Search

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.)

Background: Adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy improves relapse free survival in stage III melanoma, but also leads to immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Older patients are of particular interest due to comorbidities and frailty, which may impact their ability to tolerate irAEs and benefit from anti-PD-1 therapy. This study aimed to explore associations between clinical parameters and the occurrence of grade ≥ 3 irAEs and recurrence-free survival (RFS) in older patients with radically resected stage III/IV cutaneous melanoma treated with adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy., Methods: Patients aged ≥ 65 with resected stage III/IV cutaneous melanoma treated with adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy between 2018 and 2022 were selected using real-world data from the nationwide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR). A univariate and multivariable logistic regression was used to compare determinants of grade ≥ 3 irAEs, and univariate and multivariable Cox-proportional hazard models were fitted to identify factors influencing RFS., Results: The study included 885 patients, with 280 aged 75 and older. The incidence of grade ≥ 3 irAEs was 15.5 % in the 65-74 age group and 13.9 % in the ≥ 75 age group. No significant correlation was found between age and grade ≥ 3 irAEs. However, an increasing number of comorbidities was associated with a higher risk of grade ≥ 3 irAEs (multivariable analyses: OR 1.83, 95 % C.I. 0.99-3.40). The 1-year RFS rate of 80.0 % of this study was comparable to those reported in previous registration trials and real-world data. Having ≥ 3 comorbidities was significantly associated with a decrease in RFS (HR: 1.68, 95 % C.I. 1.15-2.44)., Conclusion: Older patients had similar benefit of adjuvant immunotherapy compared to older subgroups in previous trials. However, patients with multiple comorbidities were at increased risk of grade ≥ 3 irAEs and had a lower RFS. This should be considered when deciding upon adjuvant treatment., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Previous studies demonstrated limited efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in unresectable acral melanoma (AM); it remains unclear how this translates to the adjuvant setting. This study investigates clinical outcomes of acral compared to cutaneous melanoma (CM) patients treated with adjuvant anti-PD-1 after complete resection. All stages III-IV AM and CM patients receiving adjuvant anti-PD-1 after complete resection between 2018 and 2022 were included from the prospective nationwide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. We analyzed recurrence-free survival (RFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and overall survival (OS). A multivariable Cox regression analysis of RFS was performed to adjust for potential confounders. We included 1958 (86 AM and 1872 CM) patients. At baseline, AM patients more frequently had KIT mutations, higher disease stages, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, and fewer BRAF and NRAS mutations. Median RFS was 14.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.5-29.3) in AM and 37.4 months (95% CI: 34.6 to not reached) in CM (p = .002). After correcting for potential confounders, AM remained associated with a higher risk of recurrence (HR adj 1.53; 95% CI: 1.07-2.17; p = .019). Two-year DMFS tended to be worse for AM than for CM: 64.5% versus 79.7% (p = .050). Two-year OS was significantly lower in AM (71.5% vs. 84.3%; p = .027). The results of this study suggest a poorer outcome of adjuvant-treated AM compared to CM. Studies assessing the added value of adjuvant treatment in AM are needed. Future research should investigate alternative treatment strategies to improve outcomes of high-risk AM., (© 2024 The Author(s). International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

Purpose: The treatment efficacy of nivolumab was evaluated in patients with advanced, treatment-refractory solid mismatch repair deficiency/microsatellite-instable (dMMR/MSI) tumors, and in-depth biomarker analyses were performed to inform precision immunotherapy approaches., Patients and Methods: Patients with dMMR/MSI tumors who exhausted standard-of-care treatment options were enrolled in the Drug Rediscovery Protocol, a pan-cancer clinical trial that treats patients with cancer based on their tumor molecular profile with off-label anticancer drugs (NCT02925234). Patients received nivolumab (four cycles of 240 mg every 2 weeks, thereafter 480 mg every 4 weeks). The primary endpoint was clinical benefit (CB: objective response or stable disease ≥16 weeks). Whole-genome sequencing and RNA sequencing were performed on pretreatment tumor biopsies., Results: A total of 130 evaluable patients were enrolled with 16 different cancer types. CB was observed in 62% [95% confidence interval (CI), 53-70], with an objective response in 45% (95% CI, 36-54). After a median follow-up of 14.5 months (95% CI, 13-19), the median progression-free survival was 18 months (95% CI, 9-not reached), and the median overall survival was not reached. Whereas CB was not, or only weakly, associated with markers of adaptive immune cell infiltration, CB was strongly associated with expression of a broad set of innate immune receptors/ligands. This clearly contrasted findings in melanoma, in which markers of adaptive immunity dominated the biomarker landscape., Conclusions: Nivolumab proved highly effective in advanced dMMR/MSI tumors. Expression of key innate immune receptors/ligands was the main predictor of a good treatment outcome, contrasting findings in melanoma and strengthening the rationale for tumor type-specific biomarkers for guiding immunotherapy., (©2024 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: In the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 1325-MG/KEYNOTE-054 study, adjuvant pembrolizumab improved recurrence-free survival and distant-metastasis-free survival in patients with resected stage III melanoma. Earlier results showed no effect of pembrolizumab on health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Little is known about HRQOL after completion of treatment with pembrolizumab, an important research area concerning patients who are likely to become long-term survivors. This study reports long-term HRQOL results., Methods: This double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial compared adjuvant pembrolizumab with placebo in patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC resected cutaneous melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 1 or 0, recruited from 123 academic centres and community hospitals in 23 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a minimisation technique stratified for stage and geographical region to receive 200 mg of intravenous pembrolizumab or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 18 doses. Investigators, patients, and those collecting or analysing data were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint of the trial was recurrence-free survival (reported elsewhere). HRQOL was a prespecified exploratory endpoint, measured with the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30. All patients with a baseline HRQOL evaluation available who were alive 108 weeks from randomisation were included in this analysis of long-term HRQOL. Long-term HRQOL included assessments measured every 6 months between 108 weeks and 48 months after randomisation. The threshold of clinical relevance for all HRQOL scales used was an average change of 5 points. The trial is ongoing, recruitment is completed, and HRQOL data collection is finalised. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02362594, and EudraCT, 2014-004944-37., Findings: Between Aug 26, 2015, and Nov 14, 2016, 1019 patients were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab (n=514) or placebo (n=505). Completion of the HRQOL evaluation at baseline exceeded 90% (481 [94%] patients in the pembrolizumab group and 467 [92%] in the placebo group), and ranged between 60% and 90% for post-baseline timepoints. Among patients with a baseline HRQOL evaluation, 365 (39%) were female and 583 (61%) were male. The mean change from baseline to long-term HRQOL was -0·56 (95% CI -2·33 to 1·22) in the pembrolizumab group and 1·63 (-0·12 to 3·38) in the placebo group. The difference between the two groups was -2·19 (-4·65 to 0·27, p=0·081). Differences for all other scales were smaller than 5 and not statistically significant., Interpretation: Adjuvant pembrolizumab did not have a significant impact on long-term HRQOL compared with placebo in patients with resected stage III melanoma. These findings, together with earlier results on efficacy and HRQOL, support the use of pembrolizumab in this setting., Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests EB's spouse and daughter hold shares in Sandoz, Galenica, Alcon, Roche, and Novartis. MK reports study funding paid to the institution by Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD) since the initial planning of the work, and study funding paid to the institution from Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Immunocore, Johnson & Johnson, and Pierre Fabre in the past 36 months. MM reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, and Sun Pharma. GVL reports consulting fees from Agenus, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BioNTech, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Evaxion, Hexal AG (Sandoz Company), Highlight Therapeutics, IOBiotech, Immunocore, Innovent Biologics USA, MSD, Novartis, PHMR, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Scancell, and SkylineDX BV. VA reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from BMS, MSD, Novartis; support from BMS for attending meetings or travel; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for BMS, MSD, Novartis, and Immunocore; CUB reports personal fees from MSD, grants and personal fees from Novartis and BMS, personal fees from Roche, GSK, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Lilly, GenMAB, Pierre Fabre, and Third Rock ventures, grants from NanoString and 4SC, during the conduct of the study. CUB has patents pending (WO 2021/177822 A1 and WO 2023/022596 A1), and reports stock ownership: co-founder of Immagene BV and Signature Oncology. AH reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS, MSD, and Novartis; payments for participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board with BMS, MSD, and Novartis. SD reports research funding from BMS, MSD, and Pierre Fabre to the institution; payment or honoraria to the institution for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS and MSD; support for attending meetings or travel from BMS and MSD; trim 24 patent pending; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board at BMS and MSD, with payments made to the institution; spouse being a Sanofi employee. AK reports consulting fees for an advisory role at Moderna and speaker honorarium from MSD. MSC reports honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from BMS, MSD and Novartis; having served on advisory boards for Amgen, BMS, Eisai, Ideaya, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Oncosec, Pierre-Fabre, Qbiotics, Regeneron, Roche, Merck, and Sanofi. AM reports support of scientific and educational conference from Janssen. SS reports grants or contracts from Novartis/Advanced Accelerator Applications (AAA), AstraZeneca, MSD, Genentech, Senhwa, and Pfizer; funding goes to the institution to undertake investigator initiated clinical trial and translational research. SS reports participation on advisory boards for MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca—fees for attending go to research funds at the institution. SS is the chair of DSMB for two Novartis/AAA sponsored phase 3 trials—no fee accepted for chair role. SP reports payment or honoraria to her and her institution for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS, MSD, and Novartis, and to her partner and her institution from Amgen and Phylogen; payments to her institution for participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board with MSD; leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee, or advocacy group, paid or unpaid from GEM, EORTC melanoma group, and ASEICA. DS reports research grants to his institution from Amgen, Array/Pfizer, BMS, MSD, Novartis, and Roche; consulting fees paid personally from 4SC, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Haystack, Immunocore, InFlarX, Innovent, Labcorp, Merck Serono, MSD, Nektar, Neracare, Novartis OncoSec, Pfizer, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Replimune, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi/Regeneron, and Sun Pharma; personal payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS, MSD, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and SunPharma; personal support for attending meetings or travel from BMS, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi, and Pierre Fabre; personal payments for participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board at 4SC, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Haystack, Immunocore, InFlarX, Merck Serono, MSD, Nektar, Neracare, Novartis, OncoSec, Pfizer, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Replimune, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi/Regeneron, and Sun Pharma; leadership or fiduciary role, paid or unpaid, at Dermatologic Cooperative Oncology Group, German Cancer Society, Hiege Stiftung, Deutsche Hautkrebsstiftung, Nationale Versorgungskonferenz Hautkrebs eV, and European Melanoma Registry; drug supply (nivolumab, ipilimumab) from BMS. RJ reports research funding from Iovance Biotherapeutics; honoraria for advisory role or speaker presentation from Merck, BMS, Medison, Pfizer, and Novartis. PR reports consulting fees paid to himself from MBS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Philogen, and Pfizer; honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureau, manuscript writing, or educational events paid to himself from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, MSD, and AstraZeneca; speakers bureau Pfizer, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, MSD, and