Ma, Vincent The-Luc

9567 Background: Resected stage IIB/C and microscopic stage IIIA/B/C/D melanoma presents a significant risk of recurrence risk of 37 to 62% at 5 years (yrs). While 1 year of adjuvant PD1 therapy reduces this risk by approximately half, the individual patient’s baseline risk without treatment and their specific benefit from adjuvant PD1 remain unknown. We aimed to generate two separate predictive models for recurrence – one for untreated and one for treated pts - to calculate the individualised benefit of adjuvant PD1. Methods: Pts with resected stage IIB/C or microscopic stage IIIA/B/C/D melanoma, either treated with adjuvant PD1 or untreated at 13 major melanoma centres, and with at least 2 years of follow-up from surgery were included. We analysed pts demographics, disease characteristics, blood parameters, pathological and imaging data at baseline, and clinical outcomes. Propensity scores were estimated using logistic regression with covariates associated with treatment in univariate screening (p<0.05). Separate penalised multivariable logistic regression models were built to predict recurrence for treated and untreated pts. A tool based on these models was created to calculate the individual patient benefit from adjuvant PD1. Results: A total of 3560 pts was included, divided into untreated (discovery n=2384 and validation n=597) and treated (discovery n=404 and validation n=175) cohorts. The model for untreated pts included age, gender, primary site, histological subtype, Breslow thickness, ulceration, mitosis, number and site of regional lymph nodes (LN), mutation status and LDH (AUC 0.70 in discovery, 0.69 in validation). The model for treated pts included age, gender, Breslow thickness, site of regional LN, and mutation status (AUC 0.69 in discovery, 0.61 in validation). ADAPT-M (ADjuvant Anti-PD-1 Tool for Melanoma) calculates the individualized benefit of adjuvant PD1. For example, patient A, a woman ≤45 years old with a primary head & neck melanoma (superficial spreading, thickness >1-2 mm, no ulceration, 1 mitosis/mm 2 ), 2 clinically occult LN metastases in the neck, NRAS mutant, and normal LDH, has a 12-month recurrence risk of 21.9% untreated vs 2.3% treated (benefit 19.6%), and a 24-month risk of 41.1% untreated vs 6.4% treated (benefit 34.7%). While, patient B, a man ≤45 years old with a primary melanoma in the lower limb (nodular, thickness >1-2 mm, no ulceration, 1 mitosis/mm 2 ), 2 clinically occult LN metastases in the groin, BRAF V600 mutant, and normal LDH, has a 12-month recurrence risk of 14.2% untreated vs 11.8% treated (benefit 2.5%), and a 24-month risk of 28.0% untreated vs 30.1% treated (no benefit). Conclusions: ADAPT-M, a clinical tool that estimate individualized recurrence risks with and without adjuvant anti-PD1 therapy, quantifies the absolute benefit of treatment for pts with high-risk resected melanoma, facilitating personalized adjuvant therapy decisions.

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.

4013 Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is driven predominantly by oncogenic KRAS signaling, yet prior attempts to target the MAPK pathway have been limited by toxicity and emergence of resistance. Atebimetinib is a next-generation, deep cyclic inhibitor (DCI) of MEK designed to achieve pulsatile pathway inhibition with improved tolerability. We report a Phase 2a cohort evaluating atebimetinib in combination with modified gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (mGnP) in the first-line treatment of advanced or metastatic PDAC (NCT05585320). Methods: In this multicenter, open-label, nonrandomized Phase 2a study, patients with previously untreated advanced or metastatic PDAC were eligible for participation and were treated with orally administered atebimetinib daily in combination with mGnP (modification: every other week dosing). The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) per investigator assessment using RECIST 1.1 criteria in response-evaluable patients. The cohort was powered (~80%, one sided alpha 0.05) using an optimal Simon’s 2-stage design. Results: Fifty-five patients were enrolled and treated with 320 mg atebimetinib daily + mGnP. ECOG performance status was 0-1 (100%); median age was 68 years (range 42-85 years), 62% were ≥65 years, and 55% were male. No grade 5 treatment-related adverse events (AE) were observed. No AE related to atebimetinib were higher than grade 3. Grade 3 AE related to atebimetinib occurred in 29% of participants, with the most frequent being rash (5%), ALT increased (5%), and AST increased (5%). Among the 50 response-evaluable patients, best overall response (BOR) achieved were 21 PR, 21 SD, 7 PD, 1 NE. The ORR was 42%, and DCR was 84%. With a median follow-up of 10.4 months (data cutoff Jan 7, 2026), 6- and 9-month OS rates were 88% and 79%, respectively; median PFS was 8.3 months and median OS was not reached. Conclusions: Atebimetinib in combination with mGnP demonstrated favorable safety and promising efficacy compared to historic standard-of-care (SoC) GnP. 1 A phase 3 registrational trial is planned to start in mid-2026 for evaluation of atebimetinib + mGnP versus SoC GnP. 1. Von Hoff DD, Ervin T, Arena FP, et al. Increased survival in pancreatic cancer with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine. N Engl J Med . 2013;369(18):1691-1703. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1304369 (PMID: 24131140). Clinical trial information: NCT05585320 .

