Melanoma - All things adjuvant

I have kicked and screamed about the need for adjuvant treatment for so many years (especially the more effective anti-PD-1 products vs ipi) that it was almost unbelievable when they were finally FDA approved for adjuvant use in 2017 (Opdivo) and 2019 (Keytruda).  Sadly, recent trial results for the ipi/nivo combo as adjuvant did not prove more effective - providing instead only a greater side effect profile.  Here's a history of adjuvant care in melanoma - ADJUVANT therapy for melanoma!!!!!!!!!!!!!! State of the science....   At this point, targeted therapy in the form of BRAF/MEKi combo's, for BRAF positive patients, and NEO-adjuvant treatments are also available for melanoma patients in need of such care.  Here are zillions of adjuvant related reports - Adjuvant care in melanoma

Now, there are these (my comments in red as ever):

Adjuvant Therapy is Effective for Melanoma Patients with a Positive Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Who Forego Completion Lymphadenectomy.  Farrow, Raman, Williams, et al.  Ann Surg Oncol, 2020 Dec 27.

Background: Multiple adjuvant therapies for melanoma have been approved since 2015 based on randomized trials demonstrating improvements in recurrence-free survival (RFS) with adjuvant therapy after surgical resection of high-risk disease. Inclusion criteria for these trials required performance of a completion lymph node dissection (CLND) for positive sentinel lymph node (pSLN) disease.

Objective: We aimed to describe current practice for adjuvant therapies in patients with pSLN without CLND (active surveillance [AS]), and to evaluate recurrence in these patients.

Methods: Melanoma patients with pSLN between 2016 and 2019 were identified at two institutions. Demographic information, disease and treatment characteristics, and recurrence details were reviewed retrospectively. Patients were stratified by recurrence and patient-, treatment- and tumor-related characteristics were compared using Fisher's exact test and t test for categorical and continuous variables, respectively.

Results: Overall, 245 SLN biopsies were performed, of which 36 (14.7%) were pSLN. Of 36 pSLN, 4 underwent CLND and 32 underwent AS, of whom 22 (68.8%) received adjuvant therapy with the anti-programmed death-1 (PD1) inhibitor nivolumab (16/22), anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor ipilimumab (3/22), or BRAF/MEK inhibitors (3/22). At a median follow up of 13.3 months, 7/32 (21.9%) patients on AS recurred, including 4/22 (18.2%) who received adjuvant therapy and 3/10 (30.0%) who did not. Tumor ulceration was significantly associated with recurrence. While not significant, acral lentiginous subtype appeared more common among those with recurrence.

Conclusion: The majority (68.8%) of patients with pSLN managed without CLND were treated with adjuvant therapy. The 1-year RFS for patients managed with adjuvant therapy without CLND was 82%, which is similar to modern adjuvant therapy trials requiring CLND.

Back in the day, including when I was first diagnosed in 2003 and when I recurred in 2007, patients were routinely treated with a complete lymphadenectomy (CLND) of the area around a positive lymph node.  I went through it twice, to both axilla.  Times have changed and the process of CLND is no longer recommended.  In fact, NEO -adjuvant treatment is being studied to see if starting treatment with the positive node in place provides better results and the data is looking positive.  In this report, researchers were looking for differences between melanoma peeps who had a complete lymphadenectomy and those who simply had the positive node removed and started adjuvant treatment.  Of 245 sentinel node biopsies they examined - 36 were positive.  Of those, 4 patients had CLND and 32 had only the positive node removed.  22 were given adjuvant treatment - 16 were treated with nivo, 3 with ipi, and 3 with BRAF/MEK.  At 13.3 months of follow-up - 7 of the 32 patients had recurred - 4 of whom had been treated with adjuvant therapy (abstract does not note which) and 3 had not.  Tumor ulceration was significantly associated with recurrence (which is not news).  Overall, the patients who had adjuvant treatment after a positive node, but NO CLND had a recurrence free survival rate of 82% which is similar to patients who were given a CLND and adjuvant therapy.  Again, this is no longer news, rather confirmation of what we have understood for some years now.

Longer Follow-Up Confirms Recurrence-Free Survival Benefit of Adjuvant Pembrolizumab in High-Risk Stage III Melanoma: Updated Results From the EORTC 1325-MG/KEYNOTE-054 Trial.  Eggermont, Blank, Mandala, et al.  J Clin Oncol.  2020 Nov.

Purpose: We conducted the phase III double-blind European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 1325/KEYNOTE-054 trial to evaluate pembrolizumab versus placebo in patients with resected high-risk stage III melanoma. On the basis of 351 recurrence-free survival (RFS) events at a 1.25-year median follow-up, pembrolizumab prolonged RFS compared with placebo. This led to the approval of pembrolizumab adjuvant treatment by the European Medicines Agency and US Food and Drug Administration. Here, we report an updated RFS analysis at the 3.05-year median follow-up.

Patients and methods: A total of 1,019 patients with complete lymph node dissection of American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual, stage IIIA (at least one lymph node metastasis greater than 1 mm), IIIB, or IIIC (without in-transit metastasis) cutaneous melanoma were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab at a flat dose of 200 mg (n = 514) or placebo (n = 505) every 3 weeks for 1 year or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity. The two coprimary end points were RFS in the overall population and in those with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive tumors.

Results: Pembrolizumab (190 RFS events) compared with placebo (283 RFS events) resulted in prolonged RFS in the overall population (3-year RFS rate, 63.7% v 44.1% for pembrolizumab v placebo, respectively). The impact of pembrolizumab on RFS was similar in subgroups, in particular according to AJCC-7 and AJCC-8 staging, and BRAF mutation status.

Conclusion: In resected high-risk stage III melanoma, pembrolizumab adjuvant therapy provided a sustained and clinically meaningful improvement in RFS at 3-year median follow-up. This improvement was consistent across subgroups

At three years follow up, Stage III patients of all stripes did better after treatment with Pembro than those treated with placebo - demonstrating a recurrence free survival rate of 63.7% for those treated with pembro vs 44.1% for those given placebo.  YEP.

Adjuvant Therapy Failure Patterns in the Modern Era of Melanoma Management.  Rauwerdink, Molina, Tompers, et al.  Ann Surg Oncol.  2020 Dec.

Background: The management of patients with resected stage 3 melanoma has changed significantly due to adoption of the Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial (MSLT)-2 guidelines and to the survival benefit of adjuvant anti-PD-1 immunotherapy and BRAF/MEK-inhibitor (BRAF/MEKi) therapy. Data are scarce regarding recurrence patterns, adjuvant therapy responses, and therapy-associated adverse events (AEs) in the modern era.

Methods: This single-institution, retrospective study analyzed surgically resected stage 3 and oligometastatic stage 4 patients who received anti-PD-1, BRAF/MEKi, or surgery with active surveillance only. The primary end point of the study was recurrence-free survival (RFS). The secondary end points were the location and clinical characteristics of recurrence and therapy-associated AEs.

Results: From a cohort of 137 patients, the study enrolled 102 patients treated with adjuvant anti-PD-1 (n = 46), adjuvant BRAF/MEKi (n = 3), or surgery alone (n = 26). During a mean follow-up period of 17 months, 20% of the ani-PD-1 patients, 13% of the BRAF/MEKi patients, and 42% of the surgery-only patients experienced recurrence. Log-rank testing showed a significantly longer RFS for the patients treated with anti-PD-1 [15.3 months; interquartile range (IQR), 8.2-23.2 months] or BRAF/MEKi (17.9 months; IQR, 12.5-23 months) than for those treated with surgery alone (11.9 months; IQR, 7.0-17.6 months). In the anti-PD-1 group, AEs occurred less frequently than in the BRAF/MEKi group (54% vs 80%).

Conclusions: Adjuvant anti-PD-1 and BRAF/MEKi were associated with significantly improved RFS for the patients with resected stage 3 or 4 melanoma. The BRAF/MEKi group had significantly more AEs than the anti-PD-1 group. This is the first study to characterize real-world recurrence in the modern era of adjuvant therapy for melanoma.

