The efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade for melanoma in-transit with or without nodal metastases – A multicenter cohort study

Purpose: Guidelines addressing melanoma in-transit metastasis (ITM) recommend immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) as a first-line treatment option, despite the fact that there are no efficacy data available from prospective trials for exclusively ITM disease. The study aims to analyze the outcome of patients with ITM treated with ICI based on data from a large cohort of patients treated at international referral clinics. Methods: A multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients treated between January 2015 and December 2020 from Australia, Europe, and the USA, evaluating treatment with ICI for ITM with or without nodal involvement (AJCC8 N1c, N2c, and N3c) and without distant disease (M0). Treatment was with PD-1 inhibitor (nivolumab or pembrolizumab) and/or CTLA-4 inhibitor (ipilimumab). The response was evaluated according to the RECIST criteria modified for cutaneous lesions. Results: A total of 287 patients from 21 institutions in eight countries were included. Immunotherapy was first-line treatment in 64 (22%) patients. PD-1 or CTLA-4 inhibitor monotherapy was given in 233 (81%) and 23 (8%) patients, respectively, while 31 (11%) received both in combination. The overall response rate was 56%, complete response (CR) rate was 36%, and progressive disease (PD) rate was 32%. Median PFS was ten months (95% CI 7.4e12.6 months) with a one-, two-, and five-year PFS rate of 48%, 33%, and 18%, respectively. Median MSS was not reached, and the one-, two-, and five-year MSS rates were 95%, 83%, and 71%, respectively. Conclusion: Systemic immunotherapy is an effective treatment for melanoma ITM. Future studies should evaluate the role of systemic immunotherapy in the context of multimodality therapy, including locoregional treatments such as surgery, intralesional therapy, and regional therapies.Carl-Jacob Holmberg ... Brendon Coventry ... Hidde Kroon ... et al

Characterization of the treatment-naive immune microenvironment in melanoma with BRAF mutation

Background Patients with BRAF-mutant and wild-type melanoma have different response rates to immune checkpoint blockade therapy. However, the reasons for this remain unknown. To address this issue, we investigated the precise immune composition resulting from BRAF mutation in treatment-naive melanoma to determine whether this may be a driver for different response to immunotherapy. Methods In this study, we characterized the treatment-naive immune context in patients with BRAF-mutant and BRAF wild-type (BRAF-wt) melanoma using data from single-cell RNA sequencing, bulk RNA sequencing, flow cytometry and immunohistochemistry (IHC). Results In single-cell data, BRAF-mutant melanoma displayed a significantly reduced infiltration of CD8+ T cells and macrophages but also increased B cells, natural killer (NK) cells and NKT cells. We then validated this finding using bulk RNA-seq data from the skin cutaneous melanoma cohort in The Cancer Genome Atlas and deconvoluted the data using seven different algorithms. Interestingly, BRAF-mutant tumors had more CD4+ T cells than BRAF-wt samples in both primary and metastatic cohorts. In the metastatic cohort, BRAF-mutant melanoma demonstrated more B cells but less CD8+ T cell infiltration when compared with BRAF-wt samples. In addition, we further investigated the immune cell infiltrate using flow cytometry and multiplex IHC techniques. We confirmed that BRAF-mutant melanoma metastases were enriched for CD4+ T cells and B cells and had a co-existing decrease in CD8+ T cells. Furthermore, we then identified B cells were associated with a trend for improved survival (p=0.078) in the BRAF-mutant samples and Th2 cells were associated with prolonged survival in the BRAF-wt samples. Conclusions In conclusion, treatment-naive BRAF-mutant melanoma has a distinct immune context compared with BRAF-wt melanoma, with significantly decreased CD8+ T cells and increased B cells and CD4+ T cells in the tumor microenvironment. These findings indicate that further mechanistic studies are warranted to reveal how this difference in immune context leads to improved outcome to combination immune checkpoint blockade in BRAF-mutant melanoma.Minyu Wang, Soroor Zadeh, Angela Pizzolla, Kevin Thia, David E Gyorki, Grant A McArthur, Richard A Scolyer, Georgina Long, James S Wilmott, Miles C Andrews, George Au-Yeung, Ali Weppler, Shahneen Sandhu, Joseph A Trapani, Melissa J Davis, Paul Joseph Neeso

