort C (n=16). Three patients (one in cohort A and two in cohort B) were excluded due to ineligibility. 17 (22%) of 76 patients were female and 59 (78%) were male. At data cutoff (March 26, 2024), the median follow-up was 7·6 years (IQR 6·9-8·2). Overall intracranial responses occurred in 18 (51% [95% CI 34-69]) patients from cohort A, five (20% [7-41]) from cohort B, and one (6% [0-30]) from cohort C. 7-year intracranial progression-free survival was 42% (95% CI 29-63) in cohort A, 15% (6-39) in cohort B, and 6% (1-42) in cohort C. 7-year overall survival was 48% (34-68) in cohort A, 26% (13-51) in cohort B, and 13% (3-46) in cohort C. Safety results were consistent with the primary analysis. 50 patients died, including 18 (51%) from cohort A, 18 (72%) from cohort B, and 14 (88%) from cohort C., Interpretation: Our findings suggest that ipilimumab plus nivolumab maintains efficacy to at least 7 years in patients with active asymptomatic brain metastasis. Upfront ipilimumab plus nivolumab should be the standard of care for patients with melanoma brain metastasis; a trial investigating the role of stereotactic surgery in this new paradigm is ongoing., Funding: Melanoma Institute Australia and Bristol Myers Squibb., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests GVL is consultant advisor for Agenus, Amgen, Array BioPharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BioNTech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Evaxion, Hexal (Sandoz Company), Highlight Therapeutics, IOBiotech, Immunocore, Innovent Biologics USA, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, PHMR, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Scancell, and SkylineDx. VA is a consultant advisor and has received speaker fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Immunocore, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, and Novartis, and travel support from Pierre Fabre. SNL has received fees for professional services from SkylineDx and an honorarium for editorial duties from The British Association of Dermatologists. ADG is a consultant advisor to Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, and SunPharma, and has received research support from SunPharma and AstraZeneca. SKS is a consultant advisor for AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche–Genentech, and SkylineDx, and reports institutional research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche–Genentech, and Senhwa Biosciences. MPB has been consultant advisor to Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Sharpe & Dohme. GAM has provided non-reimbursed advice to Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Roche–Genentech, and has received institutional grants from Bristol Myers Squibb. AMM is a consultant advisor for Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, QBiotics, and Roche. MG declares no competing interests., (Copyright © 2025 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) can achieve durable responses in patients with advanced melanoma, and results from clinical trials suggest cure may be possible for a subset of patients. Despite clinical trial data, little is known about the risk, character, and clinical outcome of late recurrences after ICI. This study aimed to explore the disease outcomes and survival in a cohort of patients with long-term responses to ICI. We retrospectively identified patients treated with ICI for advanced melanoma with long-term disease control, defined as not requiring a subsequent line of systemic therapy within 3 years of ICI commencement. We analysed disease characteristics, treatment, toxicity, recurrence patterns, management, and outcomes. A total of 567 patients were identified with a median follow-up of 7.1 years: 504 (89 %) without disease progression within 3 years (cohort 1) and 63 (11.1 %) with disease progression within 3 years managed without a change in systemic therapy (cohort 2). Subsequent progression after 3 years occurred for 39 (7.7 %) patients in cohort 1, compared to 14 (22 %) in cohort 2. Predictors for late progression after 3 years were a non-complete radiological response (CR) best response and prior progression within 3 years. Thirty-two patients (5.6 %) died during follow-up, 8 (1.4 %) from melanoma, 6 (1.2 %) from cohort 1 and 2 (3.2 %) from cohort 2. In this population of patients with advanced melanoma with long-term disease control from ICI, the risk of subsequent disease progression and death was low. This suggests that a significant proportion of long-term ICI responders are likely cured and may inform the frequency and duration of follow-up., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: RJS reports having served on advisory boards/performed consulting for BMS, Merck, Marengo, Pfizer, Novartis, and Replimune and received research funding from Merck. DBJ reports having served on advisory boards or as a consultant for AstraZeneca, BMS, Jackson Laboratories, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Teiko. MSC