This study looked at 102 resected Stage III and Stage IV patients. (Stage III patients whose positive node was removed as well as Stage IV like me when I entered my Phase 1 Nivo trial in 2010, whose metastatic disease had been removed.)  46 were given adjuvant anti-PD-1.  3 were given BRAF/MEKi.  26 had surgery alone.  At 17 months 20% of those treated with anti-PD-1, 13% treated with targeted therapy, and 42% of the surgery-only patients had recurred.  Recurrence free survival lasted an average of15 months for anti-PD-1 patients, 18 months for the BRAF/Meki group, and only 12 months for those given surgery alone.   {While this type of data analysis of outcomes of adjuvant therapy is much needed - TAKE THESE NUMBERS WITH A HUGE GRAIN OF SALT!!!!!  THE 46 patients treated with anti-PD-1 and 26 given surgery only -is barely sufficient to make valid statistical analysis possible; the THREE treated with BRAF/MEKi does NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!}

The data presented in the reports included in this October 2020 post New follow-up data confirms effectiveness for targeted and immunotherapy as adjuvant in melanoma patients!!! is much better! To whit ~ 

From Five-Year Analysis of Adjuvant Dabrafenib plus Trametinib in Stage III Melanoma.  Drummer, Hauschild, Saninami, et al.  New England Journal of Medicine.  September 17, 2020.  

870 patients who had resected stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations to receive 12 months of oral dabrafenib (at a dose of 150 mg twice daily) plus trametinib (2 mg once daily) or two matched placebos.  At 5 years, the percentage of patients who were alive without relapse was 52% with dabrafenib plus trametinib and 36% with placebo.

From Longer Follow-Up Confirms Recurrence-Free Survival Benefit of Adjuvant Pembrolizumab in High-Risk Stage III Melanoma: Updated Results From the EORTC 1325-MG/KEYNOTE-054 Trial.  Eggermont, Blank, Mandala, et al.  J Clin Oncol.  September 18, 2020.

1,019 patients with complete lymph node dissection ofcutaneous melanoma were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab at a flat dose of 200 mg (n = 514) or placebo (n = 505) every 3 weeks for 1 year or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity.   3-year RFS rate, 63.7% v 44.1% for pembrolizumab v placebo, respectively.

From Adjuvant nivolumab versus ipilimumab in resected stage IIIB-C and stage IV melanoma (CheckMate 238): 4-year results from a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.  Ascierto, Del Vecchio, Mandala, et al.  Lancet Oncol.  September 18, 2020.

906 patients were assigned to nivolumab (n=453) or ipilimumab (n=453). Median follow-up was 51·1 months with nivolumab and 50·9 months with ipilimumab; 4-year recurrence-free survival was 51·7% in the nivolumab group and 41·2% in the ipilimumab group. With 211 (100 [22%] of 453 patients in the nivolumab group and 111 [25%] of 453 patients in the ipilimumab group) of 302 anticipated deaths, 4-year overall survival was 77·9% with nivolumab and 76·6% with ipilimumab.

NOW - even with all this - it is hard to compare THESE numbers! (Though they are clearly more statistically valid than those noted in the article I started with and also demonstrate the falseness of the claim those authors purport in the last sentence of their abstract!!!!!)  To that end,  I noted when I published them - 

So, there you go.  ALL of these adjuvant therapies provided Stage III/IV melanoma patients whose obvious disease was removed via surgery or radiation better results - no matter if they were treated with ipi, nivo, pembro or the dabrafinib/trametinib combo - than when they were left untreated.  Per these reports, here's how things panned out ~

Dabrafinib/trametinib - at 5 years, stage III melanoma patients alive without relapse was 52% with treatment vs 36% with placebo.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) - at 3 years, Stage III melanoma patients with recurrence free survival was 63.7% when treated with pembro, vs 44.1% for placebo.

Ipilimumab (Yervoy) - at 4 years, in Stage III and Stage IV melanoma patients, 4 year recurrence free survival was 41.2%.  4 year overall survival was 76.6%.

Nivolumab (Opdivo) - at 4 years, in Stage III and Stage IV melanoma patients, 4 year recurrence free survival was 51.7%.  4 year overall survival was 77.9%.

My thoughts:

The fact that Stage IV patients were included in the study looking at adjuvant ipi and nivo (CheckMate 238 trial) is HUGE!!!!!!  It makes comparison to the studies using pembro and the dabrafinib/trametinib combo as adjuvant in Stage III peeps ONLY, difficult to say the least.   I would really like to see an adjuvant study in Stage III melanoma patients where Keytruda and Opdivo are compared head to head, using the exact same result parameters and time frames.  I doubt there would be any significant difference in results as that has already been found to be the case when those agents are used in treatment of Stage IV melanoma patients - but still.  And finally, while the numbers for adjuvant ipi weren't that bad, and certainly much better than placebo, the side effects were greater - so I don't find ipi as a single agent a good choice for adjuvant therapy given the other options.

FYI - Time frames of follow-up matter.  As time goes on, more peeps have a chance to progress.  So data at three years is often better than outcomes reported at five years.

For instance in this article:  2017 - Nivo better than ipi as adjuvant  The data (drawn from Stage III AND Stage IV melanoma patients who took the drugs as adjuvant) demonstrates this:

Recurrence free survival at 12 months:

70.5% for nivo                    60.8% for ipi

Recurrence free survival at 18 months:

66.4% for nivo                    52.7% for ipi

That is why it is important to compare apples to apples in all aspects.  c

Adjuvant BRAF/ MEK for Stage III melanoma patients along with some thoughts on adjuvant care from melanoma Big Dogs

As a follow-up to yesterday's post....here is a look at targeted therapy as adjuvant for melanoma.  Here's a link to several previous reports including an early report on the study below:  Adjuvant Dabrafenib plus Trametinib in Stage III BRAF-Mutated Melanoma.  Now, there's this:

Longer Follow-Up Confirms Relapse-Free Survival Benefit With Adjuvant Dabrafenib Plus Trametinib in Patients With Resected BRAF V600-Mutant Stage III Melanoma.

Hauschile, Dummer, Schadendorf, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018 Oct 22.

Dabrafenib plus trametinib improved relapse-free survival (RFS) versus placebo in patients with resected BRAF V600-mutant stage III melanoma (BRF115532; COMBI-AD; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01682083). We present an updated RFS analysis on the basis of extended study follow-up and a cure-rate model analysis to estimate the fraction of patients expected to remain relapse free long term.  In this phase III trial, patients with resected BRAF V600-mutant stage III melanoma were randomly assigned to 12 months of adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib versus placebo. We report updated RFS (primary end point) and distant metastasis-free survival. RFS was also analyzed by subgroups defined by baseline disease stage (American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th and 8th editions), nodal metastatic burden, and ulceration status. The fraction of patients who remained relapse free long term was estimated using a Weibull mixture cure-rate model.  At median follow-up of 44 months (dabrafenib plus trametinib) and 42 months (placebo), 3- and 4-year RFS rates were 59% and 54% in the dabrafenib plus trametinib arm and 40% and 38% in the placebo arm, respectively. Distant metastasis-free survival also favored dabrafenib plus trametinib. The estimated cure rate was 54% in the dabrafenib plus trametinib arm compared with 37% in the placebo arm. Subgroup analysis of RFS demonstrated similar treatment benefit regardless of baseline factors, including disease stage, nodal metastatic burden, and ulceration.  Longer follow-up confirmed RFS benefit with dabrafenib plus trametinib. Subgroup analysis suggested that dabrafenib plus trametinib benefited patients regardless of baseline factors.

And here are some thoughts on adjuvant treatment from the researchers themselves:

Adjuvant melanoma therapy with new drugs: should physicians continue to focus on metastatic disease or use it earlier in primary melanoma? Grob, Garbe, Ascierto, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2018 Dec.

It is important to differentiate between two concepts of adjuvant therapy in melanoma-what we have come to call late adjuvant and early adjuvant therapy. Early adjuvant therapy is defined as a medical intervention that is done after resection of a primary melanoma to eradicate possible undetectable minimal residual disease, whereas late adjuvant therapy is done when an overt metastatic disease (nodal or visceral) has been completely resected, to control disease better than if the same treatment were given at a later time, in the presence of multiple metastases. Early adjuvant therapy is thus a preventive treatment strategy, whereas late adjuvant therapy aims at anticipating treatment of metastatic disease. For patients with melanoma, 1-year treatment with targeted therapies and immunotherapy have only been assessed in late adjuvant settings, the outcomes of which more or less reproduce the same dramatic effect as they have in metastatic disease. However, early adjuvant therapy could provide greater benefits in terms of public health, since thin melanomas without nodal metastases are so common that they account for most deaths by melanoma. In the early adjuvant setting, a treatment course of less than 1 year might be sufficient to control the disease, with less toxicity and at reduced costs. In this Personal View, we discuss the potential benefit of short-term early adjuvant treatment in patients with stage II melanoma, with the hope that sentinel-node biopsy and the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging will soon be replaced by more relevant biomarkers to identify the most suitable candidates for early adjuvant therapy for this disease.

