Prognosis of Patients With Stage III Melanoma According to American Joint Committee on Cancer Version 8: A Reassessment on the Basis of 3 Independent Stage III Melanoma Cohorts

Comparison of Extended Skin Cancer Screening Using a Three-Step Advanced Imaging Programme vs. Standard-of-Care Examination in a High-Risk Melanoma Patient Cohort

Modern diagnostic procedures, such as three-dimensional total body photography (3D-TBP), digital dermoscopy (DD), and reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM), can improve melanoma diagnosis, particularly in high-risk patients. This study assessed the benefits of combining these advanced imaging techniques in a three-step programme in managing high-risk patients. This study included 410 high-risk melanoma patients who underwent a specialised imaging consultation in addition to their regular skin examinations in outpatient care. At each visit, the patients underwent a 3D-TBP, a DD for suspicious findings, and an RCM for unclear DD findings. The histological findings of excisions initiated based on imaging consultation and outpatient care were compared. Imaging consultation detected sixteen confirmed melanomas (eight invasive and eight in situ) in 39 excised pigmented lesions. Outpatient care examination detected seven confirmed melanomas (one invasive and six in situ) in 163 excised melanocytic lesions. The number needed to excise (NNE) in the imaging consultation was significantly lower than that in the outpatient care (2.4 vs. 23.3). The NNE was 2.6 for DD and 2.3 for RCM. DD, 3D-TBP, or RCM detected melanomas that were not detected by the other imaging methods. The three-step imaging programme improves melanoma detection and reduces the number of unnecessary excisions in high-risk patients.

Five-year analysis of neoadjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib for stage III melanoma

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib has a high pathological response rate and impressive short-term survival in patients with resectable stage III melanoma. We report 5-year outcomes from the phase II NeoCombi trial.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

NeoCombi (NCT01972347) was a single-arm, open-label, single-centre, phase II trial. Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed, resectable, RECIST-measurable, American Joint Committee on Cancer seventh edition clinical stage IIIB-C BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1. Patients received 52 weeks of treatment with dabrafenib 150 mg (orally twice per day) plus trametinib 2 mg (orally once per day), with complete resection of the pre-therapy tumour bed at week 12.

RESULTS

Between 20 August 2014 and 19 April 2017, 35 patients were enrolled. At data cut-off (17 August 2021), the median follow-up was 60 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 56-72 months]. Overall, 21 of 35 (60%) patients recurred, including 12 (57%) with first recurrence in locoregional sites (followed by later distant recurrence in 6) and 9 (43%) with first recurrence in distant sites, including 3 in the brain. Most recurrences occurred within 2 years, with no recurrences beyond 3 years. At 5 years, recurrence-free survival (RFS) was 40% (95% CI 27% to 60%), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) was 57% (95% CI 42% to 76%), and overall survival was 80% (95% CI 67% to 94%). Five-year survival outcomes were stratified by pathological response: RFS was 53% with pathological complete response (pCR) versus 28% with non-pCR (P = 0.087), DMFS was 59% versus 55% (P = 0.647), and overall survival was 88% versus 71% (P = 0.205), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib has high pathological response rates in clinical stage III melanoma, but low rates of RFS, similar to those achieved with adjuvant targeted therapy alone. Patients with a pCR to dabrafenib plus trametinib still had a high risk of recurrence, unlike that seen with immunotherapy where recurrences are rare.

Pembrolizumab Versus Placebo as Adjuvant Therapy in Resected Stage IIB or IIC Melanoma: Final Analysis of Distant Metastasis-Free Survival in the Phase III KEYNOTE-716 Study

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.Pembrolizumab adjuvant therapy was shown to significantly improve recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) in patients with resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma in earlier analyses of the randomized, double-blind, phase III KEYNOTE-716 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03553836). We report results of the protocol-specified final analysis of DMFS for KEYNOTE-716. Overall, 976 patients were randomly allocated to pembrolizumab (n = 487) or placebo (n = 489). As of January 4, 2023, median follow-up was 39.4 months (range, 26.0-51.4 months). The median DMFS was not reached in either treatment group, and the estimated 36-month DMFS was 84.4% for pembrolizumab and 74.7% for placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.59 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.79]). The median RFS was not reached in either treatment group, and the estimated 36-month RFS was 76.2% for pembrolizumab and 63.4% for placebo (HR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.49 to 0.79]). DMFS and RFS results were consistent across most prespecified subgroups, including stage IIB and stage IIC melanoma. The safety profile of pembrolizumab was manageable and consistent with previous reports. These results continue to support the use of pembrolizumab adjuvant therapy in patients with resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma.

Loss in life expectancy in patients with stage II-III cutaneous melanoma in Sweden: A population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Survival in cutaneous melanoma (CM) is heterogeneous. Loss in life expectancy (LLE) measures impact of CM on remaining lifespan compared to general population.

OBJECTIVES

Investigating LLE in operated stage II-III CM patients.

METHODS

Data from 8061 patients (aged 40-80 years) with stage II-III CM in Sweden, diagnosed between 2005 and 2018, were analyzed (Swedish Melanoma Registry). A flexible parametric survival model estimated life expectancy and LLE.

RESULTS

Based on 2018 diagnoses, stage II and III CM patients lost 2209 and 1902 life years, respectively. LLE was higher in stage III: 5.2 versus 10.9 years (stage II vs III 60-year-old females). Younger patients had higher LLE: 10.7 versus 3.9 years (stage II CM in 40 vs 70-year-old males). In stage II, females had lower LLE than males; 50-year-old females and males stage II CM had LLE equal to 7.3 and 8.3 years, respectively. LLE increased with higher substages, stage IIB resembling IIIB and IIC resembling IIIC-D.

LIMITATIONS

Extrapolation was used to estimate LLE. Varying stage group sizes require caution.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results are both clinically relevant and easy-to-interpret measures of the impact of CM on survival, but the results also summarize the prognosis over the lifetime of a CM patient.

