Leg Lymphoedema After Inguinal and Ilio-Inguinal Lymphadenectomy for Melanoma: Results from a Prospective, Randomised Trial

BACKGROUND

The Evaluation of Groin Lymphadenectomy Extent for Melanoma (EAGLE FM) study sought to address the question of whether to perform inguinal (IL) or ilio-inguinal lymphadenectomy (I-IL) for patients with inguinal nodal metastatic melanoma who have no clinical or imaging evidence of pelvic disease. Primary outcome measure was disease-free survival at 5 years, and secondary endpoints included lymphoedema.

METHODS

EAGLE FM was designed to recruit 634 patients but closed with 88 patients randomised because of slow recruitment and changes in melanoma management. Lymphoedema assessments occurred preoperatively and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months postoperatively. Lymphoedema was defined as Inter-Limb Volume Difference (ILVD) > 10%, Lymphoedema Index (L-Dex®) > 10 or change of L-Dex® > 10 from baseline.

RESULTS

Prevalence of leg lymphoedema between the two groups was similar but numerically higher for I-IL at all time points in the first 24 months of follow-up; highest at 6 months (45.9% IL [CI 29.9-62.0%], 54.1% I-IL [CI 38.0-70.1%]) and lowest at 18 months (18.8% IL [CI 5.2-32.3%], 41.4% I-IL [CI 23.5-59.3%]). Median ILVD at 24 months for those affected by lymphoedema was 14.5% (IQR 10.6-18.7%) and L-Dex® was 12.6 (IQR 9.0-17.2). There was not enough statistical evidence to support associations between lymphoedema and extent of surgery, radiotherapy, or wound infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a trend for patients who had I-IL to have greater lymphoedema prevalence than IL in the first 24 months after surgery, our study's small sample did not have the statistical evidence to support an overall difference between the surgical groups.

Representativeness of initial skin biopsies showing pure desmoplastic melanoma: implications for management

Desmoplastic melanoma (DM) is an uncommon subtype of melanoma with distinct clinicopathological features. It is classified into pure desmoplastic melanoma (PDM) when the proportion of desmoplastic melanoma is ≥90% of the dermally-invasive component, and mixed desmoplastic melanoma (MDM) when the proportion of desmoplastic melanoma is <90%. Studies have reported a lower sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB)-positivity rate in PDM compared to MDM and non-DM. As a result, some have recommended not performing SLNB in PDM patients. When PDM is identified in a partial biopsy of a melanoma, there is a risk that sampling bias may under-recognise MDM, but to the best of our knowledge this has not been previously assessed or quantified. The aim of this study was to assess the concordance of the proportion of desmoplastic melanoma in an initial partial biopsy of PDM with the proportion in the entire tumour following complete excision, in patients with cutaneous melanoma. A secondary aim was to determine how frequently this potentially resulted in a patient not receiving a SLNB. Seventy-eight cases of cutaneous melanoma were identified from the Melanoma Institute Australia (MIA) database and 23 cases from the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre (MSKCC), where an initial biopsy contained PDM and a subsequent wide excision had residual invasive melanoma. Clinicopathological features were analysed in all patients, including whether a SLNB was performed, the results of SLNB, and any subsequent recurrence. Ninety percent (91/101) of cases were still classified as PDM in the complete wide excision specimen while 10% (10/101) of cases were reclassified as MDM, which was a significant change in classification of final desmoplastic melanoma subtype (p<0.001). The proportion of desmoplastic melanoma was also significantly different between the initial and excisional biopsies (p=0.004). Forty-eight (48/101) patients had a SLNB, of which two (4.5%) were positive for metastatic melanoma; both cases were PDM in the excision specimen. Of the 10 cases demonstrating MDM in the excision specimen, the initial biopsy was a punch biopsy in six cases, shave biopsy in two cases and subcutaneous tissue was sampled in two patients (one punch biopsy, one incisional biopsy). Four of these 10 patients underwent SLNB which was negative in all cases. Twenty-two patients developed recurrence in the follow-up period (median 30 months, range 1-192 months), three with MDM in their excision specimen. One patient did not have a SLNB and developed regional lymph node recurrence. In this study there was a 10% risk that the percentage of desmoplastic melanoma in an initial biopsy of PDM was not representative of the entire lesion, resulting in reclassification as MDM in the excision specimen. If a SLNB is not performed in such cases, a positive SLNB may be missed (one patient in our study) which could impact treatment options for the patient. We recommend caution in not offering a SLNB in the setting of an initial biopsy of PDM if the biopsy is small compared with the overall lesion. If a SLNB is not procured at the time of wide excision in such cases, the SLNs should still be mapped by lymphoscintigraphy to facilitate careful follow up and to enable earlier detection and treatment of nodal disease.