We've come a long way since the current immunotherapy and targeted treatments for melanoma were FDA approved in 2011.  We have much more to figure out in regard to adjuvant treatments.  And a long way to go in making sure that melanoma treatments are even more effective and accessible for ALL melanoma patients.  May 2019 bring more answers!!! - c

Adjuvant therapy for melanoma - a history, the latest from ASCO 2021 and a remembering...

 I have been screaming about the need for adjuvant care since I became Stage IV with a zapped brain met and surgically removed lung met in April 2010 and could not attain a position in ongoing ipi trials because I had "no measurable disease".  After yet another met (surgically removed) to a tonsil in October of that year, I did gain placement in the adjuvant arm of a nivo trial being run by Weber (then of Moffitt in Tampa) that December.  Here's the report on how I and my 30 fellow ratties did, published in 2014:  C'est moi!!! Results from the 33 ratties in my Nivolumb/Opdivo trial...published!  

Since then, both targeted and immunotherapy have been FDA approved as adjuvant treatments for Stage III and IV melanoma patients. Here is a post with a break down of the science and FDA approvals from 2020:  ADJUVANT therapy for melanoma!!!!!!!!!!!!!! State of the science....  Here are a zillion additional posts, filled with the science, data and rants: All things Adjuvant 

Now there are these reports from earlier this year:

Novel adjuvant options for cutaneous melanoma.  Dimitriou, Long, Menzies.  Ann Oncol.  March 2021.

Background: Patients with resected stage III and IV melanoma have a high risk of recurrence. As the outcomes for patients with metastatic disease have improved dramatically over the past decade due to systemic therapy, more recently so too have the outcomes of patients with resected stage III and IV melanoma with the introduction of checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy and targeted therapy in the adjuvant setting.

Results: Anti-programmed cell death protein 1 monotherapy and BRAF/MEK inhibitors are currently deemed standard of care for resected stage III melanoma. For patients with stage IIIB melanoma, 2-year and 3-year recurrence-free survival is approximately 72% and 65% for nivolumab, 70% and 65.7% for pembrolizumab and 68% and 60% for dabrafenib/trametinib, respectively. For stage IIIC  melanoma, 2-year and 3-year recurrence-free survival is 60% and 53.5% for nivolumab, 60% and 54.3% for pembrolizumab and 59% and 47% for dabrafenib/trametinib, respectively. Adjuvant treatment is recommended for patients with stage IIIB-IIID melanoma, and may be considered for patients with stage IIIA melanoma. For resected stage IV, nivolumab is the only approved agent; however, recent results from a phase II clinical trial show promising efficacy for combined ipilimumab and nivolumab as well. Long-term data are required to determine which therapy has the greatest impact on overall survival. Schedules, delivery and toxicity are also important factors to consider when selecting adjuvant treatment.

Conclusions: Randomized studies of patients with resected high-risk melanoma have shown that immunotherapy or targeted therapy improve recurrence-free survival compared with placebo/ipilimumab. In order to optimize these treatments, prognostic and predictive biomarkers, as well as strategies to reduce treatment-related toxicities and overcome resistance, are required. 

Adjuvant Therapy of High-Risk (Stages IIC-IV) Malignant Melanoma in the Post Interferon-Alpha Era: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.  Christofyllakis, Pföhler, Bewarder, et al. Front Oncol.  Feb 2021.

Introduction: Multiple agents are approved in the adjuvant setting of completely resected high-risk (stages IIC-IV) malignant melanoma. Subgroups may benefit differently depending on the agent used. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficiency and tolerability of available options in the post interferon era across following subgroups: patient age, stage, ulceration status, lymph node involvement, BRAF status.

Methods: The PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched without restriction in year of publication in June and September 2020. Data were extracted according to the PRISMA Guidelines from two authors independently and were pooled according to the random-effects model. The predefined primary outcome was recurrence-free survival (RFS). Post-data extraction it was noted that one trial (BRIM8) reported disease-free survival which was defined in the exact same way as RFS.

Results: Five prospective randomized placebo-controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. The drug regimens included ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, nivolumab, nivolumab/ipilimumab, vemurafenib, and dabrafenib/trametinib. Adjuvant treatment was associated with a higher RFS than placebo. Nivolumab/ipilimumab in stage IV malignant melanoma was associated with the highest RFS benefit, followed by dabrafenib/trametinib in stage III BRAF-mutant melanoma. The presence of a BRAF mutation was associated with higher RFS rates compared to the wildtype group. Patient age did not influence outcomes. Immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy was associated with lower RFS in non-ulcerated melanoma. Patients with stage IIIA benefited equally from adjuvant treatment as those with stage IIIB/C. Nivolumab/ipilimumab and ipilimumab monotherapy were associated with higher toxicity.

Conclusion: Adjuvant therapy should not be withheld on account of advanced age or stage IIIA alone. The presence of a BRAF mutation is prognostically favorable in terms of RFS. BRAF/MEK inhibitors should be preferred in the adjuvant treatment of BRAF-mutant non-ulcerated melanoma.

Melanoma recurrence patterns and management after adjuvant targeted therapy: a multicentre analysis.  Bhave, Pallan, Long, et al.  Br J Cancer.  Feb 2021.

Background: Adjuvant targeted therapy (TT) improves relapse free survival in patients with resected BRAF mutant stage III melanoma. The outcomes and optimal management of patients who relapse after adjuvant TT is unknown.

Methods: Patients from twenty-one centres with recurrent melanoma after adjuvant TT were included. Disease characteristics, adjuvant therapy, recurrence, treatment at relapse and outcomes were examined.

Results: Eighty-five patients developed recurrent melanoma; nineteen (22%) during adjuvant TT. Median time to first recurrence was 18 months and median follow-up from first recurrence was 31 months. Fifty-eight (68%) patients received immunotherapy (IT) or TT as 1st line systemic therapy at either first or subsequent recurrence and had disease that was assessable for response. Response to anti-PD-1 (±trial agent), combination ipilimumab-nivolumab, TT rechallenge and ipilimumab monotherapy was 63%, 62% 25% and 10% respectively. Twenty-eight (33%) patients had died at census, all from melanoma. Two-year OS was 84% for anti-PD-1 therapy (±trial agent), 92% for combination ipilimumab and nivolumab, 49% for TT and 45% for ipilimumab monotherapy.

Conclusions: Patients who relapse after adjuvant TT respond well to subsequent anti-PD-1 based therapy and have outcomes similar to those seen when first line anti-PD-1 therapy is used in stage IV melanoma.

And these out of ASCO:

Management of resected stage III/IV melanoma with adjuvant immunotherapy.  Johnson, Atkinson, Bhave, et al.  ASCO 2021. 

Background:  Adjuvant anti-PD1 therapy reduces the risk of recurrence in resected stage III/IV melanoma and is now standard care. Limited data exist beyond registration trials. We sought to explore the use of adjuvant immunotherapy in routine clinical practice.

Methods:  Patients (pts) from 11 Australian centres who received adjuvant nivolumab (nivo) for resected stage III/IV melanoma were included in this study. Efficacy, toxicity, surveillance, recurrence characteristics, management and further treatment outcomes were examined.

Results: 471 pts received adjuvant nivo between 8/2018 to 3/2020. 318 (68%) were male, median age 64y (range 17-94), 28 (6%) were AJCC v8 IIIA, 194 (41%) IIIB, 175 (37%) IIIC, 11 (2%) IIID, and 63 (13%) IV. 65 (14%) pts had in-transit only disease, 152 (37%) pts were sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB+) and only 9 (6%) of these had CLND. 128 (27%) had BRAF mutant (BRAFmt) melanoma. Median time from resection to start of adjuvant nivo was 1.8 months (mo) (range 0.2-4.0). Median FU was 17.5 mo. 256 (54%) pts completed 12 months of nivo, 86 (18%) ceased early for toxicity, 76 (16%) for disease recurrence, 25 (5%) other reasons (COVID-19 8, co-morbidities 7, pt choice 10); 28 (6%) pts were still receiving nivo at data cut. Median duration of treatment was 10.4 mo (range 0-16.8). 117 (25%) pts recurred; 76 (65%) while ON nivo and 41 (35%) OFF nivo (greater than 1 month after last dose, including 20 pts who stopped early for toxicity). 24 mo RFS was 69%. Median time to recurrence was 6.0 mo. 56 (48%) had first recurrence with locoregional (LR) disease only and 61 (52%) had distant +/- LR recurrence. Of those who recurred with LR disease only, 46/56 (82%) underwent surgery, 15/46 (33%) then had adjuvant radiotherapy, and 15/46 (33%) had ‘second adjuvant’ therapy with BRAF/MEK inhibitors (15/21, 71% BRAFmt pts). 10/56 (37%) pts who recurred with LR disease subsequently recurred distantly. 58/80 (73%) pts received systemic therapy at either 1st or subsequent unresectable recurrence. For recurrences ON nivo, 18 pts received combination ipilimumab (ipi) and nivo (ORR 44%), 4 pts had ipi monotherapy (ORR 0%), 7 pts had anti-PD1 + investigational agent (ORR 57%), 11 pts had BRAF/MEK inhibitors (ORR 82%). 1 pt had PD with ongoing PD1 monotherapy. For recurrences OFF nivo, no patients responded to PD1 alone (n = 1) or with an investigational agent (n = 1), ipi+nivo (n = 3), ipi monotherapy (n = 4) or chemotherapy (n = 2); 6 pts received BRAF/MEK inhibitors (ORR 50%). 2-year OS was 92%.

