Hui, Jane Yuet Ching

Background Neoadjuvant treatment has become standard for patients with high-risk operable stage III melanoma, but the optimal regimen is unknown. Targeted therapy approaches yield high pathological response rates, while immunotherapy regimens show favorable recurrence-free survival (RFS). NeoACTIVATE was designed to address whether a neoadjuvant combination of both targeted therapy and immunotherapy might leverage the benefits of each. Methods We tested neoadjuvant treatment with 12 weeks of vemurafenib, cobimetinib, and atezolizumab for patients with BRAF-mutated (BRAFm) melanoma (cohort A) and cobimetinib and atezolizumab for patients with BRAF-wild-type (BRAFwt) melanoma (cohort B), regimens which we have shown generate a substantial major pathological response. After therapeutic lymph node dissection, patients received 24 weeks of adjuvant atezolizumab. Here, we report survival outcomes and their association with biomarkers assayed among the gut microbiome and peripheral blood immune subsets. Results With 49 months median follow-up, the median RFS was not reached for cohort A and was 40.8 months for cohort B. At 24 months after operation, 2 of 14 cohort A patients and 4 of 13 cohort B patients had experienced distant relapse. Key findings from correlative analyses included diversity, taxonomic and functional metagenomic gut microbiome signals associated with distant metastasis-free survival at 2 years. Notably, we observed a strong correlation between low microbial arginine biosynthesis (required for T-cell activation and effector function) and early distant recurrence (p=0.0005), which correlated with taxonomic differential abundance findings. Peripheral blood immune monitoring revealed increased double-positive (CD4+CD8+) T cells in patients with early recurrence. Conclusions Neoadjuvant treatment with cobimetinib and atezolizumab±vemurafenib was associated with a low rate of distant metastasis in patients with high-risk stage III melanoma. Freedom from early distant metastasis was highly associated with taxonomic differences in gut microbiome structure and with functional pathway alterations known to modulate T cell immunity. Identification of predictive biomarkers will permit optimization of neoadjuvant therapy regimens for individual patients. Trial registration number NCT03554083.

AbstractBackgroundIsolated limb infusion and perfusion (ILI/ILP) has been a mainstay treatment for unresectable melanoma in‐transit metastases (ITM), but increased use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and intralesional therapy (talimogene laherparepvec [TVEC]) introduced several different management options. This study compares first‐line ILI/ILP, ICI, and TVEC.MethodsRetrospective review from 12 international institutions included patients treated from 1990 to 2022 with first‐line ILI/ILP, ICI, or TVEC for unresectable melanoma ITM.ResultsA total of 551 patients were treated, with ILI/ILP (n = 356), ICI (n = 125), and TVEC (n = 70) with median follow‐up of 5.5 years. Tumor burden was highest with ILI/ILP and lowest with TVEC (p = .002). Breslow thickness was lowest with TVEC (p = .007). TVEC was mostly used in stage IIIB disease versus IIIC for ILI/ILP and ICI (p = .01). Using ICI as the reference category, TVEC had the highest odds of a complete response (CR) (odds ratio, 1.96; p = .029) and a longer local progression‐free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.40; p = .003). ILI/ILP had shorter local PFS (HR, 1.72; p = .012), PFS (HR, 1.79; p < .001), distant metastasis‐free survival (DMFS) (HR, 1.75; p = .014), overall survival (HR, 1.82; p = .009), and melanoma‐specific survival (HR, 2.29; p = .004). Stage IIIB disease had longer DMFS (HR, 0.24; p < .001) compared to IIIC/D.ConclusionsTVEC as first‐line therapy for unresectable melanoma ITM was associated with superior CR rates and local PFS. Notably, TVEC was used in patients with a lower Breslow thickness, disease stage, and tumor burden. Therefore, when compared to ILI/ILP and ICI, TVEC should be considered as first‐line therapy for unresectable stage IIIB melanoma ITM with minimal tumor burden and lower Breslow thickness.