Adjuvant PD-1 Checkpoint Inhibition in Early Cutaneous Melanoma: Immunological Mode of Action and the Role of Ultraviolet Radiation

Melanoma ranks as the fifth most common solid cancer in adults worldwide and is responsible for a significant proportion of skin-tumor-related deaths. The advent of immune checkpoint inhibition with anti-programmed death protein-1 (PD-1) antibodies has revolutionized the adjuvant treatment of high-risk, completely resected stage III/IV melanoma. However, not all patients benefit equally. Current strategies for improving outcomes involve adjuvant treatment in earlier disease stages (IIB/C) as well as perioperative treatment approaches. Interfering with T-cell exhaustion to counteract cancer immune evasion and the immunogenic nature of melanoma is key for anti-PD-1 effectiveness. Yet, the biological rationale for the efficacy of adjuvant treatment in clinically tumor-free patients remains to be fully elucidated. High-dose intermittent sun exposure (sunburn) is a well-known primary risk factor for melanomagenesis. Also, ultraviolet radiation (UVR)-induced immunosuppression may impair anti-cancer immune surveillance. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge about adjuvant anti-PD-1 blockade, including a characterization of the main cell types most likely responsible for its efficacy. In conclusion, we propose that local and systemic immunosuppression, to some extent UVR-mediated, can be restored by adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy, consequently boosting anti-melanoma immune surveillance and the elimination of residual melanoma cell clones.

Neoadjuvant cobimetinib and atezolizumab with or without vemurafenib for high-risk operable Stage III melanoma: the Phase II NeoACTIVATE trial

Both targeted therapies and immunotherapies provide benefit in resected Stage III melanoma. We hypothesized that the combination of targeted and immunotherapy given prior to therapeutic lymph node dissection (TLND) would be tolerable and drive robust pathologic responses. In NeoACTIVATE (NCT03554083), a Phase II trial, patients with clinically evident resectable Stage III melanoma received either 12 weeks of neoadjuvant vemurafenib, cobimetinib, and atezolizumab (BRAF-mutated, Cohort A, n = 15), or cobimetinib and atezolizumab (BRAF-wild-type, Cohort B, n = 15) followed by TLND and 24 weeks of adjuvant atezolizumab. Here, we report outcomes from the neoadjuvant portion of the trial. Based on intent to treat analysis, pathologic response (≤50% viable tumor) and major pathologic response (complete or near-complete, ≤10% viable tumor) were observed in 86.7% and 66.7% of BRAF-mutated and 53.3% and 33.3% of BRAF-wild-type patients, respectively (primary outcome); these exceeded pre-specified benchmarks of 50% and 30% for major pathologic response. Grade 3 and higher toxicities, primarily dermatologic, occurred in 63% during neoadjuvant treatment (secondary outcome). No surgical delays nor progression to regional unresectability occurred (secondary outcome). Peripheral blood CD8 + TCM cell expansion associated with favorable pathologic responses (exploratory outcome).

Systemic Therapy for Melanoma: ASCO Guideline Update Q and A

This Q&A answers questions regarding ASCO's recent Systemic Therapy for Melanoma guideline.

Delineating the early dissemination mechanisms of acral melanoma by integrating single-cell and spatial transcriptomic analyses

Acral melanoma (AM) is a rare subtype of melanoma characterized by a high incidence of lymph node (LN) metastasis, a critical factor in tumor dissemination and therapeutic decision-making. Here, we employ single-cell and spatial transcriptomic analyses to investigate the dynamic evolution of early AM dissemination. Our findings reveal substantial inter- and intra-tumor heterogeneity in AM, alongside a highly immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment and complex intercellular communication networks, particularly in patients with LN metastasis. Notably, we identify a strong association between MYC+ Melanoma (MYC+MEL) and FGFBP2+NKT cells with LN metastasis. Furthermore, we demonstrate that LN metastasis requires a metabolic shift towards fatty acid oxidation (FAO) induced by MITF in MYC+MEL cells. Etomoxir, a clinically approved FAO inhibitor, can effectively suppress MITF-mediated LN metastasis. This comprehensive dataset enhances our understanding of LN metastasis in AM, and provides insights into the potential therapeutic targeting for the management of early AM dissemination.

Recurrence Patterns and Clinical Management after a Positive Sentinel Node Biopsy in Melanoma Patients

Introduction melanoma patients who become stage III after a positive sentinel node biopsy (SNB) may have several patterns of recurrence patients and methods retrospective analysis of melanoma patients who have undergone SNB in a single institution from 2000 to 2015. Results There were 111 recurrences (45.1%) among 246 (20.3%) SNB positive patients and median DRFS was 77.7 months. After initial treatment, further recurrences occurred in 68 (77.3%) patients, regardless the site of initial recurrence conclusions multimodal strategies are recommended to achieve better results when managing stage III melanoma patients after a positive SNB.

Adjuvant nivolumab in resected stage IIB/C melanoma: primary results from the randomized, phase 3 CheckMate 76K trial

Patients with resected stage IIB/C melanoma have high recurrence risk, similar to those with resected stage IIIA/B disease. The phase 3, double-blind CheckMate 76K trial assessed 790 patients with resected stage IIB/C melanoma randomized 2:1 (stratified by tumor category) to nivolumab 480 mg or placebo every 4 weeks for 12 months. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed recurrence-free survival (RFS). Secondary endpoints included distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and safety. At 7.8 months of minimum follow-up, nivolumab significantly improved RFS versus placebo (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.42; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.30-0.59; P < 0.0001), with 12-month RFS of 89.0% versus 79.4% and benefit observed across subgroups; DMFS was also improved (HR = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.30-0.72). Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 10.3% (nivolumab) and 2.3% (placebo) of patients. One treatment-related death (0.2%) occurred with nivolumab. Nivolumab is an effective and generally well-tolerated adjuvant treatment in patients with resected stage IIB/C melanoma. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04099251 .

Stage-Specific Risk of Recurrence and Death From Melanoma in Denmark, 2008-2021: A National Observational Cohort Study of 25 720 Patients With Stage IA to IV Melanoma

Importance

To ensure optimal treatment and surveillance of patients with melanoma, knowledge of the clinical stage-specific risk of recurrence, mortality, and recurrence patterns across the American Joint Committee on Cancer Eighth Edition (AJCC8) substages is needed.

