BACKGROUND Sentinel-lymph-node biopsy is associated with increased melanoma-specific survival (i.e., survival until death from melanoma) among patients with node-positive intermediate-thickness melanomas (1.2 to 3.5 mm). The value of completion lymph-node dissection for patients with sentinel-node metastases is not clear. METHODS In an international trial, we randomly assigned patients with sentinel-node metastases detected by means of standard pathological assessment or a multimarker molecular assay to immediate completion lymph-node dissection (dissection group) or nodal observation with ultrasonography (observation group). The primary end point was melanoma-specific survival. Secondary end points included disease-free survival and the cumulative rate of nonsentinel-node metastasis. RESULTS Immediate completion lymph-node dissection was not associated with increased melanoma-specific survival among 1934 patients with data that could be evaluated in an intention-to-treat analysis or among 1755 patients in the per-protocol analysis. In the per-protocol analysis, the mean (±SE) 3-year rate of melanoma-specific survival was similar in the dissection group and the observation group (86±1.3% and 86±1.2%, respectively; P=0.42 by the log-rank test) at a median follow-up of 43 months. The rate of disease-free survival was slightly higher in the dissection group than in the observation group (68±1.7% and 63±1.7%, respectively; P=0.05 by the log-rank test) at 3 years, based on an increased rate of disease control in the regional nodes at 3 years (92±1.0% vs. 77±1.5%; P<0.001 by the log-rank test); these results must be interpreted with caution. Nonsentinel-node metastases, identified in 11.5% of the patients in the dissection group, were a strong, independent prognostic factor for recurrence (hazard ratio, 1.78; P=0.005). Lymphedema was observed in 24.1% of the patients in the dissection group and in 6.3% of those in the observation group. CONCLUSIONS Immediate completion lymph-node dissection increased the rate of regional disease control and provided prognostic information but did not increase melanoma-specific survival among patients with melanoma and sentinel-node metastases. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; MSLT-II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00297895.)

Neoplastic diseases are typically diagnosed by biopsy and histopathological evaluation. The pathology report is key in determining prognosis, therapeutic decisions, and overall case management and therefore requires diagnostic accuracy, completeness, and clarity. Successful management relies on collaboration between clinical veterinarians, oncologists, and pathologists. To date there has been no standardized approach or guideline for the submission, trimming, margin evaluation, or reporting of neoplastic biopsy specimens in veterinary medicine. To address this issue, a committee consisting of veterinary pathologists and oncologists was established under the auspices of the American College of Veterinary Pathologists Oncology Committee. These consensus guidelines were subsequently reviewed and endorsed by a large international group of veterinary pathologists. These recommended guidelines are not mandated but rather exist to help clinicians and veterinary pathologists optimally handle neoplastic biopsy samples. Many of these guidelines represent the collective experience of the committee members and consensus group when assessing neoplastic lesions from veterinary patients but have not met the rigors of definitive scientific study and investigation. These questions of technique, analysis, and evaluation should be put through formal scrutiny in rigorous clinical studies in the near future so that more definitive guidelines can be derived.

No abstract

Cytotoxic T‐lymphocyte associated protein‐4 (CTLA‐4) and the Programmed Death Receptor 1 (PD‐1) are immune checkpoint molecules that are well‐established targets of antibody immunotherapies for the management of malignant melanoma. The monoclonal antibodies, Ipilimumab, Pembrolizumab, and Nivolumab, designed to interfere with T cell inhibitory signals to activate immune responses against tumors, were originally approved as monotherapy. Treatment with a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors may improve outcomes compared to monotherapy in certain patient groups and these clinical benefits may be derived from unique immune mechanisms of action. However, treatment with checkpoint inhibitor combinations also present significant clinical challenges and increased rates of immune‐related adverse events. In this review, we discuss the potential mechanisms attributed to single and combined checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapies and clinical experience with their use.