Citations

9524 Background: Unresectable melanoma in-transit metastases (ITM) can pose a significant clinical challenge. Our recently published data comparing first-line treatments for ITM, isolated limb infusion or perfusion (ILI/ILP), immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and intralesional talimogene laherparepvec (TVEC), found superior outcomes with TVEC. However, TVEC was used more often in patients with lower disease burden and earlier stage (IIIB vs. IIIC/D). Therefore, we sought to better investigate these differences with a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis. Methods: A multi-institutional, international IRB- approved retrospective analysis was conducted for unresectable melanoma ITM from 2016-2022. PSM analysis comparing first-line ILI/ILP, ICI, and TVEC for was performed. Patients were matched for stage, number of ITM, anatomical site, CLND status, gender and age. Kaplan-Meier curves (OS, PFS, DMFS) and Cumulative incidence function (MSS) were used to visualize time-to-event outcomes in the PSM cohort, though both methods do not account for the matched structure. Results: 274 patients were identified, 120 female/154 male; 96 treated with ILI/ILP, 111 with ICI, and 67 with TVEC. Median follow-up was 40 months (range, 1-80). PSM was performed and identified 36 TVEC–ICI pairs and 27 TVEC–ILI pairs. These were combined resulting in a final cohort of 108 observations (45 TVEC, 36 ICI and 27 ILI). The groups were well balanced. No statistical difference was found for metastasis-free survival (DMFS), progression-free survival (PFS), melanoma-specific survival (MSS), and overall survival (OS) between treatment modalities. TVEC was associated with significant improvement in local PFS (median was 2.2 years (y) for ILI/ILP, 1.5y for ICI and not reached for TVEC, p=0.048). While not statistically significant, a clinical benefit was seen in PFS being longer for TVEC (2.1y for TVEC vs. 1.2y for ILI/ILP and 1.1y for ICI; p=0.2) and OS (not reached vs 2.9y for ILI/ILP and 5.2y for ICI; p=0.2). On mixed effect Cox regression proportional hazard model using the matched data set, there were no significant differences in any of the survival and recurrence outcomes. Conclusions: When patients are propensity-matched, there were no significant differences in first-line treatment modalities for unresectable melanoma ITM. Treatment with TVEC did result in clinically meaningful improved overall and local PFS and OS. This supports that selection of ITM therapy should incorporate an individualized approach, incorporating disease distribution, stage, burden, treatment side effects and patient priorities.

Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) is a rare cutaneous soft tissue sarcoma and affects an estimated 1,500 people annually in the United States. DFSP frequently exhibits extensive local infiltration. Initial treatment is through surgical excision, and care should be taken to ensure that negative margins are achieved to minimize recurrence. Although DFSP has a reported high rate of recurrence, metastasis is more uncommon. Fibrosarcomatous DFSP is an aggressive variant with an increased risk for local recurrence and metastasis. If achieving negative margins or resection is not feasible, radiation therapy or systemic treatment are options that may be considered by a multidisciplinary team. The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) outline recommended treatment options available for DFSP.

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.

The NCCN Guidelines for Merkel Cell Carcinoma (MCC) provide recommendations for diagnostic workup, clinical stage, and treatment options for patients. The panel meets annually to discuss updates to the guidelines based on comments from expert review from panel members, institutional review, as well as submissions from within NCCN and external organizations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the introduction of a new page for locally advanced disease in the setting of clinical node negative status, entitled “Clinical N0 Disease, Locally Advanced MCC.” This new algorithm page addresses locally advanced disease, and the panel clarifies the meaning behind the term “nonsurgical” by further defining locally advanced disease. In addition, the guideline includes the management of in-transit disease and updates to the systemic therapy options.

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common form of skin cancer in the United States. Due to the high frequency, BCC occurrences are not typically recorded, and annual rates of incidence can only be estimated. Current estimated rates are 2 million Americans affected annually, and this continues to rise. Exposure to radiation, from either sunlight or previous medical therapy, is a key player in BCC development. BCC is not as aggressive as other skin cancers because it is less likely to metastasize. However, surgery and radiation are prevalent treatment options, therefore disfigurement and limitation of function are significant considerations. The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) outline an updated risk stratification and treatment options available for BCC.