Surveillance of sentinel node-positive melanoma patients with reasons for exclusion from MLST-II: multi-institutional propensity score matched analysis

Background In sentinel lymph node (SLN)-positive melanoma, two randomized trials demonstrated equivalent melanoma-specific survival with nodal surveillance vs completion lymph node dissection (CLND). Patients with microsatellites, extranodal extension (ENE) in the SLN, or >3 positive SLNs constitute a high-risk group largely excluded from the randomized trials, for whom appropriate management remains unknown. Study design SLN-positive patients with any of the three high-risk features were identified from an international cohort. CLND patients were matched 1:1 with surveillance patients using propensity scores. Risk of any-site recurrence, SLN-basin-only recurrence, and melanoma-specific mortality were compared. Results Among 1,154 SLN-positive patients, 166 had ENE, microsatellites, and/or >3 positive SLN. At 18.5 months median follow-up, 49% had recurrence (vs 26% in patients without high-risk features, p ConclusionsSLN-positive patients with microsatellites, ENE, or >3 positive SLN constitute a high-risk group with a 2-fold greater recurrence risk. For those managed with nodal surveillance, SLN-basin recurrences were more frequent, but all-site recurrence and melanoma-specific mortality were comparable to patients treated with CLND. Most recurrences were outside the SLN-basin, supporting use of nodal surveillance for SLN-positive patients with microsatellites, ENE, and/or >3 positive SLN.Kristy K Broman, Tasha M Hughes, Lesly A Dossett, James Sun, Michael J Carr, Dennis A Kirichenko ... et al

International Center-Level Variation in Utilization of Completion Lymph Node Dissection and Adjuvant Systemic Therapy for Sentinel Lymph Node Positive Melanoma at Major Referral Centers

First published: 19 December 2022Objective: 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.Kristy K. Broman ... Hidde M. Kroon ... et al

Melanoma staging: Evidence-based changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE. To update the melanoma staging system of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) a large database was assembled comprising >46,000 patients from 10 centers worldwide with stages I, II, and III melanoma diagnosed since 1998. Based on analyses of this new database, the existing seventh edition AJCC stage IV database, and contemporary clinical trial data, the AJCC Melanoma Expert Panel introduced several important changes to the Tumor, Nodes, Metastasis (TNM) classification and stage grouping criteria. Key changes in the eighth edition AJCC Cancer Staging Manual include: 1) tumor thickness measurements to be recorded to the nearest 0.1 mm, not 0.01 mm; 2) definitions of T1a and T1b are revised (T1a, <0.8 mm without ulceration; T1b, 0.8-1.0 mm with or without ulceration or <0.8 mm with ulceration), with mitotic rate no longer a T category criterion; 3) pathological (but not clinical) stage IA is revised to include T1b N0 M0 (formerly pathologic stage IB); 4) the N category descriptors “microscopic” and “macroscopic” for regional node metastasis are redefined as “clinically occult” and “clinically apparent”; 5) prognostic stage III groupings are based on N category criteria and T category criteria (ie, primary tumor thickness and ulceration) and increased from 3 to 4 subgroups (stages IIIA-IIID); 6) definitions of N subcategories are revised, with the presence of microsatellites, satellites, or in-transit metastases now categorized as N1c, N2c, or N3c based on the number of tumor-involved regional lymph nodes, if any; 7) descriptors are added to each M1 subcategory designation for lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level (LDH elevation no longer upstages to M1c); and 8) a new M1d designation is added for central nervous system metastases. This evidence-based revision of the AJCC melanoma staging system will guide patient treatment, provide better prognostic estimates, and refine stratification of patients entering clinical trials. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:472-492. © 2017 American Cancer Society. © 2017 American Cancer Societ

Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy (NAST) in Patients with Melanoma: Surgical Considerations by the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium (INMC) (Jan, 10.1245/S10434-021-11236-Y, 2022)

Otorhinolaryngolog