Survival update of neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab in macroscopic stage III melanoma in the OpACIN and OpACIN-neo trials

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab has yielded high response rates in patients with macroscopic stage III melanoma. These response rates translated to high short-term survival rates. However, data on long-term survival and disease recurrence are lacking.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In OpACIN, 20 patients with macroscopic stage III melanoma were randomized to ipilimumab 3 mg/kg plus nivolumab 1 mg/kg q3w four cycles of adjuvant or split two cycles of neoadjuvant and two adjuvant. In OpACIN-neo, 86 patients with macroscopic stage III melanoma were randomized to arm A (2× ipilimumab 3 mg/kg plus nivolumab 1 mg/kg q3w; n = 30), arm B (2× ipilimumab 1 mg/kg plus nivolumab 3 mg/kg q3w; n = 30), or arm C (2× ipilimumab 3 mg/kg q3w plus 2× nivolumab 3 mg/kg q2w; n = 26) followed by surgery.

RESULTS

The median recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were not reached in either trial. After a median follow-up of 69 months for OpACIN, 1/7 patients with a pathologic response to neoadjuvant therapy had disease recurrence. The estimated 5-year RFS and OS rates for the neoadjuvant arm were 70% and 90% versus 60% and 70% for the adjuvant arm. After a median follow-up of 47 months for OpACIN-neo, the estimated 3-year RFS and OS rates were 82% and 92%, respectively. The estimated 3-year RFS rate for OpACIN-neo was 95% for patients with a pathologic response versus 37% for patients without a pathologic response (P < 0.001). In multiple regression analyses, pathologic response was the strongest predictor of disease recurrence. Of the 12 patients with distant disease recurrence after neoadjuvant therapy, 5 responded to subsequent anti-PD-1 and 8 to targeted therapy, although 7 patients showed progression after the initial response.

CONCLUSIONS

Updated data confirm the high survival rates after neoadjuvant combination checkpoint inhibition in macroscopic stage III melanoma, especially for patients with a pathologic response. Pathologic response is the strongest surrogate marker for long-term outcome.

Cutaneous sarcoidosis due to immune‐checkpoint inhibition and exacerbated by a novel BRAF dimerization inhibitor

Sarcoidosis is a non‐infective granulomatous disorder of unknown aetiology, with cutaneous involvement affecting up to 30% of patients. Drug‐induced sarcoidosis has been reported secondary to modern melanoma therapies including immune‐checkpoint inhibitors and first generation BRAF inhibitors such as vemurafenib and dabrafenib. Herein, we report a case of cutaneous micropapular sarcoidosis that first developed on immune‐checkpoint inhibition with ipilimumab and nivolumab for metastatic melanoma, which was exacerbated and further complicated by pityriasis rubra pilaris‐like palmar plaques upon transition to a next‐generation BRAF‐dimerisation inhibitor. Both the micropapular eruption and palmar plaques rapidly resolved after cessation of the novel BRAF‐inhibitor and concurrent commencement of hydroxychloroquine. It is unclear how inhibition of BRAF‐dimerisation results in granuloma formation, though upregulation of T_H1/T_H17 T‐cells and impairment of T‐reg cells may be responsible. Clinicians should be aware of the potential for exacerbation of sarcoidosis when transitioning from immune‐checkpoint inhibitors to these novel BRAF‐dimerisation inhibitors, particularly as their uptake in treating cancers increases beyond clinical trials. Further studies are required to assess whether these next‐generation agents can trigger sarcoidosis de‐novo, or simply exacerbate pre‐existing sarcoidosis.