Objective

To estimate stage-specific recurrence and melanoma-specific mortality rates, assess absolute stage-specific risks of recurrence and mortality, and describe stage-specific recurrence patterns, including conditional rates.

Design

Retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected nationwide population-based registry data.

Setting

Nationwide, population-based cohort study.

Participants

The 25 720 Danish patients, 18 years or older, diagnosed with first-time stage IA to IV cutaneous melanoma between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2019, were included and followed up from time of primary treatment until December 31, 2021.

Exposures

First diagnosis of stage IA to IV cutaneous melanoma.

Main Outcomes

Stage-specific cumulative incidence of recurrence and melanoma-specific mortality, melanoma-specific recurrence-free survival, and assessed absolute stage-specific risks of recurrence and melanoma-specific mortality. Secondary outcomes were stage-specific recurrence patterns, including conditional rates, and melanoma-specific survival.

Results

We followed up 25 720 patients for a median of 5.9 years (95% CI, 58.9-59.3 years). Mean age was 59.1 years (95% CI, 58.9-59.3 years). Patients with stage IIB to IIC melanoma were older, had more comorbidities at diagnosis, and had the lowest rate of pathologic staging by sentinel node biopsy (81.6%-87.4%). A total of 10.6% of patients developed recurrence; first recurrence included distant recurrence, alone or with synchronous locoregional recurrence, in 56.6% of patients. We found a comparable risk of recurrence in stages IIIA and IIB (29.7% vs 33.2%) and in stages IIIB and IIC (35.9% vs 36.8%), respectively. Melanoma-specific mortality was comparable between stages IIIA and IIA (13.0% vs 13.6%) and between stages IIIB and IIB (18.4% vs 22.0%), respectively. These risk patterns persisted in cause-specific hazards models.

Conclusions and Relevance

This nationwide, population-based cohort study found that the increasing stages of the current AJCC8 staging system do not accurately reflect an increasing risk of recurrence and mortality in melanoma. The high proportion of distant recurrences suggests that hematogenous spread is a more common metastatic pathway than previously assumed, and surveillance with routine functional/cross-sectional imaging should be considered for stages IIB to IV. Future efforts should be put toward developing new tools for risk stratification and determining the survival effect of routine imaging in surveillance.

Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of melanoma, version 3.0

Since the first approval for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for the treatment of cutaneous melanoma more than a decade ago, immunotherapy has completely transformed the treatment landscape of this chemotherapy-resistant disease. Combination regimens including ICIs directed against programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) with anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) agents or, more recently, anti-lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3) agents, have gained regulatory approvals for the treatment of metastatic cutaneous melanoma, with long-term follow-up data suggesting the possibility of cure for some patients with advanced disease. In the resectable setting, adjuvant ICIs prolong recurrence-free survival, and neoadjuvant strategies are an active area of investigation. Other immunotherapy strategies, such as oncolytic virotherapy for injectable cutaneous melanoma and bispecific T-cell engager therapy for HLA-A*02:01 genotype-positive uveal melanoma, are also available to patients. Despite the remarkable efficacy of these regimens for many patients with cutaneous melanoma, traditional immunotherapy biomarkers (ie, programmed death-ligand 1 expression, tumor mutational burden, T-cell infiltrate and/or microsatellite stability) have failed to reliably predict response. Furthermore, ICIs are associated with unique toxicity profiles, particularly for the highly active combination of anti-PD-1 plus anti-CTLA-4 agents. The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a panel of experts to develop this clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of melanoma, including rare subtypes of the disease (eg, uveal, mucosal), with the goal of improving patient care by providing guidance to the oncology community. Drawing from published data and clinical experience, the Expert Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for healthcare professionals using immunotherapy to treat melanoma, with topics including therapy selection in the advanced and perioperative settings, intratumoral immunotherapy, when to use immunotherapy for patients with BRAFV600-mutated disease, management of patients with brain metastases, evaluation of treatment response, special patient populations, patient education, quality of life, and survivorship, among others.

The dynamics of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) during treatment reflects tumour response in advanced melanoma patients

Despite the introduction of targeted (BRAFi/MEKi) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has significantly reduced the recurrence rate and improved the overall survival (OS) of patients with Stage III and IV melanoma, only a percentage will benefit of durable disease control. The aim of this study was to examine whether the levels of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) in plasma of advanced melanoma patients undergoing BRAFi/MEKi or ICIs vary according to the patients' survival outcomes (i.e. progression-free survival (PFS) and OS) and disease progression. Plasma samples of Stage III-IV melanoma patients were collected at baseline (treatment initiation) and thereafter every 3 months. Circulating BRAFV600E/K and NRASQ61R/K mutations were analysed through droplet digital PCR (ddPCR, Bio-Rad) in a total of 177 plasma samples from 48 melanoma patients (19 Stage III, 29 Stage IV). Baseline ctDNA concentration was significantly associated with OS (HR = 1.003, 95% CI = 1.000-1.006, p = 0.043) and PFS (HR = 1.004, 95% CI = 1.000-1.007, p = 0.029) independent of clinical-prognostic confounders. For each unit increase in the ∆ctDNA (concentration difference between the last follow-up and baseline) there was a 24% increased risk of disease progression, irrespective of treatment type and stage at diagnosis (OR = 1.24, 95% CI = 1.03-1.49, p = 0.020, AUC = 0.93). Patients with reduction of ctDNA level from baseline to the last follow-up had longer OS (HR = 0.14; 95% CI = 0.05-0.44, p = 0.001) and PFS (HR = 0.08; 95% CI = 0.03-0.27, p < 0.0001) compared to patients with increased ctDNA, including adjustment for confounding factors. Our findings suggest that variation of ctDNA over time during melanoma treatment reflects the clinical outcome and tumour response to therapy and might be helpful in clinical monitoring.

Modern Approach to Melanoma Adjuvant Treatment with Anti-PD1 Immune Check Point Inhibitors or BRAF/MEK Targeted Therapy: Multicenter Real-World Report

BACKGROUND

The landscape of melanoma management changed as randomized trials have launched adjuvant treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An analysis of data on 248 consecutive melanoma stage III and IV patients given adjuvant therapy in eight centers (February 2019 to January 2021) was conducted.