BMS paid to himself; support for attending meetings or travel from Orphan Europe and Pierre Fabre paid to himself; research funding to his institution from Novarits, Pfizer, Roche, and BMS. AJMvdE reports study grants from BMS and Idera; travel expenses from Ipsen; advisory board from BMS, MSD Oncology, Ipsen, Pierre Fabre, and Janssen Cilag BV. CC reports support for attending meetings or travel from Orphan Europe and Pierre Fabre. DG reports stock or stock options from Merck & Co. CK reports stock or stock options from Merck & Co and being an employee of Merck & Co. CR reports consulting fees (payments made to her) from BMS, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Sanofi, Pfizer, MSD, Merck, Sunpharma, Ultimovacs, Regeneron, Egle, Philogen, Maat Pharma, and IO Biontech; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events (payments made to her) from Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, BMS, MSD, and Novartis; support for attending meetings or travel from Pierre Fabre; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board (payments made to her) with BMS, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Sanofi, Pfizer, MSD, Merck, Sunpharma, Ultimovacs, Regeneron, Egle, Philogen, and Maat Pharma. AMME reports honoraria for scientific advisory board or independent data monitoring committee functions from Agenus, BioInvent, BioNTech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Brenus, CatalYm, Ellipses, EikonTX, Eurobio, Galecto, IO Biotech, IQVIQ, ISA Pharmaceuticals, Merck & Co, MSD, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Scorpion TX, Sairopa, Sellas, SkylineDX, TigaTx, and Trained Therapeutics Discovery; honoraria from Acetra, GenOway, GSK, Moderna, and Trained Immunity Tx; equity from IO Biotech, Sairopa, and SkylineDx; being the Editor in Chief of the European Journal of Cancer. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Purpose: This prospective study evaluates the biodistribution of 18 F-FLT PET in patients with advanced melanoma before and after treatment with BRAF/MEK inhibitors., Patients and Methods: Eighteen BRAF-positive unresectable stage IIIc or IV melanoma patients referred for 18 F-FLT PET/CT before (BL) and during (D14) BRAF/MEK inhibition were included. 18 F-FLT accumulation in the liver, bone marrow, blood, and muscle was quantified., Results: Baseline interpatient 18 F-FLT uptake had a coefficient-of-variation between 17.5% and 21.5%. During treatment, liver uptake increased (SUV meanBL = 4.86 ± 0.98, SUV meanD14 = 6.31 ± 1.36, P < 0.001) and bone marrow uptake decreased (SUV meanBL = 7.67 ± 1.65, SUV meanD14 = 6.78 ± 1.19, P < 0.025). Both changes were unrelated to baseline metabolic tumor volume or tumor response., Conclusions: To assess 18 F-FLT PET, both liver and bone marrow uptake may be used as normal tissue references at baseline, but 18 F-FLT biodistribution significantly changes in longitudinal response studies when treated with BRAF/MEK inhibitors., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: A.J.M.v.d.E. received study grant from Sanofi, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, TEVA, and Idera; received travel expenses coverage from MSD Oncology, Roche, Pfizer, and Sanofi; received speaker honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis; and is part of the advisory board of Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology, Amgen, Roche, Novartis, Sanofi, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Merck, Pierre Fabre. E.K. has consultancy/advisory relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck, Pierre Fabre, Lilly, and Bayer, all paid to institute, as well as received research grants not related to this paper from Bristol Myers Squibb, Delcath, Novartis, and Pierre Fabre. F.Y.F.L.d.V. received research grant from Foundation STOPBraintumors.org , Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Servier, CureVac, and EORTC, all paid to institute. J.B.A.G.H. has advisory roles for Bristol Myers Squibb, CureVac, GSK, Ipsen, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Imcyse, Merck Serono, Molecular Partners, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Third Rock Ventures; is a member of SAB of Achilles Tx, BioNTech, Gadeta, Immunocore, Instil Bio, PokeAcell, Scenic, T-Knife, and Neogene Tx, all paid to institute except Neogene Tx and Scenic; and received grant support from Amgen, Asher Bio, BioNTech, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, and Sastra Cell Therapy, all paid to institute. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest. This work was supported by an unrestricted grant by Roche Medical B.V. The company has approved the design of the study and provided cobimetinib free of charge. The company has no role in collection, analysis, and interpretation of data or in writing the manuscript., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Long-term survival data from clinical trials show that survival curves of patients with advanced melanoma treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) gradually reach a plateau, suggesting that patients have a chance of achieving long-term survival., Objective: To investigate long-term survival in patients with advanced melanoma treated with ICIs outside clinical trials., Design, Setting, and Participants: Cohort study using prospectively collected data from the nationwide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry, including patients in the Netherlands with advanced melanoma treated with first-line ICIs from 2012 to 2019. Data were analyzed from January to September 2023., Exposures: Patients were treated with first-line ipilimumab-nivolumab, antibodies that target programmed cell death (anti-PD-1), or ipilimumab., Main Outcomes and Measures: Progression-free survival (PFS) and melanoma-specific survival were analyzed, and a Cox proportional hazards model was used to investigate factors associated with PFS after reaching partial response (PR) or complete response (CR)., Results: A total of 2490 patients treated with first-line ICIs were included (median [IQR] age, 65.0 [55.3-73.0] years; 1561 male patients [62.7%]). Most patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status of 1 or lower (2202 patients [88.5%]) and normal lactate dehydrogenase levels (1715 patients [68.9%]). PFS for all patients was 23.4% (95% CI, 21.7%-25.2%) after 3 years and 19.7% (95% CI, 18.0%-21.4%) after 5 years. Overall survival for all patients was 44.0% (95% CI, 42.1%-46.1%) after 3 years and 35.9% (95% CI, 33.9%-38.0%) after 5 years. Patients with metastases in 3 or more organ sites had a significantly higher hazard of progression after reaching PR or CR (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.11-1.69)., Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study of patients with advanced melanoma treated with ICIs in clinical practice showed that their survival reached a plateau, comparable with patients participating in clinical trials. These findings can be used in daily clinical practice to guide long-term surveillance strategies and inform both physicians and patients regarding long-term treatment outcomes.