Conclusions: Despite higher rates of discontinuation due to toxicity compared with clinical trial cohorts, the efficacy data appear similar. Most early recurrences are distant, and many with LR recurrence soon recur distantly thereafter. Second line adjuvant BRAF/MEK inhibitors are frequently used for resected LR recurrence. Both ipi+nivo and BRAF/MEK inhibitors appear to have activity after distant recurrence.

Final analysis of overall survival (OS) and relapse-free-survival (RFS) in the intergroup S1404 phase III randomized trial comparing either high-dose interferon (HDI) or ipilimumab to pembrolizumab in patients with high-risk resected melanoma. Grossmann, Othus, Patel, et al.  ASCO 2021. 

Background:   We assessed whether or not adjuvant pembrolizumab given over 1 year would improve OS and RFS in comparison to high dose ipilimumab (ipi10) or HDI - the two FDA-approved adjuvant treatments for high risk resected melanoma at the time of study design.

Methods:  Patients age 18 or greater with resected stages IIIA(N2), B, C and IV were eligible. Patients with CNS metastasis were excluded. [SO OVER THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]  At entry, patients must have had complete staging and adequate surgery to render them free of melanoma including completion lymph node dissection for those with sentinel node positive disease. Prior therapy with PD-1 blockade, ipilimumab or interferon was not allowed. Two treatment arms were assigned based on stratification by stage, PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative vs. unknown), and intended control arm (HDI vs. Ipi10). Patients enrolled between 10/2015 and 8/2017 were randomized 1:1 to either the control arm [(1) interferon alfa-2b 20 MU/m2 IV days 1-5, weeks 1-4, followed by 10 MU/m2/d SC days 1, 3, and 5, weeks 5-52 (n=190), or (2) ipilimumab 10 mg/kg IV q3w for 4 doses, then q12w for up to 3 years (n=465)], or the experimental arm [pembrolizumab 200 mg IV q3w for 52 weeks (n=648)]. The study had three primary comparisons: 1) RFS among all patients, 2) OS among all patients, 3) OS among patients with PD-L1+ baseline biopsies. 

Results: 1,426 patients were screened and 1,345 patients were randomized with 11%, 49%, 34%, and 6% AJCC7 stage IIIA(N2), IIIB, IIIC and IV, respectively. This final analysis was performed per-protocol 3.5 years from the date the last patient was randomized, with 512 RFS and 199 OS events. The pembrolizumab group had a statistically significant improvement in RFS compared to the control group (pooled HDI and ipi10) with HR 0.740 (99.618% CI, 0.571 to 0.958). There was no statistically significant improvement in OS in the 1,303 eligible randomized overall patient population with HR 0.837 (96.3% CI, 0.622 to 1.297), or among the 1,070 (82%) patients with PD-L1 positive baseline biopsies with HR 0.883 (97.8% CI, 0.604 to 1.291). Gr 3/4/5 event rates were as follows: HDI 69/9/0%, ipi10 43/5/0.5% and pembrolizumab 17/2/0.3%.

Conclusions:  Pembrolizumab improves RFS but not OS compared to HDI or ipi10 in the adjuvant treatment of patients with high-risk resected melanoma. Pembrolizumab is a better tolerated adjuvant treatment regimen than HDI or Ipi10.  Clinical trial information: NCT02506153.

See study below! 

Propensity weighted indirect treatment comparison of nivolumab (NIVO) versus placebo (PBO) as adjuvant therapy for resected melanoma: A number needed to treat and overall survival analysis.  Weber, Poretta, Stwalley, et al.  ASCO 2021.

Background:  The CheckMate 238 trial demonstrated that NIVO improved recurrence free survival (RFS) vs. ipilimumab (IPI). The EORTC 18071 trial demonstrated that IPI improved RFS and overall survival (OS) vs. PBO. The current study pooled data from these two trials to indirectly assess the RFS and OS of NIVO vs. PBO and the numbers needed to treat (NNTs) for one additional recurrence-free survivor and survivor over 4 years.

Methods:  Patients with resected AJCC 7th edition stage IIIB/C cutaneous melanoma from CheckMate 238 (NIVO vs. IPI) and EORTC 18071 (IPI vs. PBO) were pooled together with inverse probability weighting to balance between-trial differences in baseline characteristics. NNTs were calculated for RFS and OS comparing NIVO vs. IPI and PBO over 4 years. To account for improved post-recurrence survival over time, a sensitivity analysis that adjusted for post-recurrence survival in the PBO arm of EORTC 18071 was performed.

Results:   A total of 278, 643, and 365 patients treated with NIVO, IPI, and PBO, respectively, were included. In the weighted samples, patients treated with NIVO had consistently higher RFS rates than those treated with IPI (HR [95% CI]: 0.69 [0.56, 0.85]) and PBO (HR: 0.49 [0.39, 0.61]). NIVO was associated with similar OS as IPI (HR: 0.80 [0.60, 1.08]) and superior OS compared to PBO (HR: 0.45 [0.33, 0.60]). At 4 years, the weighted RFS rate was 53.1% for NIVO, 41.8% for IPI, and 29.1% for PBO. The NNT to achieve one additional recurrence-free survivor was 4.2 for NIVO vs. PBO and 8.9 for NIVO vs. IPI. The NNT to obtain one additional survivor was 4.8 for NIVO vs. PBO and 22.2 for NIVO vs. IPI. The OS rate for PBO after adjusting for differences in post-recurrence treatments at 4 years was 64.1%, and the corresponding NNT of OS comparing NIVO vs. adjusted PBO was 8.5.

Conclusions:  In patients with resected AJCC 7th edition stage IIIB/C cutaneous melanoma, this indirect comparison showed that NIVO improved RFS and OS vs placebo, with OS improvement maintained after adjustment for post-recurrence therapy.

Like so much in melanoma, adjuvant therapy is not a sure thing.  Still, I am certain adjuvant nivo saved my life as a Stage IV patient spiraling into met after met in untenable physiologic locations.  

Thanks to all the mice and ratties who light our way.  I continue to hold ever so many, to whom my debt of gratitude will never be repaid, in my heart.  A few are remembered here ~ Oh, the people you'll meet...

And here:  Artie...a beautiful soul, an amazing knight. Merde!

And here:  Heavy heart, heavy lifting ~ for he was all of us...

I sill think of Steven, Joshie and all the others.  And today, news that I will never meet our dear Julie in person.  Even so, I will love her still, forever in appreciation of her wide smile, her incredible goodness and common sense.  I imagine she is looking down on us, from a beautiful vista, alongside her beloved camper that will never need repairs, on trips unspoiled by earthly troubles.  Be at peace, my dear friend.  We will always love you. Shalom. ~ les

BRAF/MEK before surgery as well as after is MUCH better, than just AFTER surgery for melanoma!! Plus trial still recruiting resectable stage III/IV melanoma peeps.

We have long known that BRAF positive melanoma peeps can respond almost magically to BRAF inhibitors, and do even better, with fewer side effects and less tumor work-around, when those medications are combined with a MEK inhibitor.  However, we also know that far too often, despite the combo, tumors can still learn to rear their ugly heads after that initial response.  For that reason, BRAF/MEK inhibition is often used to lower tumor burden quickly, then start the patient on immunotherapy.  Lot's of studies are also looking at pairing this targeted therapy with immunotherapy and a host of other drugs that will boost the durability of these responses.  Here are a zillion BRAF inhibitor related posts:  More than you ever wanted to know about BRAF inhibitors/targeted therapy in melanoma

With all that being noted...the next great way to treat melanoma is through adjuvant care.  Meaning - after the patient is rendered "free of disease" (usually these are Stage III or IV patients whose tumors are removed surgically and/or treated with radiation, whose follow-up scans of the irradiated area show no viable tumor) they can then be treated with immunotherapy or targeted therapy to try to make sure that their melanoma does not come back.  This was the premise of the study arm I was in, taking nivo from 2010-2013.  We know adjuvant care, whether you use ipi, anti-PD-1, or BRAF/MEK, works for many in melanoma!!!  Here are a zillion posts on that:  Adjuvant treatments WORK in melanoma!!!