RESULTS

The analyzed cohort comprised 147 melanoma patients given anti-PD1 (33% nivolumab, 26% pembrolizumab), and 101 (41%) were given dabrafenib plus trametinib (DT). The 2-year overall survival (OS), relapse-free survival (RFS), and distant-metastases-free survival (DMFS) rates were 86.7%, 61.4%, and 70.2%, respectively. The disease stage affected only the RFS rate; for stage IV, it was 52.2% (95% CI: 33.4-81.5%) vs. 62.5% (95% CI: 52.3-74.8%) for IIIA-D, p = 0.0033. The type of lymph node surgery before adjuvant therapy did not influence the outcomes. Completion of lymph node dissection cessation after positive SLNB did not affect the results in terms of RFS or OS. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) were associated with longer 24-month RFS, with a rate of 68.7% (55.5-84.9%) for TRAE vs. 56.6% (45.8-70%) without TRAE, p = 0.0031. For TRAE of grade ≥ 3, a significant decline in OS to 60.6% (26.9-100%; p = 0.004) was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Melanoma adjuvant therapy with anti-PD1 or DT outside clinical trials appears to be effective and comparable with the results of registration studies. Our data support a de-escalating surgery approach in melanoma treatment.

Adjuvant therapy for stage II melanoma: the need for further studies

Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has revolutionised the outcomes for melanoma patients. In the metastatic setting, patients treated with nivolumab and ipilimumab have an expected 5-year survival of> 50%. For patients with resected high-risk stage III disease, adjuvant pembrolizumab, nivolumab or dabrafenib and trametinib are associated with a significant improvement in both relapse-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS). More recently neoadjuvant immunotherapy has shown very promising outcomes in patients with clinically detectable nodal disease and is likely to become a new standard of care. For stage IIB/C disease, two pivotal adjuvant trials of pembrolizumab and nivolumab have also reported a significant improvement in both RFS and DMFS. However, the absolute benefit is low and there are concerns about the risk of severe toxicities as well as long-term morbidity from endocrine toxicity. Ongoing registration phase III trials are currently evaluating newer immunotherapy combinations and the role of BRAF/MEK-directed targeted therapy for stage II melanoma. However, our ability to personalise therapy based on molecular risk stratification has lagged behind the development of novel immune therapies. There is a critical need to evaluate the use of tissue and blood-based biomarkers, to better select patients that will recur and avoid unnecessary treatment for the majority of patients cured by surgery alone.

Alternatives and reduced need for sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) staging for melanoma

Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) has been introduced in the 1990s to identify patients who might benefit from completion lymph node dissection. Neither SLNB nor CLND improved survival, but SLNB staging did provide the best staging, above Breslow thickness and ulceration. The SLN status and SLN tumour burden were used in all trials until date looking at modern adjuvant systemic therapy with immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) or targeted therapies (TT). Adjuvant ICI and TT are shifting towards stage II melanoma. The question is whether there is still role for SLNB in melanoma, in this day and age, and if so, how does the future look for SLNB staging? The SLN status and SLN tumour burden might be useful for a consultation to discuss the number needed to treat in a risk/benefit discussion. For stage IIB/C patients, it seems likely, however, that patients will forego a nuclear scan followed by the risk of surgical intervention and morbidity associated with SLNB if they opt to receive adjuvant therapy regardless of the SLNB result. For stage I/IIA, it is still required to detect high-risk patients who might benefit from adjuvant therapy. However, biomarkers are emerging, such as gene expression profilers (GEP), immunohistological signatures and liquid biopsies with ctDNA. There still is a role for SLNB staging in melanoma today, but we expect that the availability of therapeutic option independent of SLNB status as well as emergence of validated biomarkers to predict risk will reduce the need for SLNB staging in the upcoming decade to the point it will no longer be used.

Prognosis of Patients With Primary Melanoma Stage I and II According to American Joint Committee on Cancer Version 8 Validated in Two Independent Cohorts: Implications for Adjuvant Treatment

PURPOSE

The first randomized trial of adjuvant treatment with checkpoint inhibitor in stage II melanoma reported a significant reduction in risk of tumor recurrence. This study evaluates two independent data sets to further document survival probabilities for patients with primary stage I and II melanoma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The Central Malignant Melanoma Registry (CMMR) in Germany evaluated 17,544 patients with a primary diagnosis of stage I and II melanoma from 2000 to 2015. The exploratory cohort consisted of 6,725 patients from the Center for Dermato-Oncology at the University of Tübingen, and the confirmatory cohort consisted of 10,819 patients from 11 other German centers. Survival outcomes were compared with published American Joint Committee on Cancer version 8 (AJCCv8) stage I and II survival data.

RESULTS

For the two CMMR cohorts in stage IA compared with the AJCCv8 cohort, melanoma-specific survival rates at 10 years were 95.1%-95.6% versus 98%; 89.7%-90.9% versus 94% in stage IB; 80.7%-83.1% versus 88% in stage IIA; 72.0%-79.9% versus 82% in stage IIB; and 57.6%-64.7% versus 75% in stage IIC, respectively. Recurrence rates were approximately twice as high as melanoma-specific mortality rates in stages IA-IIA.

CONCLUSION

The melanoma-specific survival rates in the two CMMR cohorts across stages I and II are less favorable than published in AJCCv8. This has important implications for the consideration of adjuvant treatment in this population.

A population-based validation study of the 8th edition UICC/AJCC TNM staging system for cutaneous melanoma

BACKGROUND

The 8th edition UICC/AJCC TNM8 (Tumour, Nodes, Metastasis) melanoma staging system introduced several modifications from the 7th edition (TNM7), resulting in changes in survival and subgroup composition. We set out to address the limited validation of TNM8 (stages I-IV) in large population-based datasets.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort-study included 6,414 patients from the population-based Ontario Cancer Registry diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2012. Kaplan-Meier curves estimated the melanoma-specific survival (MSS) and overall survival (OS). Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios for MSS and OS across stage groups. The Schemper-Henderson measure was used to assess the variance explained in the Cox regression.