In PIVOT IO 001 (NCT03635983), the combination of the investigational interleukin-2 agonist bempegaldesleukin (BEMPEG) with nivolumab (NIVO) had no added clinical benefit over NIVO monotherapy in unresectable/metastatic melanoma. Pre-defined baseline and on-treatment changes in selected biomarkers were analyzed to explore the potential mechanisms underlying the clinical observations. In each treatment arm, higher baseline tumor mutational burden or immune infiltration/inflammation was associated with improved efficacy compared with lower levels. On-treatment peripheral biomarker changes showed that BEMPEG + NIVO increased all immune cell subset counts interrogated, including regulatory T cells. This was followed by attenuation of the increase in CD8 + T cells, conventional CD4 + T cells, and systemic interferon gamma levels at later treatment cycles in the combination arm. Changes in tumor biomarkers were comparable between arms. These biomarker results help provide a better understanding of the mechanism of action of BEMPEG + NIVO and may help contextualize the clinical observations from PIVOT IO 001., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Patients with irresectable stage III or metastatic melanoma presenting with poor prognostic factors are usually treated with a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), consisting of ipilimumab and nivolumab. This combination therapy is associated with severe immune related adverse events (irAEs) in about 60% of patients. In current clinical practice, patients are usually treated with ICIs for up to two years or until disease progression or the occurrence of unacceptable AEs. The incidence of irAEs gradually increases with duration of treatment. While durable tumour responses have been observed after early discontinuation of treatment, no consensus has been reached on optimal treatment duration. The objective of the Safe Stop IPI-NIVO trial is to evaluate whether early discontinuation of ICIs is safe in patients with irresectable stage III or metastatic melanoma who are treated with combination therapy., Methods: The Safe Stop IPI-NIVO trial is a nationwide, multicentre, prospective, single-arm, interventional study in the Netherlands. A total of 80 patients with irresectable stage III or metastatic melanoma who are treated with combination therapy of ipilimumab-nivolumab and have a complete or partial response (CR/PR) according to RECIST v1.1 will be included to early discontinue maintenance therapy with anti-PD-1. The primary endpoint is the rate of ongoing response at 12 months after start of ICI. Secondary endpoints include ongoing response at 24 months, disease control at different time points, melanoma specific and overall survival, the incidence of irAEs and health-related quality of life., Discussion: From a medical, healthcare and economic perspective, overtreatment should be prevented and shorter treatment duration of ICIs is preferred. If early discontinuation of ICIs is safe for patients who are treated with the combination of ipilimumab-nivolumab, the treatment duration of nivolumab could be shortened in patients with a favourable tumour response., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT05652673, registration date: 08-12-2022., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

We evaluated the prognostic value of hypoalbuminemia in context of various biomarkers at baseline, including clinical, genomic, transcriptomic, and blood-based markers, in patients with metastatic melanoma treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy or anti-PD-1/anti-CTLA-4 combination therapy (n = 178). An independent validation cohort (n = 79) was used to validate the performance of hypoalbuminemia compared to serum LDH (lactate dehydrogenase) levels. Pre-treatment hypoalbuminemia emerged as the strongest predictor of poor outcome for both OS (HR = 4.01, 95% CI 2.10-7.67, Cox P = 2.63e-05) and PFS (HR = 3.72, 95% CI 2.06-6.73, Cox P = 1.38e-05) in univariate analysis. In multivariate analysis, the association of hypoalbuminemia with PFS was independent of serum LDH, IFN-γ signature expression, TMB, age, ECOG PS, treatment line, treatment type (combination or monotherapy), brain and liver metastasis (HR = 2.76, 95% CI 1.24-6.13, Cox P = 0.0131). Our validation cohort confirmed the prognostic power of hypoalbuminemia for OS (HR = 1.98, 95% CI 1.16-3.38; Cox P = 0.0127) and was complementary to serum LDH in analyses for both OS (LDH-adjusted HR = 2.12, 95% CI 1.2-3.72, Cox P = 0.00925) and PFS (LDH-adjusted HR = 1.91, 95% CI 1.08-3.38, Cox P = 0.0261). In conclusion, pretreatment hypoalbuminemia was a powerful predictor of outcome in ICI in melanoma and showed remarkable complementarity to previously established biomarkers, including high LDH., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Predicting who will benefit from treatment with immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) in patients with advanced melanoma is challenging. We developed a multivariable prediction model for response to ICI, using routinely available clinical data including primary melanoma characteristics. We used a population-based cohort of 3525 patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma treated with anti-PD-1-based therapy. Our prediction model for predicting response within 6 months after ICI initiation was internally validated with bootstrap resampling. Performance evaluation included calibration, discrimination and internal-external cross-validation. Included patients received anti-PD-1 monotherapy (n = 2366) or ipilimumab plus nivolumab (n = 1159) in any treatment line. The model included serum lactate dehydrogenase, World Health Organization performance score, type and line of ICI, disease stage and time to first distant recurrence-all at start of ICI-, and location and type of primary melanoma, the presence of satellites and/or in-transit metastases at primary diagnosis and sex. The over-optimism adjusted area under the receiver operating characteristic was 0.66 (95% CI: 0.64-0.66). The range of predicted response probabilities was 7%-81%. Based on these probabilities, patients were categorized into quartiles. Compared to the lowest response quartile, patients in the highest quartile had a significantly longer median progression-free survival (20.0 vs 2.8 months; P < .001) and median overall survival (62.0 vs 8.0 months; P < .001). Our prediction model, based on routinely available clinical variables and primary melanoma characteristics, predicts response to ICI in patients with advanced melanoma and discriminates well between treated patients with a very good and very poor prognosis., (© 2024 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