Now....with all that said...we are also learning about NEOadjuvant treatment.  This treatment is where you find out the patient has melanoma.  THEN you start them on their meds.  THEN you remove the tumor and continue the treatment.  Here are some reports on neoadjuvant studies looking at BRAFi as neoadjuvant, along with the the OpACIN trial which used ipi/nivo as neo-adjuvant for Stage III melanoma patients.  Note:  you will have to scroll through some of the posts as some of the NEO-adjuvants articles are interspersed. - Neoadjuvant studies in melanoma

Researcher Amaria (lead author of the article below), has figured largely in the published data for BRAF/MEK as neoadjuvant.  Now, there's this:

Neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib versus standard of care in patients with high-risk, surgically resectable melanoma: a single-centre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial. Amaria, Prieto, Tetzlaff, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2018 Jan 17.

Dual BRAF and MEK inhibition produces a response in a large number of patients with stage IV BRAF-mutant melanoma. The existing standard of care for patients with clinical stage III melanoma is upfront surgery and consideration for adjuvant therapy, which is insufficient to cure most patients. Neoadjuvant targeted therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors (such as dabrafenib and trametinib) might provide clinical benefit in this high-risk p opulation.

We undertook this single-centre, open-label, randomised phase 2 trial at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX, USA). Eligible participants were adult patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed surgically resectable clinical stage III or oligometastatic stage IV BRAFV600E or BRAFV600K (ie, Val600Glu or Val600Lys)-mutated melanoma. Eligible patients had to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, a life expectancy of more than 3 years, and no previous exposure to BRAF or MEK inhibitors. Exclusion criteria included metastases to bone, brain, or other sites where complete surgical excision was in doubt. We randomly assigned patients (1:2) to either upfront surgery and consideration for adjuvant therapy (standard of care group) or neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib (8 weeks of neoadjuvant oral dabrafenib 150 mg twice per day and oral trametinib 2 mg per day followed by surgery, then up to 44 weeks of adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib starting 1 week after surgery for a total of 52 weeks of treatment). Randomisation was not masked and was implemented by the clinical trial conduct website maintained by the trial centre. Patients were stratified by disease stage. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed event-free survival (ie, patients who were alive without disease progression) at 12 months in the intent-to-treat population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231775.

Between Oct 23, 2014, and April 13, 2016, we randomly assigned seven patients to standard of care, and 14 to neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib. The trial was stopped early after a prespecified interim safety analysis that occurred after a quarter of the participants had been accrued revealed significantly longer event-free survival with neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib than with standard of care. After a median follow-up of 18·6 months (IQR 14·6-23·1), significantly more patients receiving neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib were alive without disease progression than those receiving standard of care (ten [71%] of 14 patients vs none of seven in the standard of care group; median event-free survival was 19·7 months vs 2·9 months. Neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib were well tolerated with no occurrence of grade 4 adverse events or treatment-related deaths. The most common adverse events in the neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib group were expected grade 1-2 toxicities including chills (12 patients [92%]), headache (12 [92%]), and pyrexia (ten [77%]). The most common grade 3 adverse event was diarrhoea (two patients [15%]).

Neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib significantly improved event-free survival versus standard of care in patients with high-risk, surgically resectable, clinical stage III-IV melanoma. Although the trial finished early, limiting generalisability of the results, the findings provide proof-of-concept and support the rationale for further investigation of neoadjuvant approaches in this disease. This trial is currently continuing accrual as a single-arm study of neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib.

In this study of only 21 stage III/IV patients who had never taken BRAF/MEK, whose tumors were BRAF positive, and could be removed surgically, were divided in 2 groups. Folks with "metastases to bone, brain, or other sites where complete surgical excision was in doubt" were excluded.  7 got standard of care:  complete excision of their tumor and "consideration" of adjuvant therapy.  21 got the BRAF/MEK combo (dabrafenib and trametinib) BEFORE surgical removal of their lesion as well as AFTER!  Ten of the 14 treated with BRAF/MEK before and after excision were alive without disease progression "vs none of seven in the standard of care group".  These results were deemed so good that this phase of the trial was stopped and only the neoadjuvant/adjuvant arm is continuing, and in fact, recruiting.

This is great news.  However, I do see several flies in this report.
1.  You researchers left out some folks in serious need of care...folks with brain, bone and other mets that you didn't see as a winning ticket.  I've been one of those peeps and was given adjuvant care.  Those folks need neo-adjuvant/adjuvant care as much (or more!!!!) than anybody!!  Here's a small tirade on their being left out of clinical trials:  A really good review of treatment data for Melanoma Brain Mets!!! (And this is from 2015!!!!!!!!)
2.  These are really small numbers...in both arms.
3.  The fact that the 7 in the standard care arm were eligible for "consideration" of adjuvant care is pretty lame.  That language tells me that some chose to forego adjuvant care!!!  So OF COURSE!!! ~ those who had no additional care did less well!!!!  To provide greater clarity and benefit, the authors should have clearly defined the standard of care group in regard to whether they actually utilized BRAF/MEK after resection or not.
4.  Finally, I really don't care for the major drama, yet lack of real information, posed in this categorization of the 7 peeps in the standard of care group:  "more patients receiving neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib were alive without disease progression than those receiving standard of care (ten [71%] of 14 patients vs none of seven in the standard of care group".  At first blush it seems that all of the 7 are dead, along with the 4 out of the 14 in the neo/adjuvant group!!  Come on, Amaria!  You have better writing skills than this!  Some of these peeps may well have passed, but it is also possible that ALL these folks are alive, albeit with disease progression.  Clarification of that could easily have been included in this abstract and is hopefully made more clear in the actual published article.

Now...despite that critique...I am a huge fan of neoadjuvant treatment.  More and more, it is looking as though melanoma peeps treated in this way do better.  But, if nothing else, neoadjuvant treatment (treatment BEFORE surgical resection) provides decreased tumor bulk, therefore minimizing the invasiveness of the surgical resection.

You know me, Keep'n it💯!!!!!!!!!!  ~ les

Adjuvant treatments in melanoma - They WORK!!! Now, let's make sure people can get them!!!!!

It was certainly good news when the FDA (FINALLY!!!) approved ipi as an adjuvant treatment for melanoma.  And....it works!  ASCO 2017: Ipi 3 mg vs 10 mg in advanced melanoma and as adjuvant

We also KNOW that anti-PD-1 works EVEN BETTER, with fewer side effects, as an adjuvant treatment in melanoma. The trial that I and my fellow ratties started in 2010 proved that...and so have other studies since:  Nivo better than ipi as adjuvant treatment for melanoma! Surprise, surprise, surprise!!!

We also KNOW that BRAF/MEK inhibitors are extremely effective as an adjuvant therapy in patients with BRAF positive melanoma:  2016: Straight Outta Boston!!! Latest melanoma research ~
One abstract included in that link notes:

Stage IIIB/C treated with adjuvant BRAFi = 100% 6 month survival vs 28.6% with standard care!!!

Treatment with neoadjuvant + adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib (D+T) is associated with improved relapse-free survival (RFS) versus standard of care (SOC) therapy in patients with high-risk resectable BRAF-mutant melanoma.  Amaria, et al.