Pathological response and tumour bed histopathological features correlate with survival following neoadjuvant immunotherapy in stage III melanoma

BACKGROUND

Guidelines for pathological evaluation of neoadjuvant specimens and pathological response categories have been developed by the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium (INMC). As part of the Optimal Neo-adjuvant Combination Scheme of Ipilimumab and Nivolumab (OpACIN-neo) clinical trial of neoadjuvant combination anti-programmed cell death protein 1/anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 immunotherapy for stage III melanoma, we sought to determine interobserver reproducibility of INMC histopathological assessment principles, identify specific tumour bed histopathological features of immunotherapeutic response that correlated with recurrence and relapse-free survival (RFS) and evaluate proposed INMC pathological response categories for predicting recurrence and RFS.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Clinicopathological characteristics of lymph node dissection specimens of 83 patients enrolled in the OpACIN-neo clinical trial were evaluated. Two methods of assessing histological features of immunotherapeutic response were evaluated: the previously described immune-related pathologic response (irPR) score and our novel immunotherapeutic response score (ITRS). For a subset of cases (n = 29), cellular composition of the tumour bed was analysed by flow cytometry.

RESULTS

There was strong interobserver reproducibility in assessment of pathological response (κ = 0.879) and percentage residual viable melanoma (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.965). The immunotherapeutic response subtype with high fibrosis had the strongest association with lack of recurrence (P = 0.008) and prolonged RFS (P = 0.019). Amongst patients with criteria for pathological non-response (pNR, >50% viable tumour), all who recurred had ≥70% viable melanoma. Higher ITRS and irPR scores correlated with lack of recurrence in the entire cohort (P = 0.002 and P ≤ 0.0001). The number of B lymphocytes was significantly increased in patients with a high fibrosis subtype of treatment response (P = 0.046).

CONCLUSIONS

There is strong reproducibility for assessment of pathological response using INMC criteria. Immunotherapeutic response of fibrosis subtype correlated with improved RFS, and may represent a biomarker. Potential B-cell contribution to fibrosis development warrants further study. Reclassification of pNR to a threshold of ≥70% viable melanoma and incorporating additional criteria of <10% fibrosis subtype of response may identify those at highest risk of recurrence, but requires validation.

Histopathological features of complete pathological response predict recurrence-free survival following neoadjuvant targeted therapy for metastatic melanoma

BACKGROUND

Recent clinical trials demonstrated the safety and efficacy of neoadjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib (DT) among patients with surgically resectable clinical stage III BRAFV600E/K mutant melanoma. Although patients achieving a complete pathological response (pCR) exhibited superior recurrence-free survival (RFS) versus those who did not, 30% of pCR patients relapsed. We sought to identify whether histopathological features of the pathological response further delineated risk of relapse.

METHODS

Surgical resection specimens from DT-treated patients in two phase 2 clinical trials were reviewed. Histopathological features, including relative amounts of viable tumour, necrosis, melanosis, and fibrosis (hyalinized or immature/proliferative) were assessed for associations with patient outcomes.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine patients underwent surgical resection following neoadjuvant DT. Patients achieving pCR (49%) had longer RFS compared with patients who did not (P = 0.005). Patients whose treated tumour showed any hyalinized fibrosis had longer RFS versus those without (P = 0.014), whereas necrosis (P = 0.012) and/or immature/proliferative fibrosis (P = 0.026) correlated with shorter RFS. Multivariable analyses showed absence of pCR or presence of immature fibrosis independently predicted shorter RFS. Among pCR patients, mature/hyalinized-type fibrosis correlated with improved RFS (P = 0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

The extent and composition of the pathological response following neoadjuvant DT in BRAFV600E/K mutant melanoma correlates with RFS, including pCR patients. These findings support the need for detailed histological analysis of specimens collected after neoadjuvant therapy.