RESULTS

In our sample, 21.3% of patients were reclassified with TNM8 from TNM7; reclassifications in stage II were uncommon, and 44.1% of patients in stage III were reclassified to a higher subgroup. Minimal changes in MSS curves were observed between editions, but the stage IIB curve decreased and the stage IIIC curve increased. For TNM8, Stage I (n = 4,556), II (n = 1,206), III (n = 598), and IV (n = 54) had an estimated 5-year MSS of 98.4%, 82.5%, 66.4%, and 14.4%, respectively. Within stage III, IIIA 5-year MSS was 91.7% while stage IIID was 23.5%. HRs indicated that TNM8 more evenly separates subgroups once adjusted for patient- and disease-characteristics. The variance in MSS explained by TNM7 and TNM8 is 18.9% and 19.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

TNM8 performed well in our sample, with more even separation of stage subgroups and a modest improvement in predictive ability compared to TNM7.

European consensus-based interdisciplinary guideline for melanoma. Part 1: Diagnostics: Update 2022

Cutaneous melanoma (CM) is potentially the most dangerous form of skin tumor and causes 90% of skin cancer mortality. A unique collaboration of multi-disciplinary experts from the European Dermatology Forum (EDF), the European Association of Dermato-Oncology (EADO) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) was formed to make recommendations on CM diagnosis and treatment, based on systematic literature reviews and the experts' experience. The diagnosis of melanoma can be made clinically and shall always be confirmed with dermatoscopy. If a melanoma is suspected, a histopathological examination is always required. Sequential digital dermatoscopy and full body photography can be used in high-risk patients to improve the detection of early melanoma. Where available, confocal reflectance microscopy can also improve clinical diagnosis in special cases. Melanoma shall be classified according to the 8th version of the American Joint Committee on Cancer classification. Thin melanomas up to 0.8 mm tumor thickness do not require further imaging diagnostics. From stage IB onwards, examinations with lymph node sonography are recommended, but no further imaging examinations. From stage IIC onwards whole-body examinations with computed tomography (CT) or positron emission tomography CT (PET-CT) in combination with brain magnetic resonance imaging are recommended. From stage III and higher, mutation testing is recommended, particularly for BRAF V600 mutation. It is important to provide a structured follow-up to detect relapses and secondary primary melanomas as early as possible. There is no evidence to define the frequency and extent of examinations. A stage-based follow-up scheme is proposed which, according to the experience of the guideline group, covers the optimal requirements, but further studies may be considered. This guideline is valid until the end of 2024.

Current State of Adjuvant Therapy for Melanoma: Less Is More, or More Is Better?

Advances in melanoma treatments over the past decade have changed the course of survival for patients. Several adjuvant therapies have been approved and are now considered standard of care for high-risk patients. These therapies have shown improvements for recurrence-free survival and distant metastases-free survival, but not overall survival, as the data are maturing. The 5-year recurrence-free survival in the COMBI-AD study, which compared dabrafenib and trametinib with placebo, was 65% and 58%, respectively. In the KEYNOTE-054 study, the recurrence-free survival at 3 years was 63.7% versus 41%. Despite these advances, approximately 50% of patients will succumb to their disease. Adjuvant therapy is considered potentially curative and avoids the morbidity of relapsed disease and the poor outcomes seen in metastatic disease. However, the lack of overall survival benefit in clinical trials of patients with high-risk stage II and stage III disease raises the question of whether it is more efficacious to treat when there is residual microscopic disease, or to wait until the disease recurs to avoid treating those who may have been cured by surgery alone. Immunotherapy also has the potential for substantial toxicity that may be lifelong; hence, discussion of risks and benefits of therapy is warranted because there should be less tolerance for substantial toxicity in the adjuvant setting. Adjuvant trials are needed that will integrate biomarkers to allow for better selection of patients who will truly benefit from adjuvant therapy.

Pembrolizumab versus placebo as adjuvant therapy in completely resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma (KEYNOTE-716): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Pembrolizumab prolongs progression-free and overall survival among patients with advanced melanoma and recurrence-free survival in resected stage III disease. KEYNOTE-716 assessed pembrolizumab as adjuvant therapy in patients with completely resected, high-risk, stage II melanoma. We report results from the planned first and second interim analyses for recurrence-free survival.

METHODS

In this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, involving 160 academic medical centres and hospitals in 16 countries (Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Poland, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, the UK, and the USA), patients aged 12 years or older with newly diagnosed, completely resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma (TNM stage T3b or T4 with a negative sentinel lymph node biopsy) were recruited. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1), in blocks of four and stratified by T-category (3b, 4a, and 4b) and paediatric status (age 12-17 years vs ≥18 years), using an interactive response technology system to intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg (2 mg/kg in paediatric patients) or placebo every 3 weeks for 17 cycles or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity. All patients, clinical investigators, and analysts were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed recurrence-free survival (defined as time from randomisation to recurrence or death) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (ie, all patients randomly assigned to treatment). The primary endpoint was met if recurrence-free survival was significantly improved for pembrolizumab versus placebo at either the first interim analysis (after approximately 128 patients had events) or second interim analysis (after 179 patients had events) under multiplicity control. Safety was assessed in all patients randomly assigned to treatment who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03553836, and is closed to accrual.

FINDINGS

Between Sept 23, 2018, and Nov 4, 2020, 1182 patients were screened, of whom 976 were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab (n=487) or placebo (n=489; ITT population). The median age was 61 years (IQR 52-69) and 387 (40%) patients were female and 589 (60%) were male. 874 (90%) of 976 patients were White and 799 (82%) were not Hispanic or Latino. 483 (99%) of 487 patients in the pembrolizumab group and 486 (99%) of 489 in the placebo group received assigned treatment. At the first interim analysis (data cutoff on Dec 4, 2020; median follow-up of 14·4 months [IQR 10·2-18·7] in the pembrolizumab group and 14·3 months [10·1-18·7] in the placebo group), 54 (11%) of 487 patients in the pembrolizumab group and 82 (17%) of 489 in the placebo group had a first recurrence of disease or died (hazard ratio [HR] 0·65 [95% CI 0·46-0·92]; p=0·0066). At the second interim analysis (data cutoff on June 21, 2021; median follow-up of 20·9 months [16·7-25·3] in the pembrolizumab group and 20·9 months [16·6-25·3] in the placebo group), 72 (15%) patients in the pembrolizumab group and 115 (24%) in the placebo group had a first recurrence or died (HR 0·61 [95% CI 0·45-0·82]). Median recurrence-free survival was not reached in either group at either assessment timepoint. At the first interim analysis, grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 78 (16%) of 483 patients in the pembrolizumab groups versus 21 (4%) of 486 in the placebo group. At the first interim analysis, four patients died from an adverse event, all in the placebo group (one each due to pneumonia, COVID-19-related pneumonia, suicide, and recurrent cancer), and at the second interim analysis, one additional patient, who was in the pembrolizumab group, died from an adverse event (COVID-19-related pneumonia). No deaths due to study treatment occurred.