The treatment of stage IV melanoma has been revolutionized by targeted therapy and immune checkpoint blockade, and there is a strong rationale to evaluate these agents in earlier stages of disease. The current SOC in patients (pts) with high-risk resectable melanoma (stage IIIB/IIIC) is upfront surgery +/- adjuvant therapy, but relapse rates are high. We hypothesized that treatment with neoadjuvant + adjuvant D+T in this population would result in lower relapse rates compared to SOC. Methods: We conducted a prospective randomized clinical trial (NCT02231775) in pts with resectable Stage IIIB/C or oligometastatic stage IV BRAF-mutant melanoma. Pts were randomized in a 1:2 fashion to SOC (Arm A) or neo + adjuvant D+T (Arm B, 8 wks neoadjuvant + 44 wks adjuvant). Planned enrollment was 84 pts. Primary endpoint was RFS. Results: Randomization was halted after 21 pts were enrolled (arm A=7, arm B=14). Arms were well matched for gender and stage of disease, though pts in arm A were younger. Perioperative complication rates were similar and toxicity in arm B was manageable. At week 8 the RECIST response rate with D+T was 77% and the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate was 58%. Early analysis revealed a significantly higher RFS in the D+T arm over SOC, with 6-month survival estimated at 100% in Arm B and 28.6% in Arm A, leading to trial closure. Conclusions: Treatment with neoadjuvant + adjuvant D+T is well tolerated, results in high clinical response and pCR rates, and markedly improves RFS in pts with high-risk resectable metastatic melanoma. Correlative analyses are underway to characterize mechanisms of response and resistance to neo + adjuvant D+T.  

Now...there's this:  

Adjuvant Dabrafenib plus Trametinib in Stage III BRAF-Mutated Melanoma. Long, Hauschild, Santinami, et al. N Engl J Med. 2017 Sep 10. 

Combination therapy with the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib plus the MEK inhibitor trametinib improved survival in patients with advanced melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations. We sought to determine whether adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib would improve outcomes in patients with resected, stage III melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations. 

In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 870 patients with completely resected, stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations to receive oral dabrafenib at a dose of 150 mg twice daily plus trametinib at a dose of 2 mg once daily (combination therapy, 438 patients) or two matched placebo tablets (432 patients) for 12 months. The primary end point was relapse-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, distant metastasis-free survival, freedom from relapse, and safety. 

At a median follow-up of 2.8 years, the estimated 3-year rate of relapse-free survival was 58% in the combination-therapy group and 39% in the placebo group. The 3-year overall survival rate was 86% in the combination-therapy group and 77% in the placebo group, but this level of improvement did not cross the prespecified interim analysis boundary of P=0.000019. Rates of distant metastasis-free survival and freedom from relapse were also higher in the combination-therapy group than in the placebo group. The safety profile of dabrafenib plus trametinib was consistent with that observed with the combination in patients with metastatic melanoma. 

Adjuvant use of combination therapy with dabrafenib plus trametinib resulted in a significantly lower risk of recurrence in patients with stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations than the adjuvant use of placebo and was not associated with new toxic effects.

Relapse free survival...58% with treatment, 39% with placebo!  Sounds good to me...of course you have to be BRAF positive....but it's something!!!

Now this is something "new"....and VERY old!!!  Remember this post:  Immunotherapy....The Original Super Heroes and Ratties!!!!  When you talk about CpG-B - Coley's toxin comes to mind, who, in the 1890's, injected bacteria into tumors and found that they would GO AWAY!!!  In 1983 an underlying DNA component of the bacteria, responsible for the effect, was discovered.  And in 1995, the specific DNA molecules (CpG) were found to be the component that specifically stimulated the immune response, with the B group in particular, causing B cell and monocyte maturation.  And since some of the patients were also given GM-CSF in the study below, here's a reminder about what that is:  Sargramostim ~ aka GM-CSF or leukine (and other related posts)  Here's the latest:

Local Adjuvant Treatment with Low-Dose CpG-B Offers Durable Protection against Disease Recurrence in Clinical Stage I-II Melanoma: Data from Two Randomized Phase II Trials. Koster, Van den Hout, Sluijter, et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2017 Oct 1.  

Although risk of recurrence after surgical removal of clinical stage I-II melanoma is considerable, there is no adjuvant therapy with proven efficacy. Here, we provide clinical evidence that a local conditioning regimen, aimed at immunologic arming of the tumor-draining lymph nodes, may provide durable protection against disease recurrence (median follow-up, 88.8 months).

In two randomized phase II trials, patients, diagnosed with stage I-II melanoma after excision of the primary tumor, received local injections at the primary tumor excision site within 7 days preceding re-excision and sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy of either a saline placebo (n = 22) or low-dose CpG type B (CpG-B) with (n = 9) or without (n = 21) low-dose GM-CSF.

CpG-B treatment was shown to be safe, to boost locoregional and systemic immunity, to be associated with lower rates of tumor-involved SLN (10% vs. 36% in controls), and, at a median follow-up of 88.8 months, to profoundly improve recurrence-free survival, even for patients with histologically confirmed (i.e., pathologic) stage I-II disease.

Potentially offering durable protection, local low-dose CpG-B administration in early-stage melanoma provides an adjuvant treatment option for a large group of patients currently going untreated despite being at considerable risk for disease recurrence. Once validated in a larger randomized phase III trial, this nontoxic immunopotentiating regimen may prove clinically transformative. 

What's not to like????? 

And there's this....  Here, CancerVax (canvaxin) was given along with BCG.  

Long-Term Survival after Complete Surgical Resection and Adjuvant Immunotherapy for Distant Melanoma Metastases. Faries, Mozzillo, Kashani-Sabet, et al.  Ann Surg Oncol. 2017 Oct 10. 

This phase III study was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy of an allogeneic whole-cell vaccine (Canvaxin™) plus bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) after complete resection of stage IV melanoma.  After complete resection of ≤5 distant metastases, patients were randomly assigned to BCG+Canvaxin (BCG/Cv) or BCG+placebo (BCG/Pl). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS), and immune response measured by skin test.  Beginning in May 1998, 496 patients were randomized. In April 2005, the Data Safety Monitoring Board recommended stopping enrollment due to a low probability of efficacy. At that time, median OS and 5-year OS rate were 38.6 months and 44.9%, respectively, for BCG/Pl versus 31.4 months and 39.6% in the BCG/Cv group (hazard ratio (HR), 1.18; p = 0.250). Follow-up was extended at several trial sites through March 2010. Median OS and 5-year and 10-year survival was 39.1 months, 43.3 and 33.3%, respectively, for BCG/Pl versus 34.9 months, 42.5 and 36.4%, in the BCG/Cv group. Median DFS, 5- and 10-year DFS were 7.6 months, 23.8 and 21.7%, respectively, for BCG/Pl versus 8.5 months, 30.0%, and 30.0%, respectively, for the BCG/Cv group. Positive DTH skin testing correlated with increased survival.  In this, the largest study of postsurgical adjuvant therapy for stage IV melanoma reported to date, BCG/Cv did not improve outcomes over BCG/placebo. Favorable long-term survival among study patients suggests that metastasectomy should be considered for selected patients with stage IV melanoma.

So...that adjuvant therapy is a big NO!!!  As much as I love the idea of a vaccine (peptide vaccines - 6 of them actually - were included in my trial and DID NOT HELP!!!!) as treatment for melanoma, and have hope that someday....  Well, so far - it has been a no go!!!  But...we have all the options noted above that DO WORK!!!

I have been yelling about melanoma adjuvant treatment options since 2003!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Could we please take some action?????

The 2017 complete overhaul of adjuvant therapies for high-risk melanoma and its consequences for staging and management of melanoma patients. Eggermont, Dummer.  Eur J Cancer. 2017 Sep 28.  

The spectacular outcomes of the phase III trials regarding nivolumab versus ipilimumab in fully resected stage IIIB/C-IV and of the combination of dabrafenib (D) plus trametinib (T) in BRAF-mutant stage III patients demonstrate that effective treatments in advanced melanoma are also highly effective in the adjuvant setting. [No shit!!!!] In 2016, an overall survival benefit with adjuvant high-dose ipilimumab was demonstrated, and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer trial 1325 comparing pembrolizumab versus placebo will complete the picture in the early 2018. Toxicity profiles are in line with the experience in advanced melanoma, i.e. favourable for the anti-PD1 agents and for D + T and problematic for ipilimumab. The 2017 outcomes are practice changing and put an end to the use of interferon (IFN) and ipilimumab. [No shit!  And...ABOUT TIME!!!] In countries with only access to IFN, its use can be restricted to patients with ulcerated melanoma, based on the individual patient data meta-analysis recently published. Because of the results of the Melanoma Sentinel Lymph node Trial-2 (MSLT-2) trial, completion lymph node dissection (CLND) will decrease sharply, leading to a lack of optimal prognostic information. Prognosis in sentinel node-positive stage IIIA/B patients is extremely heterogeneous with 5-year survival rates varying from 90% to 40% and depends mostly on the number of positive nodes identified by CLND. This information is crucial for clinical decision-making. How to guarantee optimal staging information needs to be discussed urgently. Further improvements of adjuvant therapies will have to address all these questions as well as the exploration of neoadjuvant use of active drugs and combination approaches. Important paradigm shifts in the management of high-risk melanoma patients are upon us.