L3 Update of the OpACIN and OpACIN-neo trials: 36-months and 24-months relapse-free survival after (neo)adjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab in macroscopic stage III melanoma patients

Background

Before adjuvant checkpoint inhibition the 5-year overall survival (OS) rate was poor (<50%) in high-risk stage III melanoma patients. Adjuvant CTLA-4 (ipilimumab, IPI) and PD-1 (nivolumab, NIVO, or pembrolizumab) blockade have been shown to improve relapse-free survival (RFS) and OS (latter only for IPI so far). Due to a broader immune activation neoadjuvant therapy with checkpoint inhibitors might be more effective than adjuvant, as suggested in preclinical experiments. The OpACIN trial compared neoadjuvant versus adjuvant IPI plus NIVO, while the subsequent OpACIN-neo trial tested three different dosing schedules of neoadjuvant IPI plus NIVO without adjuvant therapy. High pathologic response rates of 74–78% were induced by neoadjuvant IPI plus NIVO. Here, we present the 36- and 24-months RFS of the OpACIN and OpACIN-neo trial, respectively.

Materials and Methods

The phase 1b OpACIN trial included 20 stage IIIB/IIIC melanoma patients, which were randomized to receive IPI 3 mg/kg plus NIVO 1 mg/kg either adjuvant 4 cycles or split 2 cycles neoadjuvant and 2 adjuvant. In the phase 2 OpACIN-neo trial, 86 patients were randomized to 2 cycles neoadjuvant treatment, either in arm A: 2x IPI 3 mg/kg plus NIVO 1 mg/kg q3w (n=30), arm B: 2x IPI 1 mg/kg plus NIVO 3 mg/kg q3w (n=30), or arm C: 2x IPI 3 mg/kg q3w followed immediately by 2x NIVO 3 mg/kg q3w (n=26). Pathologic response was defined as <50% viable tumor cells and in both trials centrally reviewed by a blinded pathologist. RFS rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results

Only 1 of 71 (1.4%) patients with a pathologic response on neoadjuvant therapy had relapsed, versus 16 of 23 patients (69.6%) without a pathologic response, after a median follow-up of 36 months for the OpACIN and 24 months for the OpACIN-neo trial. In the OpACIN trial, the estimated 3-year RFS rate for the neoadjuvant arm was 80% (95% CI: 59%-100%) versus 60% (95% CI: 36%-100%) for the adjuvant arm. Median RFS was not reached for any of the arms within the OpACIN-neo trial. Estimated 24-months RFS rate was 84% for all patients (95% CI: 76%-92%); 90% for arm A (95% CI: 80%-100%), 78% for arm B (95% CI: 63%-96%) and 83% for arm C (95% CI: 70%-100%). Baseline interferon-γ gene expression score and tumor mutational burden predict response.

Conclusions

OpACIN for the first time showed a potential benefit of neoadjuvant IPI plus NIVO versus adjuvant immunotherapy, whereas the OpACIN-neo trial confirmed the high pathologic response rates that can be achieved by neoadjuvant IPI plus NIVO. Both trials show that pathologic response can function as a surrogate markers for RFS.