LBA2 Background: Radiation with sensitizing fluoropyrimidine (5FUCRT) is a standard curative intent treatment for LARC. It improves disease-free survival (DFS) by decreasing pelvic recurrence but has short- and long-term toxicity. The PROSPECT trial compares FOLFOX chemotherapy with selective use of 5FUCRT (intervention) to 5FUCRT (control) for neoadjuvant treatment prior to TME for LARC. Methods: Eligible patients (pts) had cT2N+, cT3N-, cT3N+ rectal cancers deemed appropriate for neoadjuvant therapy prior to low anterior resection with TME. Pts with distal, T4 tumors, threatened radial margins or > 4 enlarged lymph nodes were ineligible. Pts were randomized 1:1 without blinding. Pts in the control group received 5FUCRT with 5040 cGy over 5.5 weeks with either capecitabine or 5FU. Pts in the intervention group had 6 cycles of mFOLFOX6 followed by restaging. If tumor regression was > 20%, then TME was performed without radiation; if < 20%, 5FUCRT was given before TME. DFS was the 1°outcome, defined as time from randomization to any recurrence or death, analyzed in the per-protocol population. One interim analysis was conducted with α spending = 0.001. Noninferiority (NI) of the intervention could be claimed if the upper limit of the 2-sided 90.2% confidence interval (CI) of the DFS hazard ratio did not exceed 1.29 (NI margin). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), local recurrence free survival, R0 resection, pathologic complete response (CR), and toxicity. Results: From June 2012 to December 2018, 1194, pts were randomized and 1128 initiated protocol-assigned treatment. Median age was 57, 34.5% were women and 61.9% had clinically positive nodes. 53 of 585 pts in the intervention group (9%) received preop 5FUCRT. DFS was analyzed after 227 events and median follow-up of 58 months. Conclusions: FOLFOX chemotherapy with selective use of 5FUCRT is non-inferior to 5FUCRT for neoadjuvant treatment of LARC prior to low anterior resection with TME. Patients and physicians have alternative strategies for management of LARC. Clinical trial information: NCT01515787 . [Table: see text]

PURPOSE The standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer in North America is neoadjuvant pelvic chemoradiation with fluorouracil (5FUCRT). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) is an alternative that may spare patients the morbidity of radiation. Understanding the relative patient experiences with these options is necessary to inform treatment decisions. METHODS PROSPECT was a multicenter, unblinded, noninferiority, randomized trial of neoadjuvant FOLFOX versus 5FUCRT, which enrolled adults with rectal cancer clinically staged as T2N+, cT3N–, or cT3N+ who were candidates for sphincter-sparing surgery. Neoadjuvant FOLFOX was given in six cycles over 12 weeks, followed by surgery. Neoadjuvant 5FUCRT was delivered in 28 fractions over 5.5 weeks, followed by surgery. Adjuvant chemotherapy was suggested but not mandated in both groups. Enrolled patients were asked to provide patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at baseline, during neoadjuvant treatment, and at 12 months after surgery. PROs included 14 symptoms from the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Additional PRO instruments measured bowel, bladder, sexual function, and health-related quality of life (HRQL). RESULTS From June 2012 to December 2018, 1,194 patients were randomly assigned, 1,128 initiated treatment, and 940 contributed PRO-CTCAE data (493 FOLFOX; 447 5FUCRT). During neoadjuvant treatment, patients reported significantly lower rates of diarrhea and better overall bowel function with FOLFOX while anxiety, appetite loss, constipation, depression, dysphagia, dyspnea, edema, fatigue, mucositis, nausea, neuropathy, and vomiting were lower with 5FUCRT (all multiplicity adjusted P < .05). At 12 months after surgery, patients randomly assigned to FOLFOX reported significantly lower rates of fatigue and neuropathy and better sexual function versus 5FUCRT (all multiplicity adjusted P < .05). Neither bladder function nor HRQL differed between groups at any time point. CONCLUSION For patients with locally advanced rectal cancer choosing between neoadjuvant FOLFOX and 5FUCRT, the distinctive PRO profiles inform treatment selection and shared decision making.

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.