Ross, Merrick I.

The NCCN Guidelines for Cutaneous Melanoma (termed Melanoma: Cutaneous ) provide multidisciplinary recommendations for diagnostic workup, staging, and treatment of patients. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the update to neoadjuvant systemic therapy options and summarize the new clinical data evaluated by the NCCN panel for the recommended therapies in Version 2.2024 of the NCCN Guidelines for Cutaneous Melanoma.

Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) plus ipilimumab has demonstrated greater antitumor activity versus ipilimumab alone, without additional toxicity, in patients with advanced melanoma. Here, we report the 5-year outcomes from a randomized phase II study. These data provide the longest efficacy and safety follow-up for patients with melanoma treated with a combination of an oncolytic virus and a checkpoint inhibitor. Eligible patients with unresectable stage IIIB‒IV melanoma were randomized 1:1 to receive T-VEC plus ipilimumab or ipilimumab alone. T-VEC was administered intralesionally at 10 6 plaque-forming units (PFU)/mL in week 1, followed by 10 8 PFU/mL in week 4 and every 2 weeks thereafter. Ipilimumab (3 mg/kg every 3 weeks; ≤4 doses) was administered intravenously starting at week 1 in the ipilimumab arm and week 6 in the combination arm. The primary end point was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per immune-related response criteria; key secondary end points included durable response rate (DRR), duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Overall, 198 patients were randomized to receive the combination (n=98) or ipilimumab (n=100). The combination improved the ORR versus ipilimumab (35.7% vs 16.0%; OR 2.9; 95% CI 1.5 to 5.7; p=0.003). DRR was 33.7% and 13.0% (unadjusted OR 3.4; 95% CI 1.7 to 7.0; descriptive p=0.001), respectively. Among the objective responders, the median DOR was 69.2 months (95% CI 38.5 to not estimable) with the combination and was not reached with ipilimumab. Median PFS was 13.5 months with the combination and 6.4 months with ipilimumab (HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.09; descriptive p=0.14). Estimated 5-year OS was 54.7% (95% CI 43.9 to 64.2) in the combination arm and 48.4% (95% CI 37.9 to 58.1) in the ipilimumab arm. Forty-seven (48.0%) and 65 (65.0%) patients in the combination and ipilimumab arms, respectively, received subsequent therapies. No new safety signals were reported. At the 5-year follow-up, the improved response rates observed with T-VEC plus ipilimumab were durable. This is the first randomized controlled study of the combination of an oncolytic virus and a checkpoint inhibitor that meets its primary end point.Trial registration number: NCT01740297 .

Over the past few years, the NCCN Guidelines for Melanoma: Cutaneous have been expanded to include pathways for treatment of microscopic satellitosis (added in v2.2020), and the following Principles sections: Molecular Testing (added in v2.2019), Systemic Therapy Considerations (added in v2.2020), and Brain Metastases Management (added in v3.2020). The v1.2021 update included additional modifications of these sections and notable revisions to Principles of: Pathology, Surgical Margins for Wide Excision of Primary Melanoma, Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy, Completion/Therapeutic Lymph Node Dissection, and Radiation Therapy. These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss the important changes to pathology and surgery recommendations, as well as additions to systemic therapy options for patients with advanced disease.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Cutaneous melanoma have been significantly revised over the past few years in response to emerging data on immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies and BRAF-targeted therapy. This article summarizes the data and rationale supporting extensive changes to the recommendations for systemic therapy as adjuvant treatment of resected disease and as treatment of unresectable or distant metastatic disease.

Purpose We evaluated the combination of talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma in a phase II study. To our knowledge, this was the first randomized trial to evaluate addition of an oncolytic virus to a checkpoint inhibitor. Methods Patients with unresectable stages IIIB to IV melanoma, with no more than one prior therapy if BRAF wild-type, no more than two prior therapies if BRAF mutant, measurable/injectable disease, and without symptomatic autoimmunity or clinically significant immunosuppression were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab or ipilimumab alone. Talimogene laherparepvec treatment began in week 1 (first dose, ≤ 4 mL × 10 6 plaque-forming units/mL; after 3 weeks, ≤ 4 mL × 10 8 plaque-forming units/mL every 2 weeks). Ipilimumab (3 mg/kg every 3 weeks; up to four doses) began week 1 in the ipilimumab alone arm and week 6 in the combination arm. The primary end point was objective response rate evaluated by investigators per immune-related response criteria. Results One hundred ninety-eight patients were randomly assigned to talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab (n = 98), or ipilimumab alone (n = 100). Thirty-eight patients (39%) in the combination arm and 18 patients (18%) in the ipilimumab arm had an objective response (odds ratio, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.5 to 5.5; P = .002). Responses were not limited to injected lesions; visceral lesion decreases were observed in 52% of patients in the combination arm and 23% of patients in the ipilimumab arm. Frequently occurring adverse events (AEs) included fatigue (combination, 59%; ipilimumab alone, 42%), chills (combination, 53%; ipilimumab alone, 3%), and diarrhea (combination, 42%; ipilimumab alone, 35%). Incidence of grade ≥ 3 AEs was 45% and 35%, respectively. Three patients in the combination arm had fatal AEs; none were treatment related. Conclusion The study met its primary end point; the objective response rate was significantly higher with talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone. These data indicate that the combination has greater antitumor activity without additional safety concerns versus ipilimumab.