reports having served on advisory boards or as a consultant for Amgen, BMS, Eisai, Ideaya, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Oncosec, Pierre-Fabre, Qbiotics, Regeneron, Roche, Merck, Strand Pharmaceuticals, Onchilles and Sanofi, and received honoraria from BMS, MSD, and Novartis. GVL is consultant advisor for Agenus, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BioNTech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Evaxion, GI Innovation, Hexal AG (Sandoz Company), Highlight Therapeutics S.L., IOBiotech, Immunocore, Innovent Biologics USA, MSD, Novartis, PHMR Ltd, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Scancell, SkylineDX B.V. SNL has received fees for professional services from SkylineDx and a stipend for editorial services at the British Journal of Dermatology. AMM has served on advisory boards for BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pierre-Fabre, QBiotics. PR has received honoraria for lectures and Advisory Boards from MSD, BMS, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Merck, Genesis Pharma, Medison Pharma outside of the scope of this study. AMC reports having served as a speaker for Pierre Fabre, MSD, BMS and Novartis. PAA has/had a consultant/advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Sandoz, Immunocore, Italfarmaco, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Regeneron, Pfizer, Nouscom, Medicenna, Bio-Al Health, ValoTX, Replimmune, Bayer, Erasca, Philogen, Biontech, Anaveon, Genmab, Menarini. He also received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Pfizer, Sanofi. Travel support by Pfizer, Bio-Al Health, Replimmune, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Philogen. BN reports having served on advisory boards or as a consultant for Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Novartis and his institution (UZ Brussel) received research funding outside the scope of this study. CL reports having served on advisory boards or as a consultant or speaker for BMS, Pierre Fabre, Sanofil, Novartis, MSD, Amgen, Merck Senoro, Roche, Inflax, Pfizer, Incyte and has received research funding from BMS and Roche outside the scope of this study. CA reports having served as a speaker for Novartis. LZ served as consultant and has received honoraria from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, and Sunpharma and travel support from MSD, BMS, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work. MO has served as a speaker for BMS, Novartis and MDS. LJA received honoraria from Novartis, Sunpharma and Bristol-Myers Squibb and travel support from Sunpharma, Takeda and Sanofi, outside the submitted work. JIK has received honoraria from AMGEN, BMS, Janssen. Travel support by LEO pharma, UCB and Janssen. Research funds from LEO pharma. RD has intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationships with Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dhome (MSD), Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Roche, Amgen, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Catalym, Second Genome, Regeneron, T3 Pharma, MaxiVAX SA, Pfizer and Simcere outside the submitted work. JM has intermittent project focused consultant or advisory relationships with Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, Bristol Myers Squibb and Pierre Fabre and has received travel support from L′ oreal, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers and Squibb und Pierre Fabre outside of the submitted work. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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

Background: Pathologic response following neoadjuvant immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) in stage III melanoma serves as a surrogate marker for long-term outcomes. This may support more personalized, response-directed treatment strategies., Methods: The OpACIN-neo and PRADO trials were phase 2 studies evaluating neoadjuvant treatment with ipilimumab and nivolumab in stage III melanoma. In OpACIN-neo, all patients underwent therapeutic lymph node dissection (TLND) without subsequent adjuvant therapy. In contrast, PRADO explored a response- directed strategy, where patients achieving a major pathologic response (MPR) omitted TLND and adjuvant therapy, while those without a pathologic response (pNR) received TLND and adjuvant therapy. Here, we provide a descriptive post-hoc comparison of 3-year survival outcomes between the non-personalized approach in OpACIN-neo and the response-directed approach in PRADO., Results: For patients who achieved an MPR, the 3-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) was 93 % for those without TLND versus 96 % for those with TLND (log-rank p = 0.47), and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) was 98 % compared to 96 % (log-rank p = 0.49), respectively. For patients with pNR, 3-year RFS rates were 64 % for those receiving adjuvant systemic therapy and 35 % for patients