Bar, Anna

BACKGROUND The use of Mohs micrographic surgery as a treatment for melanoma is rising, but the reliability of Mohs surgeons in assessing MART-1 melanoma en-face margins has not been evaluated. OBJECTIVE To evaluate interrater and intrarater reliability of Mohs surgeons in interpreting margins of early-stage melanoma. METHODS Twenty Mohs surgeons were asked to independently review images of frozen section MART-1 en-face peripheral margins of in situ or early-stage melanoma. Surgeons determined margins as positive or negative at initial evaluation and 6 weeks later. Primary outcomes were interrater and intrarater reliability. RESULTS Interrater agreement was 84.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 75.5%–92.8%) for assessment 1 and 87.5% (95% CI: 78.4%–96.4%) for assessment 2, with kappa values 0.68 (95% CI: 0.50–0.82) and 0.75 (95% CI: 0.57–0.88). Average intrarater percent agreement was 95.0% (95% CI: 70.6%–100.0%) with average kappa 0.90 (95% CI: 0.50–1.00). CONCLUSION Substantial interrater and nearly perfect intrarater agreement was identified among surgeons assessing melanoma margins utilizing MART-1 immunostaining, demonstrating consistent and reproducible assessment of melanoma margins during Mohs cases.

Background: Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is a promising treatment modality for melanoma in situ (MIS). However, variations in surgical technique limit the generalizability of existing data and may impede future study of MMS in clinical trials. Methods: A modified Delphi method was selected to establish consensus on optimal MMS techniques for treating MIS in future clinical trials. The Delphi method was selected due to the limited current data, the wide range of techniques used in the field, and the intention to establish a standardized technique for future clinical trials. A literature review and interviews with experienced MMS surgeons were performed to identify dimensions of the MMS technique for MIS that (1) likely impacted costs or outcomes of the procedure, and (2) showed significant variability between surgeons. A total of 8 dimensions of technical variation were selected. The Delphi process consisted of 2 rounds of voting and commentary, during which 44 expert Mohs surgeons across the United States rated their agreement with specific recommendations using a Likert scale. Results: Five of eight recommendations achieved consensus in Round 1. All 3 of the remaining recommendations achieved consensus in Round 2. Techniques achieving consensus in Round 1 included the use of a starting peripheral margin of ≤5 mm, application of immunohistochemistry, frozen tissue processing, and resecting to the depth of subcutaneous fat. Consensus on the use of Wood’s lamp, dermatoscope, and negative tissue controls was established in Round 2. Conclusions: This study generated 8 consensus recommendations intended to offer guidance for Mohs surgeons treating MIS. The adoption of these recommendations will promote standardization to facilitate comparisons of aggregate data in multicenter clinical trials.

BACKGROUND Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) for cutaneous melanoma is becoming more prevalent, but surgical technique varies. OBJECTIVE To define variations in published techniques for MMS for melanoma. METHODS AND MATERIALS A systematic review was performed of PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases to identify all articles describing surgical techniques for MMS for melanoma. Technical details were recorded for the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phases of MMS. RESULTS Twenty-four articles were included. Mohs surgeons vary in how they assess clinical margins, how wide a margin they excise on the first MMS layer, and how they process tissue to determine tumor stage and margin clearance during MMS for melanoma. CONCLUSION Mohs micrographic surgery for melanoma is performed with varied surgical techniques. To establish best practices, additional research is necessary to determine how different techniques affect outcomes.