Background: Effectivity of BRAF(/MEK) inhibitor rechallenge has been described in prior studies. However, structured data are largely lacking., Methods: Data from all advanced melanoma patients treated with BRAFi(/MEKi) rechallenge were retrieved from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. The authors analyzed objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) for both first treatment and rechallenge. They performed a multivariable logistic regression and a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model to assess factors associated with response and survival., Results: The authors included 468 patients in the largest cohort to date who underwent at least two treatment episodes of BRAFi(/MEKi). Following rechallenge, ORR was 43%, median PFS was 4.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.1-5.2), and median OS was 8.2 months (95% CI, 7.2-9.4). Median PFS after rechallenge for patients who discontinued first BRAFi(/MEKi) treatment due to progression was 3.1 months (95% CI, 2.7-4.0) versus 5.2 months (95% CI, 4.5-5.9) for patients who discontinued treatment for other reasons. Discontinuing first treatment due to progression and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels greater than two times the upper limit of normal were associated with lower odds of response and worse PFS and OS. Symptomatic brain metastases were associated with worse survival, whereas a longer treatment interval between first treatment and rechallenge was associated with better survival. Responding to the first BRAFi(/MEKi) treatment was not associated with response or survival., Conclusions: This study confirms that patients benefit from rechallenge. Elevated LDH levels, symptomatic brain metastases, and discontinuing first BRAFi(/MEKi) treatment due to progression are associated with less benefit from rechallenge. A prolonged treatment interval is associated with more benefit from rechallenge., (© 2024 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.)

Background: Pain is common in patients with cancer. The World Health Organisation recommends paracetamol or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for mild pain and combined with other agents for moderate/severe pain. This study estimated associations of NSAIDs with recurrence-free survival (RFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in high-risk patients with resected melanoma in the EORTC 1325/KEYNOTE-054 phase III clinical trial., Patients and Methods: Patients with AJCC7 stage IIIA, IIIB or IIIC resected melanoma were randomized to receive 200 mg of adjuvant pembrolizumab (N = 514) or placebo (N = 505) 3-weekly for one year or until recurrence. As previously reported, pembrolizumab prolonged RFS and DMFS. NSAID use was defined as administration between 7 days pre-randomization and starting treatment. Multivariable Cox and Fine and Gray models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for associations of NSAIDs with RFS, DMFS and irAEs., Results: Of 1019 patients randomized, 59 and 44 patients in the pembrolizumab and placebo arms, respectively, used NSAIDs. NSAIDs were not associated with RFS (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.58-1.43) or DMFS in the pembrolizumab (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.65-1.66) or placebo arms (for RFS, HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.48-1.20; for DMFS, HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49-1.31). NSAIDs were associated with the incidence of irAEs in the placebo arm (HR 3.06, 95% CI 1.45-6.45) but not in the pembrolizumab arm (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.58-1.53)., Conclusion: NSAIDs were not associated with efficacy outcomes nor the risk of irAEs in patients with resected high-risk stage III melanoma receiving adjuvant pembrolizumab., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Oliver John Kennedy. None declared. Nina Glassee. Grants or contracts from any entity: MSD. Michal Kicinski. Grants or contracts from any entity: Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Pierre Fabre. Christian Blank. Grants or contracts from any entity: BMS, Novartis, NanoString, 4SC. Consulting fees - consultant advisor for: BMS, MSD, Roche, Novartis, GSK, AZ, Pfizer, Lilly, GenMab, Pierre Fabre- Payments were made to my institution, Third Rock Venture - Payments were made to me. Stock or stock options: Immagene BV and Signature Oncology - Co-founder. Georgina V Long. Consultant advisor for Agenus, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Evaxion, Hexal AG (Sandoz Company), Highlight Therapeutics S.L., Innovent Biologics USA, MSD Australia, MSD, Novartis, OncoSec Australia, PHMR Ltd, Pierre Fabre, Provectus Australia, Qbiotics, Regeneron. Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: BMS - Personal 1 h lecture of my own slides, Pierre Fabre, Personal 1 h lecture of my own slides. Victoria Atkinson. Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre- Speakers bureaus fees. Support for attending meetings and/or travel: BMS, Travel support. Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: BMS, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Q Biotics, Roche, Limbic - Advisory boards. Stéphane Dalle. Grants or contracts from any entity: BMS, MSD - My Institution. Support for attending meetings and/or travel: BMS, Pierre Fabre, MSD. Other financial or non-financial interests: Sanofi Pasteur - My wife is an employee of Sanofi Pasteur. Andrew M. Haydon. Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus: BMS, MSD, Novartis. Participation to Advisory Board: BMS, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, MSD. Andrey Meshcheryakov. Grants or contracts from any entity: Sanofi, AstraZeneca, MSD - My institution, me. Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Amgen, Bayer AG, BIOCAD, BMS, Eli Lilly, Merck, SERVIER, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Aventis - Honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus. Support for attending meetings and/or travel: BIOCAD, SERVIER, MSD, Sanofi-Aventis, Merck - Attending meetings and/or travel. Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: Amgen, Bayer AG, BIOCAD, BMS, Eli Lilly, Merck, Servier, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Aventis - Advisory Board. Adnan Khattak. None declared. Matteo S. Carlino. Participation on Advisory Board for Amgen, BMS, Eisai, Ideaya, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Oncosec, Pierre-Fabre, Qbiotics, Regeneron, Roche. Consulting fees: BMS, MSD, Novartis. Shahneen Sandhu. Grants or contracts from any entity: Advanced Accelerators Applications (a Novartis company), Amgen, MSD, Senwha, Genentech, AstraZeneca - Funding to the institution. Participation on an Advisory Board: AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Advanced Accelerators Applications (a Novartis company). - Funding to the institution. James Larkin. Grants or contracts from any entity: Achilles, BMS, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Immunocore, Aveo, Pharmacyclics. Institutional research support: BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Achilles Therapeutics, Roche, Nektar Therapeutics, Covance, Immunocore, Pharmacyclics, Aveo. Consulting fees from iOnctura, Apple Tree, Merck, BMS, Eisai, Debipharm, Incyte. Honorariums from Eisai, Novartis, Incyte, Merck, touchIME, touchEXPERTS, Pfizer, Royal College of Physicians, Cambridge Healthcare Research, Royal College of General Practitioners, VJOncology, Agence Unik, BMS. Speaker fee from Pierre Fabre, BMS, Ipsen, Roche, EUSA Pharma, Novartis, Aptitude, AstraZeneca, GSK, Eisai, Calithera, Ultimovacs, Seagen, Merck, eCancer, Inselgruppe, Pfizer, Goldman Sachs, MSD. Susana Puig. Grants or contracts from any entity: Almirall, ISDIN, La Roche Posay - To My Institution. Consulting fees: ISDIN, Almirall, La Roche Posay, MSD, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, Pfizer, Roche, Regeneron. Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: ISDIN, La Roche Posay, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, Roche, Regeneron, BMS, Sun Pharma. Support for attending meetings and/or travel: Almirall. Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: Roche, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, Almirall, ISDIN, Pfizer, Novartis. Paolo A. Ascierto. Grants or contracts from any entity: BMS, Roche-Genentech, Pfizer/Array, Sanofi. Consulting fees: BMS, Roche-Genentech, MSD, Novartis, Merck Serono, Pierre-Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Sandoz, 4SC, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Pfizer/Array, Lunaphore, Medicenna, Bio-Al Health, ValoTx, Replimmune, Bayer. Support for attending meetings and/or travel: Pfizer, Bio-Al Health, Replimmune. Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: BMS, Roche-Genentech, MSD, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Immunocore, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Oncosec, Nouscom, Seagen, iTeos. Piotr Rutkowski. Consulting fees: Amgen, Blueprint Medicine, BMS, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi - Advisory Role - Personal fees. Payment or honoraria for lectures: BMS, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi Pasteur. Dirk Schadendorf. Grants or contracts from any entity: Amgen, Array BioPharma, Novartis. Consulting fees: 4SC, Angenus, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, EMD Serano, Roche, Genentech, InFlarX, Merck, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Sandoz, Sanofi, UltimoVacs. Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board: Immunocore. Honoraria for lectures: Amgen, Novartis. Support for attending meetings and/or travel: Amgen, Novartis. Marye Boers-Sonderen. None declared. Anna Maria di Giacomo. Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: BMS, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi. Support for attending meetings and/or travel: BMS, Pierre Fabre. Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: BMS, MSD, Nektar, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, GSK, Novartis. Alfonsus J.M. van den Eertwegh. Grants or contracts from any entity: Roche, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Idera. Consulting fees: BMS. Support for attending meetings and/or travel: MSD Oncology, Roche, Pfizer, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre. Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: BMS, MSD Oncology, Amgen, Roche, Novartis, Sanofi, Pfizer, Ipsen, Merck, Pierre Fabre. Jean-Jacques Grob. Payment for participation to an advisory board: Amgen, BMS, Hoffmann-La Roche. Consulting fees: MSD, Novartis, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi Pasteur. Ralf Gutzmer. Grants or contracts from any entity: Pfizer, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, Amgen, Merck Serono, Sun Pharma Industries, Sanofi. Consulting fees: BMS, MSD, Roche, Genentech, Novartis, Merck Serono, Almirall, Amgen, Sun Pharma Industries, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Bayer AG, Immunocore. Support for attending meetings and/or travel: Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma Industries. Rahima Jamal. Grants or contracts from any entity: MSD, BMS, Iovance Biotherapeutics. Consulting fees: BMS. Alexander C.J. van Akkooi. Grants or contracts from any entity: Amgen, Merck, Pfizer. Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: Amgen, BMS, Novartis, MSD, Merck, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Provectus, Sanofi, Sirius Medical, 4SC. Sara Gandini. None declared. Emanuel Buhrer. None declared. Stefan Suciu. Grants or contracts from any entity: MSD. Caroline Robert. Consulting fees: AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Merck, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi. Co-founder: Ribonexus. Alexander Eggermont. Consulting fees: Agenus, BioInvent, BMS, Brenus, CatalYm, Ellipses, Galecto, IO Biotech, IQVIA, ISA Pharmaceuticals, Merck, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Sairopa, Sellas, SkylineDX, TigeTx, Trained Immunity TX. Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board: BioNTech, GSK, and Pfizer. Lectures: BMS, MSD. Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid: European Academy Cancer Sciences, German Cancer Aid. Stock or stock options: IO Biotech, SkylineDx and SaiRoPA. Mario Mandala. Participation to Advisory Board: BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre Pharmaceuticals. Paul Lorigan. Grants or contracts from any entity: BMS, Pierre Fabre. Consulting fees: Amgen, BMS, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Pierre Fabre. Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Amgen, BMS, Merck, MSD, Nektar, NeraCare GmbH, Novartis, Oncology Education, Pierre Fabre, Roche. Support for attending meetings and/or travel: BMS, MSD. Sara Valpione. Receipient of an Institutional Amgen Research Grant., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: The prognosis of advanced melanoma patients has significantly improved over the years. We aimed to evaluate the survival per year of diagnosis., Methods: All systemically treated patients diagnosed with advanced melanoma from 2013 to 2021 were included from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Baseline characteristics and overall survival (OS) were compared between the different years of diagnosis. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the association between year of diagnosis and OS., Findings: For this cohort study, we included 6260 systemically treated advanced melanoma patients. At baseline, there was an increase over the years in age, the percentage of patients with an ECOG PS ≥ 2, with brain metastases, and a synchronous diagnosis of primary and unresectable melanoma. Median OS increased from 11.2 months (95% CI 10.0-12.4) for patients diagnosed in 2013 to 32.0 months (95% CI 26.6-36.7) for patients diagnosed in 2019. Median OS was remarkably lower for patients diagnosed in 2020 (26.6 months; 95% CI 23.9-35.1) and 2021 (24.0 months; 95% CI 20.4-NR). Patients diagnosed in 2020 and 2021 had a higher hazard of death compared to patients diagnosed in 2019, although this was not significant. The multivariable Cox regression showed a lower hazard of death for the years of diagnosis after 2013. In contrast, patients diagnosed in 2020 and 2021 had a higher hazard of death compared to patients diagnosed in 2019., Interpretation: After a continuous survival improvement for advanced melanoma patients between 2013 and 2019, outcomes of patients diagnosed in 2020 and 2021 seem poorer. This trend of decreased survival remained after correcting for known prognostic factors and previous neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment, suggesting that it is explained by unmeasured factors, which-considering the timing-could be COVID-19-related., Funding: For the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR), the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing foundation received a start-up grant from governmental organization The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMW, project number 836002002). The DMTR is structurally funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, and Roche Pharma. Roche Pharma stopped funding in 2019, and Pierre Fabre started funding the DMTR in 2019. For this work, no funding was granted., Competing Interests: AvdE has advisory relationships with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Novartis, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Pfizer, Ipsen, Merck and has received research study grants not related to this paper from Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Idera and TEVA and has received travel expenses from MSD Oncology, Roche, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi. JH has advisory relationships with AstraZeneca, Achilles Therapeutics, BioNTech, BMS, CureVac, Iovance Bio, Eisai, Instil Bio, Imcyse, MSD, Neogene Therapeutics, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sastra Cell Therapy, TRV, and T-Knife. And has received research grants not related to this paper from Asher Bio, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, BioNTech, Novartis, and Sastra Cell Therapy. All grants were paid to the institutions. MA has advisory board/consultancy honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD-Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Astellas, Bayer. She received travel expenses from Astella, BMS, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sanofi and a research grant from Merck-Pfizer. Not related to current work and paid to institute. GH consultancy/advisory relationships with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, MSD, Pfizer, Novartis, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre and has received research grants not related to this paper from Bristol Myers Squibb and Seerave. All payments were paid to the institution. RI has no declarations of interest for this research, but is employed at MSD since January 2022. DP has advisory relationships/consultancy honororia with Pierre Fabre and Novartis and received travel expenses from Pierre Fabre. AvdV has consultancy relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Sanofi, Ipsen, Eisai all paid to the institute. KS has consulting/advisory relationship with Abbvie, Pierre Fabre, and Sairopa. She received honoraria received from Novartis, Roche, Merck Sharp and Dome and research funding not related to this paper from Genmab, TigaTx, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Philips. All paid to institution. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