without (log-rank p = 0.10). DMFS rates were 70 % versus 52 % (log-rank p = 0.24), respectively., Conclusions: These data suggest that TLND and adjuvant therapy may be safely omitted in most patients achieving an MPR, while adjuvant systemic therapy following TLND appears to improve RFS and DMFS in patients with pNR. Although these results are hypothesis-generating and require further validation, they offer a potential foundation for developing personalized neoadjuvant immunotherapy approaches., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: No author has received financial support for the work on this manuscript. I.L.M.R reports financial interest in Signature Oncology. A.M.M. has served on advisory boards for Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Novartis, Roche, Pierre Fabre and QBiotics. R.P.M.S. has received honoraria for advisory board participation from MSD, Novartis and Qbiotics and speaking honoraria from BMS and Novartis. W.J.v.H. reports an advisory role for Amgen, BMS, and Sanofi. E.K.A. received honoraria for consultancy/advisory relationships (all paid to the institute) from BMS, Novartis, Merck, Lilly, Immunocore and Pierre Fabre, and received research grants not related to this paper from BMS, Delcath, Pierre-Fabre and Novartis. A.A.M.v.d.V. received compensation for advisory roles and honoraria (all paid to the institute) from BMS, MSD, Merck, Roche, Eisai, Pfizer, Sanofi, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Ipsen. K.P.M.S. received compensation for advisory roles and honoraria (all paid to the institute) from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sairopa and Abbvie and received research funding from Philips, Novartis, TigaTx and BMS. H.E. has served on advisory boards for BMS, Novartis and Pierre Fabre Nordic, and received project funding from SkyLineDx. G.A.P.H. received compensation for consulting and advisory roles (all paid to the institute) from Amgen, Roche, MSD, BMS, Pfizer, Novartis and Pierre Fabre, and received research grants (paid to the institute) from BMS and Seerave. R.A.S. has received fees for professional services from MetaOptima Technology Inc., F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Evaxion, Provectus Biopharmaceuticals Australia, Qbiotics, Novartis, MSD, NeraCare, Amgen, BMS, Myriad Genetics and GlaxoSmithKline. B.A.v.d.W. has served on the advisory board for BMS. A.C.J.v.A. has served on advisory boards and received consultancy honoraria for Amgen, BMS, Neracare, Novartis, MSD Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Provectus, Sanofi, Sirius Medical and 4SC, and received research grants (all paid to the institute) from Amgen and Merck-Pfizer. G.V.L. is consultant advisor for Agenus, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Evaxion, Hexal AG (Sandoz Company), Highlight Therapeutics, Innovent Biologics, MSD, Novartis, Oncosec, PHMR Ltd, Pierre Fabre, Provectus, QBiotics and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. C.U.B. reports receiving compensation for advisory roles from BMS, MSD, Roche, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, GenMab, Pierre Fabre and Third Rock Ventures and receiving research funding from BMS, MSD, Novartis, 4SC and NanoString. Furthermore, C.U.B. reports to be co-founder of Immagene BV and Signature Oncology. All compensations and funding for C.U.B. were paid to the institute, except for Third Rock Ventures, Immagene and Signature Oncology. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Neoadjuvant immunotherapies have shown antitumor activity in melanoma. Substudy 02C of the global, rolling-arm, phase 1/2, adaptive-design KEYMAKER-U02 trial is evaluating neoadjuvant pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1) alone or in combination, followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab, for stage IIIB-D melanoma. Here we report results from the first three arms: pembrolizumab plus vibostolimab (anti-TIGIT), pembrolizumab plus gebasaxturev (coxsackievirus A21) and pembrolizumab monotherapy. Pathologic complete responses occurred in 10 of 26 patients (38%) with pembrolizumab plus vibostolimab, 7 of 25 (28%) with pembrolizumab plus gebasaxturev and 6 of 15 (40%) with pembrolizumab monotherapy. Major pathologic responses occurred in 13 (50%), 10 (40%) and 7 (47%) patients, respectively. Safety was manageable. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 24 of 26 patients (92%) with pembrolizumab plus vibostolimab, 21 of 25 (84%) with pembrolizumab plus gebasaxturev and 12 of 15 (80%) with pembrolizumab monotherapy; grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 2 (8%), 7 (28%) and 1 (7%) patient in each arm, respectively. No deaths due to adverse events occurred. Exploratory objective responses per RECIST v1.1 were observed in 13 (50%), 8 (32%) and 4 (27%) patients, in each arm, respectively. In a post hoc analysis, scores for tumor mutational burden and an 18-gene T cell-inflamed gene expression profile were generally higher in patients with major pathologic response. Longer follow-up will provide insight into the incremental benefit of combining neoadjuvant pembrolizumab with other therapies in stage IIIB-D melanoma. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT04303169 ., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The authors declare the following competing interests: R.D. reports consulting fees and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, paper writing or educational events from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sun Pharma, Takeda, Sanofi, Caralym, Second-Genome, Regeneron, Alligator, T3 Pharma, MaxiVAX SA, Pfizer, Simcere and touchIME. C.R. reports consulting fees from BMS, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Sanofi, Pfizer, MSD, Sun Pharma and AstraZeneca and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for BMS, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Sanofi, Pfizer, MSD, Sun Pharma and AstraZeneca. R.A.S. reports consulting fees from SkylineDx BV, F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd, MetaOptima Technology Inc., Evaxion, Provectus Biopharmaceuticals Australia, Qbiotics, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, NeraCare, AMGEN Inc, Bristol Myers Squibb, Myriad Genetics, GlaxoSmithKline and IO Biotech ApS. J.M.T. reports grants or contracts to their institution from BMS; consulting fees from Merck & Co, BMS, AstraZeneca, Regeneron, Roche, Elephas, Lunaphore and Akoya Biosciences; a patent planned for machine learning for irPRC; and a Task Force role with the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer. A.M.M. reports consulting fees from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche and Qbiotics. M.T.T. reports support for the present paper to their institution from Merck and payment or honoraria and support for attending the Clinical Care Options, AACR 2023 companion course. A.H. has no conflicts of interest to declare. J.-J.G. reports consulting fees from Novartis and BMS, and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Novartis, BMS, MSD, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Roche and Amgen. D.C.P. has no conflicts of interest to declare. C.L. reports participating on an Advisory Board for MSD, BMS, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Regenron and Seacraft; and travel expenses from BMS. M.A.K. reports consulting fees from MSD Australia, BMS Australia and Moderna; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, paper writing or educational events from MSD Australia and Moderna; and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Moderna and Pierre Fabre. J.C. has no conflicts of interest to declare. G.B.-S. reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, paper writing or educational events from BMS, MSD, Merck, Novartis, Medison and Sanofi, and a role as the chairman of the Israeli Society of Clinical Oncology & Radiation Therapy. I.M. reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, paper writing or educational events from BMS and Immunocore, and stock or stock options in Immunocore, Delcath and In8 Bio Iovance Ideaya. R.S.-F. reports medical writing support for the present paper; grants or contracts to their institution from MSD; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, paper writing or educational events from MSD, BMS, Novartis, Sanofi, Roche, AstraZeneca, Medison and Neopharm; and participation on an advisory board for MSD, Novartis and Clovis Oncology. N.M. reports grants or contracts from BMS, Novartis, Merck, MSD and Pierre Fabre; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, paper writing or educational events from BMS; payment for expert testimony from BMS, Pierre Fabre, MSD and Novartis; and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Pierre Fabre, Janssen, BMS and AbbVie. A.L.W. is an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, and owns stock in Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, and Organon. Y.R., M.F.-K. and C.K. are employees of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, and own stock in Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. G.V.L. reports consulting fees from and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Agenus Inc, Amgen Inc, Array BioPharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer Health Care, BioNTech, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Bristol Myers Squibb, Evaxion Biotech A/S, Hexal AG (Sandoz Company), Highlight Therapeutics S.L., IO Biotech, Immunocore Ireland Limited, Innovent Biologics USA Inc, Merck Sharp & Dohme (Australia) Pty Limited, Novartis Pharma AG, PHMR Ltd, Pierre Fabre, Qbiotics Group Limited, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Scancell Limited and SkylineDX B.V.; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, paper writing or educational events from Bristol Myers Squibb and Pierre Fabre., (© 2025. The Author(s).)