INTERPRETATION

Pembrolizumab as adjuvant therapy for up to approximately 1 year for stage IIB or IIC melanoma resulted in a significant reduction in the risk of disease recurrence or death versus placebo, with a manageable safety profile.

FUNDING

Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

Melanoma and intellectual disability: do prognostic factors at diagnosis differ from general population?

BACKGROUND

Few melanoma cases are reported in individuals with intellectual disability (ID), and prognostic factors at diagnosis are unknown in this population. This work was designed to investigate whether prognostic factors at diagnostic are different in patients with ID compared with a general population.

METHODS

Melanoma cases retrieved from Hérault's Tumour Registry (HTR) from 1995 to 2015 were cross-referenced against a list of adult patients with ID, living in Hérault. Major prognostic factors were compared with those in non-ID melanoma patients included in HTR and in patients followed by Montpellier University Hospital and included in the Réseau pour la Recherche et l'Investigation Clinique sur le Mélanome (RIC-Mel) database.

RESULTS

Ten melanoma cases in individuals with ID were identified and compared with 3804 non-ID melanoma cases in HTR and 1024 non-ID melanoma cases included in RIC-Mel. Mean Breslow thickness at diagnosis was 4.6 mm in melanoma cases among those with ID versus 1.89 mm in HTR (P = 0.109) and 2.36 mm in RIC-Mel (P = 0.156). Stage at diagnosis was superior to stage IIB in 42.9% of ID cases versus 11.4% of non-ID cases in HTR (P < 0.05) and 8.5% in RIC-Mel (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Melanomas in patients with ID had less favourable prognostic factors at diagnosis, including higher Breslow thickness and more advanced stage, than melanomas in non-ID patients. These adverse prognostic factors indicate a later diagnosis in this population, leading to a poorer prognosis. This work underlines the need to improve melanoma screening among individuals with ID.

Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy after Previous Radical Lymphadenectomy of the Same Lymph Node Basin

Purpose: This study aimed to determine the feasibility of preoperative lymphoscintigraphy and intraoperative radio-guided sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in patients previously submitted to complete lymphadenectomy (CL) in the same region. There is no current proposal to stage patients diagnosed with a new melanoma after SLNB if the regional lymph node (LN) was removed, preventing this specific population from adjuvant treatments due to understaging.Methods: We assessed six cases of patients with a previous cancer diagnosis (melanoma, breast, or thyroid cancer) who had undergone CL and later developed a new cutaneous melanoma in the same extremity submitted to CL. They underwent preoperative lymphoscintigraphy to locate the sentinel lymph node (SLN), followed by a radio-guided SLNB with the assistance of patent blue dye. A pathologist then evaluated the excised SLN.Results: We had 100% feasibility, all six patients had their SLN located, and three (50%) patients tested positive for metastasis in the excised LNs.Conclusions: All these patients met the criteria to undergo SLNB, but no previous reports demonstrated and corroborated the performance of this procedure in this situation. SLNB with expected drainage for regions previously submitted to a radical lymphadenectomy is a safe and effective procedure. A lymphoscintigraphy allows locating the SLN that is likely to be resected in surgery. In this scenario, we had a 50% positivity, providing how relevant and essential this information is for the prognosis and practical therapeutical approaches for this rare but relevant melanoma population.

Evaluation and Management of Liver Transplant Candidates With Prior Nonhepatic Cancer: Guidelines From the ILTS/SETH Consensus Conference

Liver transplant in patients with prior nonhepatic cancer is a matter of concern, needing further research, development, and consensus guidelines. This International Liver Transplantation Society/Sociedad Española De Trasplante Hepático consensus conference document focuses on the role of liver transplantation in patients with a prior history of nonhepatic cancer. This document addresses (1) the evaluation of transplant candidates with prior cancers based on the assessment of prognosis, the natural history of individual cancers, and the emerging role for circulating DNA and minimal residual disease in these patients; (2) the impact of prior treatments, including immunotherapy for prior malignancies; and (3) the surveillance of posttransplant cancer recurrence. The consensus statement is based on previously published guidelines, as well as a review of the current, relevant, published literature.

Efficacy of Neoadjuvant Targeted Therapy for Borderline Resectable III B-D or IV Stage BRAF V600 Mutation-Positive Melanoma

Simple Summary

Neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced disease or potentially resectable metastatic melanoma is expected to improve operability and clinical outcomes over upfront surgery. 46 patients were treated with BRAFi/MEKi or BRAFi before surgery with 78% R0 resection. In patients with a major pathological response with no, or less than 10%, viable cells in the tumor, median DFS and PFS were significantly longer than in patients with a minor pathological response.

Abstract

Neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced disease or potentially resectable metastatic melanoma is expected to improve operability and clinical outcomes over upfront surgery and adjuvant treatment as it is for sarcoma, breast, rectal, esophageal, or gastric cancers. Patients with locoregional recurrence after initial surgery and those with advanced regional lymphatic metastases are at a high risk of relapse and melanoma-related death. There is an unmet clinical need to improve the outcomes for such patients. Patients with resectable bulky stage III or resectable stage IV histologically confirmed melanoma were enrolled and received standard-dose BRAFi/MEKi for at least 12 weeks before feasible resection of the pre-therapy target and then received at least for the next 40 weeks further BRAFi/MEKi. Of these patients, 37 were treated with dabrafenib and trametinib, three were treated with vemurafenib and cobimetinib, five with vemurafenib, and one with dabrafenib alone. All patients underwent surgery with 78% microscopically margin-negative resection (R0) resection. Ten patients achieved a complete pathological response. In patients with a major pathological response with no, or less than 10%, viable cells in the tumor, median disease free survival and progression free survival were significantly longer than in patients with a minor pathological response. No patient discontinued neoadjuvant BRAFi/MEKi due to toxicity. BRAFi/MEKi pre-treatment did not result in any new specific complications of surgery. Fourteen patients experienced disease recurrence or progression during post-operative treatment. We confirmed that BRAFi/MEKi combination is an effective and safe regimen in the perioperative treatment of melanoma. Pathological response to neoadjuvant treatment may be considered as a surrogate biomarker of disease recurrence.

