Heinzerling, Lucie

Novel systemic anticancer therapies, including immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), bispecific antibodies, and next-generation targeted agents, have improved survival, expanded into earlier disease settings, and created a growing population of long-term survivors. However, these therapies introduce toxicity profiles that differ substantially from those of traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy, including differences in organs affected, timing of onset, management strategies, and long-term sequelae. Tailored approaches to monitoring, diagnosis, and treatment are therefore required, along with stronger evidence to guide strategies that reduce morbidity and mortality while maintaining antitumor efficacy. Importantly, patients' lived experiences of toxicity often do not align with clinician-graded Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events classifications. Nonobservable symptoms, daily functioning, and quality of life must also be taken into account. Here, ocular and cutaneous adverse events are used as illustrative examples of how toxicities that may appear mild can become unacceptable when they impair function, quality of life, or treatment sustainability. Interdisciplinary collaboration between oncologists and organ specialists is essential for optimal recognition and management. At the same time, the evidence base for toxicity risk and management must continue to evolve through registries such as Side Effect Registry Immuno-Oncology and prospective comparative studies. Better tailored treatment strategies, particularly for immune-related adverse events, are needed to preserve both tumor response and organ function while reducing reliance on corticosteroids and broad immunosuppression. Although these therapies are highly effective, their risks must be better understood and managed to maximize patient benefit.

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.