LO, S

9524 Background: Unresectable melanoma in-transit metastases (ITM) can pose a significant clinical challenge. Our recently published data comparing first-line treatments for ITM, isolated limb infusion or perfusion (ILI/ILP), immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and intralesional talimogene laherparepvec (TVEC), found superior outcomes with TVEC. However, TVEC was used more often in patients with lower disease burden and earlier stage (IIIB vs. IIIC/D). Therefore, we sought to better investigate these differences with a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis. Methods: A multi-institutional, international IRB- approved retrospective analysis was conducted for unresectable melanoma ITM from 2016-2022. PSM analysis comparing first-line ILI/ILP, ICI, and TVEC for was performed. Patients were matched for stage, number of ITM, anatomical site, CLND status, gender and age. Kaplan-Meier curves (OS, PFS, DMFS) and Cumulative incidence function (MSS) were used to visualize time-to-event outcomes in the PSM cohort, though both methods do not account for the matched structure. Results: 274 patients were identified, 120 female/154 male; 96 treated with ILI/ILP, 111 with ICI, and 67 with TVEC. Median follow-up was 40 months (range, 1-80). PSM was performed and identified 36 TVEC–ICI pairs and 27 TVEC–ILI pairs. These were combined resulting in a final cohort of 108 observations (45 TVEC, 36 ICI and 27 ILI). The groups were well balanced. No statistical difference was found for metastasis-free survival (DMFS), progression-free survival (PFS), melanoma-specific survival (MSS), and overall survival (OS) between treatment modalities. TVEC was associated with significant improvement in local PFS (median was 2.2 years (y) for ILI/ILP, 1.5y for ICI and not reached for TVEC, p=0.048). While not statistically significant, a clinical benefit was seen in PFS being longer for TVEC (2.1y for TVEC vs. 1.2y for ILI/ILP and 1.1y for ICI; p=0.2) and OS (not reached vs 2.9y for ILI/ILP and 5.2y for ICI; p=0.2). On mixed effect Cox regression proportional hazard model using the matched data set, there were no significant differences in any of the survival and recurrence outcomes. Conclusions: When patients are propensity-matched, there were no significant differences in first-line treatment modalities for unresectable melanoma ITM. Treatment with TVEC did result in clinically meaningful improved overall and local PFS and OS. This supports that selection of ITM therapy should incorporate an individualized approach, incorporating disease distribution, stage, burden, treatment side effects and patient priorities.

9535 Background: MUM carries a poor prognosis with few effective treatments, especially for HLA-A*02:01-negative pts. While a subset of MUM pts responds to immune checkpoint inhibitors, the comparative efficacy of IPI+PD1 versus PD1 monotherapy is unclear. This study compares objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety between these regimens in MUM. Methods: MUM pts treated with PD1 or IPI+PD1 at 15 major melanoma centres (from Australia, Europe, United States and Israel) were included. Demographics, patient and disease characteristics, and clinical outcomes were examined. Univariate and multivariate (MVA) analyses were performed to identify clinical predictors of response and survival. Results: Of 412 MUM pts treated, 150 (36%) had PD1 and 262 (64%) received PD1+IPI. Compared to the PD1 group, PD1+IPI-treated pts were younger (64 vs. 70 years; p<0.001), had higher rate of elevated LDH (44% vs. 31%; p=0.037), and more frequently had prior treatment with tebentafusp (6.5% vs. 1.3%; p=0.031). Median follow-up from commencement of PD1+/-IPI was 4.9 years (95% CI 4.7 – 6.1). ORR was higher in IPI+PD1 group (18%) vs. PD1 (9%) (p=0.008), particularly in males (p=0.009), patients with liver metastases (p=0.018) and with lung metastases (p=0.011), with elevated LDH (p=0.047) and with no prior treatment with tebentafusp (p=0.007). PFS and OS at 1 and 2 years were numerically higher with IPI+PD1 (1- and 2-year PFS: 23% and 15%; 1- and 2-year OS: 63% and 39%) vs. PD1 (1- and 2-year PFS: 17% and 11%; 1- and 2-year OS: 54% and 36%), but these differences were not statistically significant (p>0.05). On MVA, adjusting for predefined variables (age, gender, ECOG PS, LDH, presence/absence of liver/lung metastases, prior treatment with tebentafusp), IPI+PD1 was associated with higher ORR (OR 2.71, 1.30 – 6.05; p=0.01) but not with PFS or OS compared to PD1. Presence of liver metastases (ORR [OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.13 - 0.64], PFS [HR 1.61; 95% CI 1.11 - 2.34], OS [HR 2.02; 95% CI 1.32 - 3.10]), ECOG PS≥2 (PFS [HR 1.82; 95% CI 1.07 - 3.10], OS [HR 2.24; 95% CI 1.25-4.01]), elevated LDH (PFS [HR 1.66; 95% CI 1.30 - 2.11], OS [HR 2.39; 95% CI 1.84-3.10]) and prior tebentafusp treatment (OS [HR 2.36; 95% CI 1.21-4.59]) were also independent predictors of response and/or survival. A higher percentage of pts experienced grade ≥3 immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in the IPI+PD1 group compared to the PD1 group (34% vs 13%, p<0.0001). Most pts ceased treatment due to progression (234, 57%), and more pts stopped due to toxicity in the IPI+PD1 vs. PD1 group (25% vs. 9%, p<0.0001). Conclusions: In pts with MUM, IPI+PD1 demonstrated a higher ORR but did not improve survival compared with PD1 alone. IPI+PD1 was more toxic, leading to early treatment discontinuation in one-quarter of pts. These findings may help guide treatment selection in MUM.