Clinical trial information

NCT02437279, NCT02977052

Disclosure Information

J.M. Versluis: None. E.A. Rozeman: None. A.M. Menzies: F. Consultant/Advisory Board; Modest; BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pierre-Fabre. I.L.M. Reijers: None. O. Krijgsman: B. Research Grant (principal investigator, collaborator or consultant and pending grants as well as grants already received); Modest; BMS. E.P. Hoefsmit: None. B.A. van de Wiel: None. K. Sikorska: None. C. Bierman: None. P. Dimitriadis: None. M. Gonzalez: None. A. Broeks: None. R.M. Kerkhoven: None. A.J. Spillane: None. J.B.A.G. Haanen: B. Research Grant (principal investigator, collaborator or consultant and pending grants as well as grants already received); Modest; BMS, MSD, Neon Therapeutics, Novartis. F. Consultant/Advisory Board; Modest; BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, AZ/MedImmune, Rocher/Genentech, Ipsen, Bayer, Immunocore, SeattleGenetics, Neon Therapeutics, Celsius Therapeutics, Gadet, GSK. W.J. van Houdt: None. R.P.M. Saw: None. H. Eriksson: None. A.C.J. van Akkooi: B. Research Grant (principal investigator, collaborator or consultant and pending grants as well as grants already received); Modest; Amgen, BMS, Novartis. F. Consultant/Advisory Board; Modest; Amgen, BMS, Novartis, MSD Merck, Merck-Pfizer, 4SC. R.A. Scolyer: F. Consultant/Advisory Board; Modest; MSD, Neracare, Myriad, Novartis. T.N. Schumacher: B. Research Grant (principal investigator, collaborator or consultant and pending grants as well as grants already received); Modest; MSD, BMS, Merck. E. Ownership Interest (stock, stock options, patent or other intellectual property); Modest; AIMM Therapeutics, Allogene Therapeutics, Amgen, Merus, Neogene Therapeutics, Neon Therapeutics. F. Consultant/Advisory Board; Modest; Adaptive Biotechnologies, AIMM Therapeutics, Allogene Therapeutics, Amgen, Merus, Neon Therapeutics, Scenic Biotech. Other; Modest; Third Rock Ventures. G.V. Long: F. Consultant/Advisory Board; Modest; Aduro, Amgen, BMS, Mass-Array, Pierre-Fabre, Novartis, Merck MSD, Roche. C.U. Blank: B. Research Grant (principal investigator, collaborator or consultant and pending grants as well as grants already received); Modest; BMS, Novartis, NanoString. E. Ownership Interest (stock, stock options, patent or other intellectual property); Modest; Uniti Cars, Neon Therapeutics, Forty Seven. F. Consultant/Advisory Board; Modest; BMS, MSD, Roche, Novartis, GSK, AZ, Pfizer, Lilly, GenMab, Pierre-Fabre.

Same-day or next-day sentinel node biopsy after lymphoscintigraphy for melanoma using 99m Tc-labelled antimony sulphide colloid

BACKGROUND

Two recent publications have reported that a shorter interval between preoperative lymphoscintigraphy and sentinel node biopsy (SNB) is associated with improved survival of patients with primary cutaneous melanoma. The aims of this study were to analyse prospectively collected survival data for patients who had SNB on the same day as lymphoscintigraphy or the day after; and to assess tracer migration from sentinel nodes to second-tier nodes after lymphoscintigraphy on the previous day.

METHODS

Outcome data were obtained for patients who had lymphoscintigraphy and SNB on the same day (time interval less than 8 h) or the next day (interval more than 16 h). In a separate prospective cohort, same-day and next-day lymphoscintigraphic images of sentinel nodes and second-tier nodes were compared.

RESULTS

Following lymphoscintigraphy, 2848 patients had same-day and 3328 had next-day SNB. Survival outcomes did not differ between these groups. In a prospectively studied cohort of 30 patients, none had significant tracer migration from sentinel nodes to second-tier nodes on imaging the following day.

CONCLUSION

No difference in survival after same- or next-day sentinel node biopsy is seen when ^99m Tc-labelled antimony sulphide colloid is used. This may be because of less tracer migration to second-tier nodes.

Pathological assessment of resection specimens after neoadjuvant therapy for metastatic melanoma

Background

Clinical trials have recently evaluated safety and efficacy of neoadjuvant therapy among patients with surgically resectable regional melanoma metastases. To capture informative prognostic data connected to pathological response in such trials, it is critical to standardize pathologic assessment and reporting of tumor response after this treatment.

Methods

The International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium meetings in 2016 and 2017 assembled pathologists from academic centers to develop consensus guidelines for pathologic examination and reporting of surgical specimens from AJCC (8th edition) stage IIIB/C/D or oligometastatic stage IV melanoma patients treated with neoadjuvant-targeted or immune therapy. Patterns of pathologic response are provided context to inform these guidelines.