"Important paradigm shifts in the management of high-risk melanoma patients are upon us." I hope so!!!  It is more than time!  So many ratties have done the work.  Let's make this so!!!! - c

New follow-up data confirms effectiveness for targeted and immunotherapy as adjuvant in melanoma patients!!!

Since my role as an original rattie in an adjuvant arm of Stage IV melanoma peeps using MDX1106 - today's nivolumab (Opdivo) - in 2010, I haven't stopped yelling about the need for adjuvant treatment for other melanoma patients for one minute!!!  Here are 9 zillion pertinent posts from this blog:  Adjuvant therapy for melanoma  I am particularly proud of yelling this in 2017 - 

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2017

Adjuvant treatments in melanoma - They WORK!!! Now, let's make sure people can get them!!!!!

It was certainly good news when the FDA (FINALLY!!!) approved ipi as an adjuvant treatment for melanoma.  And....it works!  ASCO 2017: Ipi 3 mg vs 10 mg in advanced melanoma and as adjuvant

We also KNOW that anti-PD-1 works EVEN BETTER, with fewer side effects, as an adjuvant treatment in melanoma. The trial that I and my fellow ratties started in 2010 proved that...and so have other studies since:  Nivo better than ipi as adjuvant treatment for melanoma! Surprise, surprise, surprise!!!

We also KNOW that BRAF/MEK inhibitors are extremely effective as an adjuvant therapy in patients with BRAF positive melanoma:  2016: Straight Outta Boston!!! Latest melanoma research ~

It is with a mixture of satisfaction, frustration, smug back patting, and hope - that I share these recent results that CONFIRM - ADJUVANT THERAPIES WORK FOR MELANOMA!!!!! 

Five-Year Analysis of Adjuvant Dabrafenib plus Trametinib in Stage III Melanoma.  Drummer, Hauschild, Saninami, et al.  New England Journal of Medicine.  September 17, 2020.

In the previously reported primary analysis of this phase 3 trial, 12 months of adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib resulted in significantly longer relapse-free survival than placebo in patients with resected stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations. To confirm the stability of the relapse-free survival benefit, longer-term data were needed.

We randomly assigned 870 patients who had resected stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations to receive 12 months of oral dabrafenib (at a dose of 150 mg twice daily) plus trametinib (2 mg once daily) or two matched placebos. The primary end point was relapse-free survival. Here, we report 5-year results for relapse-free survival and survival without distant metastasis as the site of the first relapse. Overall survival was not analyzed, since the required number of events to trigger the final overall survival analysis had not been reached.

The minimum duration of follow-up was 59 months (median patient follow-up, 60 months for dabrafenib plus trametinib and 58 months for placebo). At 5 years, the percentage of patients who were alive without relapse was 52% with dabrafenib plus trametinib and 36% with placebo. The percentage of patients who were alive without distant metastasis was 65% with dabrafenib plus trametinib and 54% with placebo. No clinically meaningful between-group difference in the incidence or severity of serious adverse events was reported during the follow-up period.

In the 5-year follow-up of a phase 3 trial involving patients who had resected stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations, 12 months of adjuvant therapy with dabrafenib plus trametinib resulted in a longer duration of survival without relapse or distant metastasis than placebo with no apparent long-term toxic effects.

Good.  Now.  Enough with the placebo crapolla!!!

Longer Follow-Up Confirms Recurrence-Free Survival Benefit of Adjuvant Pembrolizumab in High-Risk Stage III Melanoma: Updated Results From the EORTC 1325-MG/KEYNOTE-054 Trial.  Eggermont, Blank, Mandala, et al.  J Clin Oncol.  September 18, 2020.

We conducted the phase III double-blind European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 1325/KEYNOTE-054 trial to evaluate pembrolizumab versus placebo in patients with resected high-risk stage III melanoma. On the basis of 351 recurrence-free survival (RFS) events at a 1.25-year median follow-up, pembrolizumab prolonged RFS compared with placebo. This led to the approval of pembrolizumab adjuvant treatment by the European Medicines Agency and US Food and Drug Administration. Here, we report an updated RFS analysis at the 3.05-year median follow-up.

A total of 1,019 patients with complete lymph node dissection of American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual, stage IIIA (at least one lymph node metastasis greater than 1 mm), IIIB, or IIIC (without in-transit metastasis) cutaneous melanoma were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab at a flat dose of 200 mg (n = 514) or placebo (n = 505) every 3 weeks for 1 year or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity. The two coprimary end points were RFS in the overall population and in those with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive tumors.

Pembrolizumab (190 RFS events) compared with placebo (283 RFS events) resulted in prolonged RFS in the overall population (3-year RFS rate, 63.7% v 44.1% for pembrolizumab v placebo, respectively;) and in the PD-L1-positive tumor subgroup. The impact of pembrolizumab on RFS was similar in subgroups, in particular according to AJCC-7 and AJCC-8 staging, and BRAF mutation status.

In resected high-risk stage III melanoma, pembrolizumab adjuvant therapy provided a sustained and clinically meaningful improvement in RFS at 3-year median follow-up. This improvement was consistent across subgroups.

Again.  Good.  Enough with placebo!!!!

There is also an update on the CheckMate 238 trial.  Here are my prior posts on that study as it progressed from 2017 and 2018 - Reports on CheckMate 238  Now, this:

Adjuvant nivolumab versus ipilimumab in resected stage IIIB-C and stage IV melanoma (CheckMate 238): 4-year results from a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.  Ascierto, Del Vecchio, Mandala, et al.  Lancet Oncol.  September 18, 2020.

Previously, findings from CheckMate 238, a double-blind, phase 3 adjuvant trial in patients with resected stage IIIB-C or stage IV melanoma, showed significant improvements in recurrence-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival with nivolumab versus ipilimumab. This report provides updated 4-year efficacy, initial overall survival, and late-emergent safety results.

This multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial was done in 130 academic centres, community hospitals, and cancer centres across 25 countries. Patients aged 15 years or older with resected stage IIIB-C or IV melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive nivolumab or ipilimumab via an interactive voice response system and stratified according to disease stage and baseline PD-L1 status of tumour cells. Patients received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or intravenous ipilimumab 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, and then every 12 weeks until 1 year of treatment, disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival by investigator assessment, and overall survival was a key secondary endpoint. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned patients). All patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included in the safety analysis. The results presented in this report reflect the 4-year update of the ongoing study with a database lock date of Jan 30, 2020. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02388906.

Between March 30 and Nov 30, 2015, 906 patients were assigned to nivolumab (n=453) or ipilimumab (n=453). Median follow-up was 51·1 months with nivolumab and 50·9 months with ipilimumab; 4-year recurrence-free survival was 51·7% in the nivolumab group and 41·2% in the ipilimumab group. With 211 (100 [22%] of 453 patients in the nivolumab group and 111 [25%] of 453 patients in the ipilimumab group) of 302 anticipated deaths, 4-year overall survival was 77·9% with nivolumab and 76·6% with ipilimumab. Late-emergent grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in three (1%) of 452 and seven (2%) of 453 patients. The most common late-emergent treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events reported were diarrhoea, diabetic ketoacidosis, and pneumonitis (one patient each) in the nivolumab group, and colitis (two patients) in the ipilimumab group. Two previously reported treatment-related deaths in the ipilimumab group were attributed to study drug toxicity (marrow aplasia in one patient and colitis in one patient); no further treatment-related deaths were reported.

At a minimum of 4 years' follow-up, nivolumab demonstrated sustained recurrence-free survival benefit versus ipilimumab in resected stage IIIB-C or IV melanoma indicating a long-term treatment benefit with nivolumab. With fewer deaths than anticipated, overall survival was similar in both groups. Nivolumab remains an efficacious adjuvant treatment for patients with resected high-risk melanoma, with a safety profile that is more tolerable than that of ipilimumab.

So, there you go.  ALL of these adjuvant therapies provided Stage III/IV melanoma patients whose obvious disease was removed via surgery or radiation better results - no matter if they were treated with ipi, nivo, pembro or the dabrafinib/trametinib combo - than when they were left untreated.  Per these reports, here's how things panned out ~

Dabrafinib/trametinib - at 5 years, stage III melanoma patients alive without relapse was 52% with treatment vs 36% with placebo.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) - at 3 years, Stage III melanoma patients with recurrence free survival was 63.7% when treated with pembro, vs 44.1% for placebo.

Ipilimumab (Yervoy) - at 4 years, in Stage III and Stage IV melanoma patients, 4 year recurrence free survival was 41.2%.  4 year overall survival was 76.6%.