Objective: Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are commonly collected in melanoma research. However, they are not used to guide immediate clinical care in Australia. This study explored the views and experiences of patients with Stage III melanoma and clinic staff during implementation of an electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in melanoma (ePROMs-MEL) pilot to assess distress and quality of life., Methods: A prospective mixed-methods study in specialist melanoma clinics in Sydney, Australia between May 2021 and February 2023. Forty-two post-ePROMs implementation surveys and 17 semi-structured interviews were undertaken among patients and staff (including oncologists, melanoma nurses and clinic managers). Survey responses were tabulated using Likert scales and interview transcripts analysed thematically., Results: Of the 31 patient survey responses, over 90% reported ePROMs were easy to complete and measured important components of their health and wellbeing. Of the 11 staff surveys, over 50% reported ePROMs to be useful when allied health referrals were accessible but found implementation disruptive to clinic workflows. Six themes about ePROMs in clinical care emerged during data analysis: (1) promoting self-reflection; (2) conversation-starters; (3) timing and setting; (4) fit for purpose questionnaires; (5) resource issues; (6) value and limitations of ePROMs., Conclusion: Patients overwhelmingly supported the real-time collection of ePROMs for their immediate care. In contrast, staff support was conditional on resources to maximise clinical care efficiency and minimise administrative burden., Trial Registration: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12620001149954.aspx., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: In BRAF-mutated high-risk melanoma, targeted therapy (BRAF/MEK inhibitors) and checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) immunotherapy have durable benefits as first-line (1L) adjuvant therapy. Based on differing action mechanisms of BRAF/MEK inhibitors and CPI immunotherapies, there is interest in evaluating the activity of 2L adjuvant targeted therapy in decreasing the risk of subsequent recurrence after repeat resection following relapse on/after 1L adjuvant CPI., Patients and Methods: This was a retrospective review of BRAF V600-mutated resected stage III/IV melanoma patients in the United States, Australia, and The Netherlands who received 1L adjuvant CPI immunotherapy, relapsed locoregionally/distantly, were again resected to no evidence of disease, and received dabrafenib/trametinib (dab/tram) as 2L adjuvant therapy. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival (RFS) from initiation of 2L adjuvant dab/tram (RFS-2), analyzed via Kaplan-Meier methods., Results: Thirty-eight patients were included (median age 50 years, 63% male, 87% stage III, median follow-up 19 months from 2L dab/tram initiation). Median dab/tram duration was 10.1 months (range: 1 day-22.7 months), with half discontinuing due to progression or adverse events. Median (95% CI) RFS-2 was 18.9 (14.9-28.1) months, with 91%, 81%, and 58% remaining relapse-free at 6, 12, and 18 months, respectively. Most patients remained distant metastasis-free at 6, 12, and 18 months (97%, 85%, and 71%, respectively). Two patients were deceased at the last follow-up, with 97% alive at 18 months., Conclusions: Over 80% of patients remained relapse- and metastasis-free at 12 months after 2L dab/tram initiation, with only 2 deaths observed. Dab/tram appears to have activity in the 2L adjuvant setting, although more follow-up is required., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

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

Introduction: Approximately 50 % of resected stage II-IV melanoma patients develop recurrent disease by 5 years despite adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy. Data to define best management of recurrences is lacking., Methods: This was a multicentre, international, retrospective cohort study. Patients with resected stage II-IV melanoma who commenced adjuvant anti-PD-1-based therapy before January 2022 and later recurred were identified. Data on demographics, disease characteristics, recurrence patterns, management and outcomes were collected., Results: 711 patients from 17 sites were included. Median age was 60 [range 16-92], 64 % were male, 2 % stage II, 91 % were stage III, 7 % stage IV. Median time to recurrence was 6.2 months (0-68.5) and median follow up time from recurrence was 19.8 months (range 0.2-73.1). 