Results

Based on our collective experience and guided by efforts in well-established neoadjuvant settings like breast cancer, procedures directing handling of pre- and post-neoadjuvant therapy-treated melanoma specimens are provided to facilitate comparison of findings across different trials and centers. Definitions of pathologic response are provided together with guidelines for reporting and quantifying the extent of pathologic response. Finally, the spectrum of histopathologic responses observed following neoadjuvant-targeted and immune-checkpoint therapy is described and illustrated.

Conclusions

Standardizing pathologic evaluation of resected melanoma metastases following neoadjuvant-targeted or immune-checkpoint therapy allows more robust stratification of patient outcomes. This includes recognizing the spectrum of histopathologic response patterns to neoadjuvant therapy and a standard approach to grading pathologic responses. Such an approach will facilitate comparison of results across clinical trials and inform ongoing correlative studies into the mechanisms of response and resistance to agents applied in the neoadjuvant setting.

Melanoma patient imaging in the era of effective systemic therapies

Imaging plays a critical role in the current multi-disciplinary management of patients with melanoma. It is used for primary disease staging, surgical planning, and surveillance in high-risk patients, and for monitoring the effects of systemic or loco-regional therapies. Several different imaging modalities have been utilised in the past. Contemporary imaging practises vary geographically depending on clinical guidelines, physician preferences, availability and cost. Targeted therapies and immunotherapies have revolutionised the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma over the last few years. With this have come new patterns of disease that were not observed after conventional therapies, and new criteria to assess therapeutic responses. In this article we review the role of imaging for patients with melanoma in the era of effective systemic therapies and discuss likely future developments.

The management of cervical lymph nodes in patients with cutaneous melanoma

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to review the management of cervical lymph nodes in patients with cutaneous melanoma and to analyze factors influencing prognosis.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who had cervical node surgery at the Sydney Melanoma Unit from 1990 to 2004.

RESULTS

Of 716 patients who met the study criteria, 339 had a sentinel node biopsy (SNB) and 396 had a neck dissection. Locoregional recurrence occurred in 27.6 % of those undergoing therapeutic neck dissection and 60 % eventually developed distant metastases. Radiotherapy was given as adjuvant treatment in 110 of the patients who had a therapeutic neck dissection (41 %), but this was not associated with improved regional control (p = .322). Multivariate analysis showed that nodal positivity (p < .001) and primary tumor ulceration (p = < .027) were the most important predictors of locoregional recurrence and that primary tumor Breslow thickness (p = .009) and node positivity (p = .046) were the most important factors predicting survival. SNB-positive patients who underwent immediate completion lymphadenectomy had a 5-year survival advantage over those who had a therapeutic neck dissection for macroscopic disease (54 % vs 47 %, p = .028).

CONCLUSIONS

Nodal status was the most important factor predicting disease-free and overall survival in patients with melanoma of the head and neck. Adjuvant radiotherapy was not associated with better locoregional control in the non-randomized cohorts of patients in this study.

p53, DCC and thymidylate synthase as predictors of survival after resection of hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Hepatic metastasis from colorectal cancer is a common problem. Hepatic resection offers the only chance of cure. Prognosis of patients following hepatic resection is currently based on clinicopathological factors (of both the primary cancer and the hepatic metastasis), which do not accurately predict the subsequent behaviour of the tumour. The aim of this study was to evaluate three molecular genetic markers - p53, DCC (deleted in colonic cancer) and thymidylate synthase - in both the primary colorectal tumour and the resected hepatic metastases, and to determine their correlation, if any, with survival in patients with resected hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Sixty-three patients with hepatic metastases and 40 corresponding colorectal primary tumours were studied using immunohistochemical staining for p53, DCC and thymidylate synthase, as well as p53 gene mutations using polymerase chain reaction-single-stranded conformational polymorphism (PCR-SSCP) analysis. The results were correlated with survival.

RESULTS

There was no correlation between p53, DCC or thymidylate synthase immunohistochemical staining, or between p53 PCR-SSCP analysis, and survival for either hepatic metastases or the colorectal primary tumour.

CONCLUSION

Prediction of prognosis in patients having resection of hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer continues to be problematic. Other genetic markers or combination of markers need to be evaluated.