Nivolumab (Opdivo) - at 4 years, in Stage III and Stage IV melanoma patients, 4 year recurrence free survival was 51.7%.  4 year overall survival was 77.9%.

My thoughts:

The fact that Stage IV patients were included in the study looking at adjuvant ipi and nivo (CheckMate 238 trial) is HUGE!!!!!!  It makes comparison to the studies using pembro and the dabrafinib/trametinib combo as adjuvant in Stage III peeps ONLY, difficult to say the least.   I would really like to see an adjuvant study in Stage III melanoma patients where Keytruda and Opdivo are compared head to head, using the exact same result parameters and time frames.  I doubt there would be any significant difference in results as that has already been found to be the case when those agents are used in treatment of Stage IV melanoma patients - but still.  And finally, while the numbers for adjuvant ipi weren't that bad, and certainly much better than placebo, the side effects were greater - so I don't find ipi as a single agent a good choice for adjuvant therapy given the other options.

For what it's worth and with great appreciation to all the ratties ~ les

P.S.  FYI - time frames of follow-up matter.  As time goes on, more peeps have a chance to progress.  So data at three years may be better than outcomes reported at five years.

For instance in this article:  2017 - Nivo better than ipi as adjuvant  The data (drawn from Stage III AND Stage IV melanoma patients who took the drugs as adjuvant) demonstrates this:

Recurrence free survival at 12 months:

70.5% for nivo                    60.8% for ipi

Recurrence free survival at 18 months:

66.4% for nivo                    52.7% for ipi

That is why it is important to compare apples to apples in all aspects.  c

Review of adjuvant treatment in Stage III melanoma and "death knell" for ipi and interferon in that role!!!!

Those who have read this blog for half a minute know that I have been yelling about the need for adjuvant treatment in melanoma that is NOT interferon....and after the response rates we know we can attain with anti-PD-1 products and BRAF/MEKi...NOT ipi either!!!  Here is a recent post with links to more within:

Adjuvant treatments in melanoma - They WORK!!! Now, let's make sure people can get them!!!!!

Now there's this:

Dabrafenib/Trametinib Combination and Nivolumab New Adjuvant Treatment Options for Stage III Melanoma. Prime Line, October 5, 2017.

The current adjuvant treatment options for high-risk patients with resectable melanoma include interferon and the cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor ipilimumab. Compared to placebo, ipilimumab (10 mg/kg) prolonged relapse free survival (RFS) and showed significant 5-year survival benefit in high-risk patients with melanoma, but at the cost of serious toxicity. In the metastatic setting, combinations of BRAF/MEK inhibitors in patients harboring BRAF mutations, and immunotherapy with programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1) inhibitors (± ipilimumab) regardless of BRAF status are standard of care based on evidence of survival benefit and manageable toxicity. The efficacy of these regimens has, thus, been investigated in the adjuvant setting, and results from two of these studies presented at the third Presidential Session at the 2017 European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress are practice changing.

The COMBI-AD trial (N = 870), presented by Axel Hauschild, MD, PhD (University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany), compared the combination of dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) and trametinib (2 mg daily) to placebo in patients with resected, high-risk, stage IIIA-C melanoma with BRAF V600E/Kmutation. At 2.8 years follow-up, the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib had significantly improved RFS compared to placebo (not reached vs 16.6 months). The 3-year RFS rate was 58% with the combination compared to 39% with placebo. The benefit of dabrafenib plus trametinib adjuvant therapy was seen across all patient subgroups, regardless of disease stage or risk factors. Furthermore, combination therapy significantly improved overall survival (OS), with 3-year OS rates of 86% with combination versus 77% with placebo. Dabrafenib plus trametinib was associated with an increase in adverse events (AEs) compared to placebo (grade 3/4: 41% vs 14%), but there were no deaths due to AE. A greater number of patients receiving the combination discontinued treatment due to AE (26% vs 3%), with the most common reasons being pyrexia and chills. In his conclusion, Dr Hauschild highlighted the RFS and OS benefits of dabrafenib plus trametinib, along with the manageable safety profile, indicating that this combination should become a new treatment option for patients with resected, stage III, BRAF-mutated melanoma. Results from the COMBI-AD trial were simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Jeffery Weber, MD, PhD (New York University, New York, New York, United States), presented results from the phase III CheckMate-238 trial (N = 906), which compared one year of adjuvant therapy with nivolumab (3 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks) to ipilimumab (10 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks for 4 doses, then every 12 weeks) in patients with resected stage III/IV melanoma. Significantly more patients treated with nivolumab remained relapse-free at 18 months compared to ipilimumab (66% vs 53%). Relapse-free survival benefit favored nivolumab regardless of PD-L1 expression level, disease stage, or BRAF mutation status. Adjuvant treatment with nivolumab was more tolerable than ipilimumab. There were fewer grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs in the nivolumab arm (14% vs 46%), and fewer patients treated with nivolumab experienced a treatment-related AE leading to discontinuation (8% vs 42%). There were no treatment-related deaths in the nivolumab group, while 2 patients in the ipilimumab group died due to AE. Dr Weber concluded that nivolumab should be considered as a new standard treatment option for patients with resected stage IIIB/IIIC/IV melanoma, regardless of BRAF mutation status. Results from this trial were also simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

In their discussions of these studies, Alexander Eggermont, MD, PhD (Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France), and Reinhard Dummer, MD, PhD (Cancer Center Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland), indicated that these trials represent the death knell for both ipilimumab and interferon as adjuvant therapies for melanoma. Moving forward, either nivolumab or dabrafenib plus trametinib will be the adjuvant therapy of choice for stage III melanoma, with treatment choice dependent on BRAF mutation status and physician and patient preference.

Additional reiteration (if you're into redundant redundancy) was noted in an editorial by Lynn Schuchter M.D. in The New England Journal of Medicine, published today:

Adjuvant Melanoma Therapy - Head-Spinning Progress

There she states, in part:

"Every year in the United States, approximately 87,000 patients receive the diagnosis of melanoma. Although most of these patients are cured with simple excision, those with node-positive, stage III melanoma are at increased risk for distant metastasis and death. To date, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved three adjuvant therapies for such patients, all of which are immunotherapies: high-dose interferon alfa-2b, pegylated interferon alfa, and high-dose ipilimumab (10 mg per kilogram of body weight).  Concerns about the marginal efficacy of these drugs (especially the interferon-based agents) and considerable toxicity (all three drugs) have limited their use. Therefore, the current standard of care for patients with node-positive melanoma includes observation without therapy, the use of one of the approved adjuvant therapies, or participation in a clinical trial."

She goes on to note the approval of "8 new drugs for the treatment of melanoma, seven of which have improved survival" - noting specifically the use of BRAF/MEK inhibitors and immunotherapy over the past 5 years - continuing:   "With these new approaches, some patients have been cured and many have seen remarkable improvements in symptoms...and duration of life.  The median overall survival of patients with disseminated melanoma has increased from 9 months before 2011 to 2 years or more."

As does the report above, she notes the results of the Weber presentation of the CheckMate 238 trial and the COMBI-AD trial.  Stating further:   "How do these results compare with those currently approved adjuvant therapies in patients with node-positive melanoma?  High-dose interferon...was approved more than 20 years ago and has been extensively studied...and showed no benefit in overall survival.  [It] has been associated with substantial toxic effects...the majority of patients... [fail to complete] 1 year of therapy, and the frequency of Grade 3/4 events has been more than 65%. 

Adjuvant high-dose ipilimumab was approved by the FDA 2 years ago on the basis of the results of EORTC 18071, which compared ipi with placebo...[and] significant benefit of overall survival was reported [with ipi]...Although high dose ipi has been shown to be effective, the toxicity of ipi at a dose of 10 mg/kg continues to pose a major challenge as an adjuvant therapy.

...Adjuvant therapy with nivo in patients with node-positive melanoma may now be considered a new standard of care, regardless of BRAF status.  On the basis of efficacy and safety, nivolumab, unequivocally, is a better choice than interferon or high-dose ipilimumab.  Adjuvant combination therapy with dabrafenib and trametiib is also an option for patients with node-positive BRAF-mutated melanoma.  Testing of melanoma tumors for the presence of BRAF mutations may now become standard in patients with node-positive, stage III melanoma.  There is no longer a role for adjuvant interferon in patients with  node-positive melanoma."

So, there!!!

Come on, FDA peeps!!!  If you or your loved one were affected...these therapies...not the crap you approved years ago....are the ones YOU would want!!! - c