63 % recurred on anti-PD-1 therapy, 36 % off therapy [3 % < 6 months, 33 % > 6 months]. Initial recurrences were locoregional (LR) alone in 44 %, distant alone (DR) in 43 %, and 11 % in both sites. LR recurrences were managed with local therapy, alone (62 %) or with "second adjuvant" anti-PD-1 (14 %) or BRAF/MEK therapy (23 %); 12 m RFS2 was 25 %, 29 % and 69 % respectively (p = 0.0045). Definitive systemic therapy at first recurrence was given in 16 % LR and 86 % DR, with best outcomes for anti-CTLA4 + anti-PD-1 and trial combinations (24 m PFS 63 % and 69 %, respectively). The 24 m OS for the entire cohort was 65 %., Conclusion: Most recurrences following adjuvant anti-PD-1 based therapy occur early and while still on drug. Outcomes are poor, regardless of site, timing of recurrence, and subsequent treatment., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: AMM has served on advisory boards for BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pierre-Fabre, and Qbiotics. JK has received research funding from LEO Pharma, honorium from BMS, Amgen, Janssen; and educational funding from MSD, Janssen and Astra Zeneca. RRT has served on advisory boards for BMS, MSD, Amgen, Pierre-Fabre, Astra Zeneca and Roche. CL has received research funding from BMS, Roche, consulting fees from BMS, Pierre-Fabre, Sanofi, Novartis, MSD, Amgen, Merck Serono, Roche and Iflax; speaking fees from Amgen, BMS, Pierre-Fabre, Sanofi, Novartis, MSD, Incyte, Pfizer, Roche; and travel funding from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Roche, Sanofi and served on advisory boards for BMS, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Novartis, MSD, Magen, Merck Serono, Roche and Inflax. CA has received travel funding from BMS, Roche and Amgen and speaking fees from Novartis. RJS has served on advisory boards for Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Replimune and receives grant funding from Merck. CR has served on advisory boards for Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Merck, Roche, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, Ultimovacs, Regeneron, Egle, Philogen, Maat Pharma; involved in steering committees for Novartis, Regeneron, Pfizer and IO Biotech and a consultant IDMC for Ultimovacs; received speaking fees from Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, BMS, MSD and Novartis and travel funding from Pierre Fabre. JM has intermittent project focused consultant or advisory relationships with Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, and Pierre Fabre and has received travel support from L′ Oreal, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers and Squibb and Pierre Fabre outside of the submitted work. MSC has served on advisory boards or as a consultant for Amgen, BMS, Eisai, Ideaya, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Oncosec, Pierre Fabre, Qbiotics, Regeneron, Roche, Merck, and Sanofi and received honoraria from BMS, MSD, and Novartis. DBJ has served on advisory boards or as a consultant for AstraZeneca, BMS, The Jackson Laboratory, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Mosaic ImmunoEngineering, Novartis, Pfizer, Targovax, and Teiko, and has received research funding from BMS and Incyte. BN has received financial compensation from Novartis, Roche, BMS, MSD, and Pierre-Fabre for service on advisory boards and speaking engagements; and institutional research funding from Pfizer, Novartis, Roche and Merck-Serono. VR has received honoraria from AstraZeneca and has received travel and education funding from MSD and Novartis. PAA has served as a consultant for BMS, MSD, Roche-Genentech, Ventana, Novartis, Amgen and Array and received research funding from BMS, Roche-Genentech and Ventana. JW has served as a consultant for Merck, Genentech, AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis, Nektar, Celldex, Incyte, Biond, Moderna, ImCheck, Sellas, Evaxion, Pfizer, Regeneron, EMD Serono, and Bristol Myers Squibb; has had equity roles in Biond, Evaxion, OncoC4, and Instill Bio; received institutional research support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, GSK, Moderna, Pfizer, Novartis, and AstraZeneca; served in scientific advisory roles with CytomX, Incyte, ImCheck, Biond, Sellas, Instill Bio, OncoC4, and NexImmune; and holds patent agreements with Moffitt Cancer Center and Biodesix. PR has received honoraria from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Merck and Sanofi; and served in an advisory capacity for MSD, BMS, Sanofi, Pierre-Fabre, Blueprint Medicines and Philogen. GAM has received institutional research funding through Roche-Genentech, MSD, Roche, and BMS and other funding through Novartis and BMS. SH has served as a consultant for Amgen, Genmab, Xencor, Astellas Pharma, Regeneron, and Nektar. AA has served as a consultant for BMS, Roche, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, MSD, Merck, Sanofi; received speaking fees from Pierre Fabre, Novartis, MSD, BMS, Roche, Merck, Sanofi; institutional