External validation of the American Joint Committee on Cancer melanoma staging system eighth edition using the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program

AIM

The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) melanoma staging system eighth edition (AJCC-8) was recently released to provide accurate staging reflecting advances in the treatment of melanoma. Using population registry data, this study independently validates and compares the prognostic performance of AJCC-8 to the seventh edition (AJCC-7).

METHODS

We extracted patient-, tumor-related, and survival data from the SEER-18 registry between 2010 and 2015. To assess overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) for AJCC-7 and AJCC-8, we performed Kaplan-Meier analysis and computed cumulative hazard functions using Nelson-Aalen function.

RESULTS

Of 126,408 individuals, 59,989 (47%) and 60,411 (48%) had available data for pathological and clinical-stage OS analysis, respectively. The 3-year OS for AJCC-7 among pathologically staged patients was: stage IA 97%, stage IB 95%, stage IIA 87%, stage IIB 76%, stage IIC 57%, stage IIIA 86%, stage IIIB 69%, stage IIIC 50%, and stage IV 24%. The 3-year OS for AJCC-8 patients was similar but was 56% for stage IIIC and 30% for stage IIID. Stage IV individuals with an elevated LDH had worse OS and CSS at all measured time-points up to 60 months compared to those with a normal LDH.

CONCLUSION

The discriminatory ability of AJCC-8 and AJCC-7 appear comparable. Changes in AJCC-8 identified stage IIID as a poor prognostic subgroup among stage III patients and elevated LDH in stage IV. However, patients with advanced T-stage, node-negative tumors experienced worse survival compared to those with earlier T-stage, node-positive tumors, and the results of ongoing trials should inform adjuvant therapy in this subset of patients.

Cost-effectiveness of adjuvant systemic therapies for patients with high-risk melanoma in Europe: a model-based economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

The introduction of adjuvant systemic treatment has significantly improved recurrence-free survival in patients with resectable high-risk melanoma. Adjuvant treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapy, however, substantially impacts health care budgets, while the number of patients with melanoma who are treated in the adjuvant setting is still increasing. To evaluate the socioeconomic impact of the three adjuvant treatments, a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was carried out.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were obtained from the three pivotal registration phase III clinical trials on the adjuvant treatment of patients with resected high-risk stage III in melanoma (KEYNOTE-054, CheckMate 238, and COMBI-AD). For this CEA, a Markov model with three health states (no evidence of disease, recurrent/progressive disease, and death) was applied. From a societal perspective, different adjuvant strategies were compared according to total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. To evaluate model uncertainty, sensitivity analyses (deterministic and probabilistic) were carried out.

RESULTS

In the adjuvant setting, total costs (per patient) were €168 826 for nivolumab, €194 529 for pembrolizumab, and €211 110 for dabrafenib-trametinib. These costs were mainly determined by drug acquisition costs, whereas routine surveillance costs varied from €126 096 to €134 945. Compared with routine surveillance, LYs improved by approximately 1.41 for all therapies and QALYs improved by 2.02 for immune checkpoint inhibitors and 2.03 for targeted therapy. This resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of €21 153 (nivolumab), €33 878 (pembrolizumab), and €37 520 (dabrafenib-trametinib) per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

This CEA compared the three EMA-approved adjuvant systemic therapies for resected stage III melanoma. Adjuvant treatment with nivolumab was the most cost-effective, followed by pembrolizumab. Combination therapy with dabrafenib-trametinib was the least cost-effective. With the increasing number of patients with high-risk melanoma who will be treated with adjuvant treatment, there is an urgent need to reduce drug costs while developing better prognostic and predictive tools to identify patients who will benefit from adjuvant treatment.

Current Landscape and Open Questions on Adjuvant Therapies in Melanoma

Melanoma is a form of skin cancer that is frequently diagnosed at early stages. In most cases, surgical resection is curative. In case of thicker melanomas (> pT1b) without clinical or instrumental evidence of metastasis, a sentinel lymph node biopsy is recommended for staging purposes. If the lymph nodes are the only site of disease (macroscopic or microscopic> 1mm), configuring stage III, the international guidelines recommend the use of adjuvant therapy with checkpoint inhibitors (nivolumab or pembrolizumab) or targeted therapies (dabrafenib plus trametinib). These drugs have shown a significant increase in recurrence-free survival, although some doubts and open questions remain. Specifically, none of the available treatments has shown a clear benefit in the overall survival rates, the advantages they give in stage IIIA are not well known, and finally there are still no prospective clinical studies identifying the best approach to continue the therapeutic process in case of relapse. Furthermore, there are new opportunities opening up with the upcoming results of the neoadjuvant trials that could revolutionize the treatment of clinically evident stage III melanoma.

Clinical characteristics and therapy response in unresectable melanoma patients stage IIIB-IIID with in-transit and satellite metastases

INTRODUCTION

Cutaneous melanoma is notorious for the development of in-transit metastases (ITM). For unknown biological reasons, ITM remain the leading tumour manifestation without progression to distant sites in some patients.

METHODS

In total, 191 patients with initially unresectable stage III ITM and satellite metastases from 16 skin cancer centres were retrospectively evaluated for their tumour characteristics, survival and therapy response. Three groups according to disease kinetics (no distant progress, slow (>6 months) and fast (<6 months) distant progression) were analysed separately.