Background Most patients with advanced melanomas relapse after checkpoint blockade therapy. Thus, immunotherapies are needed that can be applied safely early, in the adjuvant setting. Seviprotimut-L is a vaccine containing human melanoma antigens, plus alum. To assess the efficacy of seviprotimut-L, the Melanoma Antigen Vaccine Immunotherapy Study (MAVIS) was initiated as a three-part multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial. Results from part B1 are reported here. Methods Patients with AJCC V.7 stage IIB-III cutaneous melanoma after resection were randomized 2:1, with stage stratification (IIB/C, IIIA, IIIB/C), to seviprotimut-L 40 mcg or placebo. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) was the primary endpoint. For an hypothesized HR of 0.625, one-sided alpha of 0.10, and power 80%, target enrollment was 325 patients. Results For randomized patients (n=347), arms were well-balanced, and treatment-emergent adverse events were similar for seviprotimut-L and placebo. For the primary intent-to-treat endpoint of RFS, the estimated HR was 0.881 (95% CI: 0.629 to 1.233), with stratified logrank p=0.46. However, estimated HRs were not uniform over the stage randomized strata, with HRs (95% CIs) for stages IIB/IIC, IIIA, IIIB/IIIC of 0.67 (95% CI: 0.37 to 1.19), 0.72 (95% CI: 0.35 to 1.50), and 1.19 (95% CI: 0.72 to 1.97), respectively. In the stage IIB/IIC stratum, the effect on RFS was greatest for patients <60 years old (HR=0.324 (95% CI: 0.121 to 0.864)) and those with ulcerated primary melanomas (HR=0.493 (95% CI: 0.255 to 0.952)). Conclusions Seviprotimut-L is very well tolerated. Exploratory efficacy model estimation supports further study in stage IIB/IIC patients, especially younger patients and those with ulcerated melanomas. Trial registration number NCT01546571.

10017 Background: Seviprotimut-L is a vaccine prepared from antigens of 3 human melanoma cell lines, administered with alum. Prior formulations induced T cell and antibody responses and improved survival in a small phase II clinical trial. Part B1 of MAVIS (Melanoma Antigen Vaccine Immunotherapy Study, a three part, Phase III clinical program), was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess efficacy of seviprotimut-L, with the primary endpoint of relapse-free survival (RFS). The goal of Part B1 was to guide design of the pivotal Part B2. Methods: Patients with AJCC v7 stage IIB-III cutaneous melanoma, after surgical resection, age 18-75, ECOG PS 0-1, were randomized 2:1 to seviprotimut-L 40 mcg or placebo, injected subcutaneously every 2 weeks x 5, then monthly x 4, then every 3 months x 9. Patients were stratified by stage (IIB/C, IIIA, IIIB/C). Target enrollment was 325. The study was powered for assessment of RFS, with target hazard ratio (HR) of 0.625, one-sided alpha of 0.10, and power 80%. Final data are presented. Results: 347 patients were randomized. Arms were well-balanced. Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) led to discontinuation in 0.4% and 0%, respectively, for vaccine and placebo arms. There were no treatment-related SAEs. By intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis, RFS was not significantly longer for seviprotimut-L in the full study population but trended toward benefit (HR 0.88). Subgroup analysis based on planned stratification revealed the hazard ratio (HR) for the Stage IIB/IIC subset (randomization stratum, n=111) to be 0.65 (95% CI [0.37, 1.17]), favoring seviprotimut-L. Age can decrease immune competence: RFS was longer with vaccine for patients age <60 overall (N = 191, HR = 0.64 [0.38, 1.08]) and among Stage IIB/C patients (N = 52, HR = 0.32 [0.12, 0.86]). The effect modification interaction p value for age for stage IIB/IIC patients was 0.056. In a multivariable RFS model, for IIB/IIC patients <60 with ulceration (n=38), HR = 0.209 [0.07,0.61]. For overall survival, for patients < 60, HR = 0.41 [0.33,1.14] (n=191, 19 deaths) and for those ≥60, HR = 0.92 [0.39,2.12] (n = 156, 24 deaths). Conclusions: Seviprotimut-L is very well-tolerated. Subgroup efficacy analyses identified populations who may benefit from Seviprotimut-L: those with Stage IIB/IIC melanoma and those under age 60. These data support design of the definitive part B2 of the MAVIS phase III trial to test seviprotimut-L for stage IIB/C patients, with stratification by age and ulceration. Clinical trial information: NCT01546571.