Purpose: The aims of this study were to investigate whether (early) PERCIST response monitoring with 18 F-FDG PET/CT is predictive for progression-free survival (PFS) in unresectable stage III or IV melanoma patients treated with BRAF/MEK inhibitor (MEKi) and to define dissemination patterns at progression with a lesion-based evaluation in direct comparison to baseline to improve our understanding of 18 F-FDG PET/CT during BRAF/MEKi., Patients and Methods: This prospective multicenter single-arm study included 70 patients with unresectable stage III/IV BRAF -mutated melanoma who underwent contrast-enhanced CT and 18 F-FDG PET/CT at baseline and 2 and 7 weeks during treatment with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib and at progression if possible. Tumor response assessment was done with RECIST1.1 and PERCIST. Follow-up PET/CT scans were visually compared with baseline to assess dissemination patterns., Results: Using RECIST1.1, PFS was not significantly different between the response groups ( P = 0.26). At 2 weeks, PERCIST median PFS was 15.7 months for patients with complete metabolic response (CMR) versus 8.3 months for non-CMR ( P = 0.035). The hazards ratio (HR) for progression/death in non-CMR versus CMR was 1.99 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-3.84; P = 0.040) and 1.77 (95% CI, 0.91-3.43; P = 0.0935) when adjusting for lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). At 7 weeks, median PFS for PERCIST CMR was 16.7 months versus 8.5 months for non-CMR ( P = 0.0003). The HR for progression/death in the non-CMR group was significantly increased (HR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.60-5.40; P = 0.0005), even when adjusting for LDH (HR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.43-4.91; P = 0.0020). At week 7, 18 F-FDG PET/CT was false-positive in all 4 (6%) patients with new FDG-avid lesions but CMR of known metastases. When 18 F-FDG PET/CT was performed at progressive disease, 18/22 (82%) patients had progression of known metastases with or without new 18 F-FDG-avid lesions., Conclusions: This study shows that PERCIST response assessment at week 7 is predictive for PFS, regardless of LDH. At 2 weeks, patients with CMR have longer PFS than patients with non-CMR, but different PET parameters should be investigated to further evaluate the added value of early 18 F-FDG PET/CT. Disease progression on PET/CT is predominated by progression of known metastases, and new 18 F-FDG-avid lesions during BRAF/MEKi are not automatically a sign of recurrent disease., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: The REPOSIT study is supported by an unrestricted grant by Roche Medical B.V. The company has approved the design of the study and provided cobimetinib free of charge. The company has no role in collection, analysis, and interpretation of data or in writing the article. A.J.M.v.d.E. received study grant from Sanofi, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, TEVA, and Idera; received travel expenses coverage from MSD Oncology, Roche, Pfizer, and Sanofi; received speaker honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis; and is part of the advisory board of Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology, Amgen, Roche, Novartis, Sanofi, Pfizer, Ipsen, Merck, and Pierre Fabre. E.W.K. has consultancy/advisory relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck, Pierre Fabre, Lilly, and Bayer, all paid to the institute; and received research grants not related to this article from Bristol Myers Squibb, Delcath, Novartis, and Pierre Fabre. G.A.P.H. has consultancy/advisory relationships with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, MSD, Pfizer, Novartis, Sanofi, and Pierre Fabre, all paid to the institute; and received research grants from Bristol Myers Squibb and Seerave, all paid to the institute. M.J.B.A. has advisory board/consultancy honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD-Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Astellas, and Bayer, and research grants from Merck-Pfizer, all paid to the institute and not related to current work. F.Y.F.L.d.V. received research grant from Foundation STOPBraintumors.org , Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Servier, CureVac, and EORTC, all paid to the institute. A.A.M.v.d.V. has consultancy roles (all paid to the institute) for Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, Sanofi, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Merck, Ipsen, Eisai, and Pfizer, all paid to the institute. J.B.A.G.H. has advisory roles for Bristol Myers Squibb, CureVac, GSK, Ipsen, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Imcyse, Merck Serono, Molecular Partners, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Third Rock Ventures; is a member of SAB of Achilles Tx, BioNTech, Gadeta, Immunocore, Instil Bio, PokeAcell, Scenic, T-Knife, and Neogene Tx, all paid to the institute except Neogene Tx and Scenic; and received grant support from Amgen, Asher Bio, BioNTech, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, and Sastra Cell Therapy, all paid to the institute. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Data on the effects of prior cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with synchronous metastases (M1 disease) before immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment are limited. In this post hoc analysis of treatment-naive patients with advanced RCC from the phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial, we assessed efficacy outcomes in the avelumab + axitinib and sunitinib arms in patients who were initially diagnosed with M1 disease (n = 412) grouped by prior CN (yes vs no). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using multivariable Cox regression, and objective response rates (ORRs) were analyzed using logistic regression. After adjusting for imbalances in baseline variables, the hazard ratio (HR) for PFS in the prior CN versus no prior CN subgroup was 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-1.16) in the avelumab + axitinib arm, and 1.15 (95% CI 0.77-1.70) in the sunitinib arm. The corresponding HRs for OS were 0.59 (95% CI 0.38-0.93) and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.55-1.34), and the odds ratios for ORR were 2.67 (95% CI 1.32-5.41) and 2.02 (95% CI 0.82-4.94), respectively. Prospective studies of the potential benefits of CN and its appropriate timing in patients receiving first-line treatment with ICI-containing combinations are warranted. PATIENT SUMMARY: This study looked at patients with kidney cancer whose disease had already spread outside the kidneys when it was first detected. We found that patients whose kidney had been removed before starting treatment with avelumab + axitinib had better outcomes than those whose kidney had not been removed. For patients treated with sunitinib, the results were more similar between the groups with and without prior kidney removal. However, statistical tests did not find any significant differences. The JAVELIN Renal 101 trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02684006., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)