RESULTS

Median follow-up time was 30.5 (range 0.8-154.0) months from unresectable ITM. Progression to stage IV was observed in 56.5% of cases. Patients without distant metastasis were more often female, older (>70 years) and presented as stage III with lymph node or ITM at initial diagnosis in 45.7% of cases. Melanoma located on the leg had a significantly better overall survival (OS) from time of initial diagnosis compared to non-leg localised primaries (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-0.91; p = 0.017), but not from diagnosis of unresectable stage III (HR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.45-1.02; p = 0.06). Forty percent of patients received local therapy for satellite and ITM. Overall response rate (ORR) to all local first-line treatments was 38%; disease control rate (DCR) was 49%. In total, 72.3% of patients received systemic therapy for unresectable stage IIIB-D. ORR for targeted therapy (n = 19) was highest with 63.2% and DCR was 84.2% compared to an ORR of 31.4% and a DCR of 54.3% in PD-1 treated patients (n = 70). Patients receiving PD-1 and intralesional talimogene laherparepvec (n = 12) had an ORR of 41.7% and a DCR of 75%.

CONCLUSION

Patients with unresectable ITM and without distant progression are more often female, older, and have a primary on the leg. Response to PD-1 inhibitors in this cohort was lower than expected, but further investigation is required to elucidate the biology of ITM development and the interplay with the immune system.

The Proportion Cured of Patients with Resected Stage II-III Cutaneous Melanoma in Sweden

Simple summary

Patients diagnosed with stage II–III cutaneous melanoma (CM) are at high risk of recurrences, but the CM-specific survival ranges from approximately 40–70%. Here, the cure proportions and survival among uncured stage II–III CM patients were estimated. The 1- and 5-year relative survival ratios, cure proportions and the median survival times of uncured stage II–III CM patients in Sweden (n = 6466) were calculated based on data from the nationwide population-based Swedish Melanoma Register 2005–2013 with a follow-up through 2018. Proportions cured by surgery are low for sub-groups of stage II–III cutaneous melanoma showing that cure analyses can serve as a complement to established survival analyses.

Abstract

Background: Cure proportion represents the proportion of patients who experience the same mortality rate as the general population and can be estimated together with the survival of the proportion experiencing excess mortality (the uncured). The aim was to estimate the cure proportions and survival among uncured stage II–III cutaneous melanoma (CM) patients. Methods: 1- and 5-year relative survival ratios, cure proportions and the median survival times of uncured stage II–III CM patients in Sweden (n = 6466) were calculated based on data from the nationwide population-based Swedish Melanoma Register 2005–2013 with a follow-up through 2018. Results: Stages IIB and IIC showed significant differences in standardized cure proportions vs. stage IIA CM (0.80 (95% CI 0.77–0.83) stage IIA; 0.62 (95% CI 0.59–0.66) stage IIB; 0.42 (95% CI 0.37–0.46) for stage IIC). Significant differences in standardized cure proportions were found for stages IIIB and IIIC-D CM vs. stage IIIA (0.76 (95% CI 0.68–0.84) stage IIIA; 0.52 (95% CI 0.45–0.59) stage IIIB; 0.35 (95% CI 0.30–0.39) for stage IIIC–D). Conclusions: The results are emphasizing the poor prognosis with low proportions cured by surgery only for sub-groups of stage II–III CM, specifically within stages IIB–C CM.

Factors Influencing the Adjuvant Therapy Decision: Results of a Real-World Multicenter Data Analysis of 904 Melanoma Patients

Adjuvant treatment of melanoma patients with immune-checkpoint inhibition (ICI) and targeted therapy (TT) significantly improved recurrence-free survival. This study investigates the real-world situation of 904 patients from 13 German skin cancer centers with an indication for adjuvant treatment since the approval of adjuvant ICI and TT. From adjusted log-binomial regression models, we estimated relative risks for associations between various influence factors and treatment decisions (adjuvant therapy yes/no, TT vs. ICI in BRAF mutant patients). Of these patients, 76.9% (95% CI 74-80) opted for a systemic adjuvant treatment. The probability of starting an adjuvant treatment was 26% lower in patients >65 years (RR 0.74, 95% CI 68-80). The most common reasons against adjuvant treatment given by patients were age (29.4%, 95% CI 24-38), and fear of adverse events (21.1%, 95% CI 16-28) and impaired quality of life (11.9%, 95% CI 7-16). Of all BRAF-mutated patients who opted for adjuvant treatment, 52.9% (95% CI 47-59) decided for ICI. Treatment decision for TT or ICI was barely associated with age, gender and tumor stage, but with comorbidities and affiliated center. Shortly after their approval, adjuvant treatments have been well accepted by physicians and patients. Age plays a decisive role in the decision for adjuvant treatment, while pre-existing autoimmune disease and regional differences influence the choice between TT or ICI.

Which adjuvant treatment for patients with BRAFV600-mutant cutaneous melanoma?

Treatment of patients with melanoma has considerably improved over the past decade and more recently with adjuvant therapies for patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage III (loco-regional metastases) or IV (distant metastases) totally resected melanoma, in order to prevent recurrence. In the adjuvant setting, two options are available to patients with BRAF^V600-mutant AJCC stage III totally resected melanoma: anti-PD-1 blockers (nivolumab or pembrolizumab) or BRAF plus MEK inhibitors (dabrafenib plus trametinib). In the absence of comparative studies, it is difficult to determine which of these options is best. Our aim was to review published studies focusing on the management of patients with BRAF^V600-mutant melanoma in the adjuvant setting. We also reviewed the main clinical trials of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors and immunotherapy in advanced (i.e. unresectable metastatic) BRAF-mutant melanoma in an attempt to identify results potentially affecting the management of patients on adjuvants. More adverse events are observed with targeted therapy, but all resolve rapidly upon drug discontinuation, whereas with immune checkpoint blockers some adverse events may persist. New therapeutic strategies are emerging, notably neoadjuvant therapies for stage III patients and adjuvant therapies for stage II patients; the place of the adjuvant strategy amidst all these options will soon be re-evaluated. The choice of adjuvant treatment could influence the choice of subsequent treatments in neo-adjuvant or metastatic settings. This review will lead clinicians to a better understanding of the different adjuvant treatments available for patients with totally resected AJCC stage III and IV BRAF^V600-mutant melanoma before considering subsequent treatment strategies.