9578 Background: Anti-PD1 immunotherapy has shown improved clinical outcomes in patients (pts) with advanced cSCC, and recently, in the neoadjuvant setting for resectable disease. Pathological (path) response is predictive of recurrence in melanoma and recent NeoIT trials suggests the same in cSCC; however, an analysis of clinical outcomes in pts with resectable cSCC treated with intended anti-PD1-based NeoIT in larger datasets remains unknown. Methods: Pts with resectable cSCC treated with intended anti-PD1-based NeoIT from 17 cancer centres globally were included. Baseline patient and disease characteristics, treatment regimen, path response and recurrence-free survival (RFS) or progression-free survival (PFS) were collected and examined. Results: 134 pts with resectable cSCC were treated with intended anti-PD1-based NeoIT. Median age was 75 years old (range, 39-97), 72% (n=97) were male. One fifth (22%, n=29) were immunocompromised and 43% (n=58) had ECOG PS of ≥1. Of 125 (93%) pts with known primary cSCC, 82% (n=102) were from the head & neck. Most pts (79%, n=106) were stage III/IV. The majority had anti-PD1 monotherapy (91%, n=122) and 9% (n=12) had anti-PD1+/-investigational agent. Median follow-up from commencement of NeoIT was 10 months (95% CI, 9 - 12). Nearly half of the pts (49%, n=66) underwent surgery; 37 (56%) pts had major pathological response (MPR; ≤10% viable tumour cells at the surgical specimen; 31 [47%] had complete path response [0% of viable tumour cells] and 6 [9%] had near complete path response [1-10% of viable tumour cells]), 6 (9%) had partial path response (pPR; >10% and ≤50% of viable tumour cells), and 23 (35%) had path non-response (pNR; >50% of viable tumour cells). Of the 66 pts who underwent surgery, 11% (n=7) had recurrence (5 loco-regional and 2 distant recurrence), all non-MPR pts (1 pPR and 6 pNR). 12-months RFS was improved with MPR vs non-MPR (100% vs 79%, p=0.004). 52% (n=34) pts had adjuvant treatment (23 anti-PD1 alone, 7 anti-PD1+/-investigational agent, 2 platinum and 2 cetuximab). Within non-MPR pts, 12 had adjuvant treatment (3 recurred; 25%), while 17 did not have adjuvant treatment (4 recurred; 24%). Fifty-one percent (n=68) of pts did not have surgery; 9 (13%) due to progressive disease (PD) and 53 (78%) due to clinical response. Of the 53 pts with a clinical response, 5 (9%) subsequently progressed. Fourteen (10%) pts have died, 6 (4%) related to cSCC; 2 had surgery (non-MPR) and 4 did not have surgery (all due to PD). Conclusions: Anti-PD1-based NeoIT is an active regimen in resectable stage II-IV cSCC and is associated with high clinical response and MPR rates. No pts with MPR from NeoIT has recurred to date, however, 9% of pts who did not have surgery due to clinical response eventually progressed. These findings highlight the importance of further research to investigate the role of surgery in this subgroup of patients.