Until recently, most patients with sentinel lymph node-positive (SLN+) melanoma underwent a completion lymph node dissection (CLND), as mandated in published trials of adjuvant systemic therapies. Following multicenter selective lymphadenectomy trial-II, most patients with SLN+ melanoma no longer undergo a CLND prior to adjuvant systemic therapy. A retrospective analysis of clinical outcomes in SLN+ melanoma patients treated with adjuvant systemic therapy after July 2017 was performed in 21 international cancer centers. Of 462 patients who received systemic adjuvant therapy, 326 patients received adjuvant anti-PD-1 without prior immediate (IM) CLND, while 60 underwent IM CLND. With median follow-up of 21 months, 24-month relapse-free survival (RFS) was 67% (95% CI 62% to 73%) in the 326 patients. When the patient subgroups who would have been eligible for the two adjuvant anti-PD-1 clinical trials mandating IM CLND were analyzed separately, 24-month RFS rates were 64%, very similar to the RFS rates from those studies. Of these no-CLND patients, those with SLN tumor deposit >1 mm, stage IIIC/D and ulcerated primary had worse RFS. Of the patients who relapsed on adjuvant anti-PD-1, those without IM CLND had a higher rate of relapse in the regional nodal basin than those with IM CLND (46% vs 11%). Therefore, 55% of patients who relapsed without prior CLND underwent surgery including therapeutic lymph node dissection (TLND), with 30% relapsing a second time; there was no difference in subsequent relapse between patients who received observation vs secondary adjuvant therapy. Despite the increased frequency of nodal relapses, adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy may be as effective in SLN+ pts who forego IM CLND and salvage surgery with TLND at relapse may be a viable option for these patients.

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine overall trends and center-level variation in utilization of completion lymph node dissection (CLND) and adjuvant systemic therapy for sentinel lymph node (SLN)-positive melanoma. Summary Background Data: Based on recent clinical trials, management options for SLN-positive melanoma now include effective adjuvant systemic therapy and nodal observation instead of CLND. It is unknown how these findings have shaped practice or how these contemporaneous developments have influenced their respective utilization. Methods: We performed an international cohort study at 21 melanoma referral centers in Australia, Europe, and the United States that treated adults with SLN-positive melanoma and negative distant staging from July 2017 to June 2019. We used generalized linear and multinomial logistic regression models with random intercepts for each center to assess center-level variation in CLND and adjuvant systemic treatment, adjusting for patient and disease-specific characteristics. Results: Among 1109 patients, performance of CLND decreased from 28% to 8% and adjuvant systemic therapy use increased from 29 to 60%. For both CLND and adjuvant systemic treatment, the most influential factors were nodal tumor size, stage, and location of treating center. There was notable variation among treating centers in management of stage IIIA patients and use of CLND with adjuvant systemic therapy versus nodal observation alone for similar risk patients. Conclusions: There has been an overall decline in CLND and simultaneous adoption of adjuvant systemic therapy for patients with SLN-positive melanoma though wide variation in practice remains. Accounting for differences in patient mix, location of care contributed significantly to the observed variation.

BackgroundFor patients with sentinel lymph node (SLN)‐positive cutaneous melanoma, the Second Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy trial demonstrated equivalent disease‐specific survival (DSS) with active surveillance using nodal ultrasound versus completion lymph node dissection (CLND). Adoption and outcomes of active surveillance in clinical practice and in adjuvant therapy recipients are unknown.MethodsIn a retrospective cohort of SLN‐positive adults treated at 21 institutions in Australia, Europe, and the United States from June 2017 to November 2019, the authors evaluated the impact of active surveillance and adjuvant therapy on all‐site recurrence‐free survival (RFS), isolated nodal RFS, distant metastasis‐free survival (DMFS), and DSS using Kaplan‐Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard models.ResultsAmong 6347 SLN biopsies, 1154 (18%) were positive and had initial negative distant staging. In total, 965 patients (84%) received active surveillance, 189 (16%) underwent CLND. Four hundred thirty‐nine patients received adjuvant therapy (surveillance, 38%; CLND, 39%), with the majority (83%) receiving anti–PD‐1 immunotherapy. After a median follow‐up of 11 months, 220 patients developed recurrent disease (surveillance, 19%; CLND, 22%), and 24 died of melanoma (surveillance, 2%; CLND, 4%). Sixty‐eight patients had an isolated nodal recurrence (surveillance, 6%; CLND, 4%). In patients who received adjuvant treatment without undergoing prior CLND, all isolated nodal recurrences were resectable. On risk‐adjusted multivariable analyses, CLND was associated with improved isolated nodal RFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.36; 95% CI, 0.15‐0.88), but not all‐site RFS (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.45‐1.02). Adjuvant therapy improved all‐site RFS (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.47‐0.57). DSS and DMFS did not differ by nodal management or adjuvant treatment.ConclusionsActive surveillance has been adopted for most SLN‐positive patients. At initial assessment, real‐world outcomes align with randomized trial findings, including in adjuvant therapy recipients.Lay Summary For patients with melanoma of the skin and microscopic spread to lymph nodes, monitoring with ultrasound is an alternative to surgically removing the remaining lymph nodes. The authors studied adoption and real‐world outcomes of ultrasound monitoring in over 1000 patients treated at 21 centers worldwide, finding that most patients now have ultrasounds instead of surgery. Although slightly more patients have cancer return in the lymph nodes with this strategy, typically, it can be removed with delayed surgery. Compared with up‐front surgery, ultrasound monitoring results in the same overall risk of melanoma coming back at any location or of dying from melanoma.