funding from Pierre-Fabre, Novartis, Roche, BMS, MSD, Merck and Sanofi; and travel funding from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre. AH has served on an advisory board for BMS, MSD and Novartis. RD has received honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Amgen, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, CatalYm, Second Genome, Regeneron, Alligator Bioscience, MaxiVax, touchIME, T3 Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer; served as a consultant for Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Amgen, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, CatalYm, Second Genome, Alligator Bioscience, touchIME, MaxiVax, Regeneron, Pfizer, T3 Pharmaceuticals and received institutional research funding from Roche, BMS, Novartis, MSD and Amgen. CUB has served as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GenMab, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche/Genentech, and Third Rock Ventures; received institutional research funding from SC, Bristol-Myers Squibb, NanoString Technologies, and Novartis; provided expert testimony for Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; received travel funding from BMS; and has ownership interest in Immagene and Signature Oncology. GVL has received honoraria from BMS, Pierre-Fabre and received served as a consultant for Agenus, Amgen, Array BioPharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Evaxion Biotech, Hexal AG (Sandoz Company), Highlight Therapeutics, Innovent Biologics USA Inc, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, OncoSec Medical Australia, PHMR Limited, Pierre Fabre, Provectus, QBiotics, Regeneron, and AstraZeneca. The remaining authors have nothing to declare., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have transformed cancer treatment, providing significant benefit to patients across various tumour types, including melanoma. However, around 40% of melanoma patients do not benefit from ICI treatment, and accurately predicting ICI response remains challenging. We now describe a novel and simple approach that integrates immune-associated transcriptome signatures and tumour volume burden to better predict ICI response in melanoma patients. RNA sequencing was performed on pre-treatment (PRE) tumour specimens derived from 32 patients with advanced melanoma treated with combination PD1 and CTLA4 inhibitors. Of these 32 patients, 11 also had early during treatment (EDT, 5-15 days after treatment start) tumour samples. Tumour volume was assessed at PRE for all 32 patients, and at first computed tomography (CT) imaging for the 11 patients with EDT samples. Analysis of the Hallmark IFNγ gene set revealed no association with ICI response at PRE (AUC ROC curve = 0.6404, p = 0.24, 63% sensitivity, 71% specificity). When IFNg activity was evaluated with tumour volume (ratio of gene set expression to tumour volume) using logistic regression to predict ICI response, we observed high discriminative power in separating ICI responders from non-responders (AUC = 0.7760, p = 0.02, 88% sensitivity, 67% specificity); this approach was reproduced with other immune-associated transcriptomic gene sets. These findings were further replicated in an independent cohort of 23 melanoma patients treated with PD1 inhibitor. Hence, integrating tumour volume with immune-associated transcriptomic signatures improves the prediction of ICI response, and suggest that higher levels of immune activation relative to tumour burden are required for durable ICI response., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Following major achievements seen with drug therapies for the treatment of advanced melanoma in the last decade, they now also have an ever-increasing role for the treatment of earlier stage disease. This review outlines the current drugs used to treat melanoma, and how general practitioners (GPs) can assist in the management of patients with melanoma and the associated toxicities with treatment., Objective: This review summarises the evolving status of melanoma care, emphasising when to refer patients to medical oncologists as part of the multidisciplinary team. It provides guidance into recognising and managing immune-related adverse events (irAEs) associated with immunotherapy, and provides insights into the future changes in clinical practice., Discussion: Drug therapies are increasingly used for the treatment of many patients with melanoma. Early referral is crucial, and clinical trials remain the best choice for most patients. Recognition and prompt management of irAEs is vital, and collaboration between GPs and oncologists is essential for best care.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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