Adjuvant immunotherapy (IO) and targeted therapy (TT) have improved relapse-free survival (RFS) in patients with stage III melanoma, although about 25% of them relapse within a year. However, real-world data on treatment efficacy and safety as well as management of treatment recurrences are still limited. We retrospectively analyzed 113 patients with stage III melanoma who received at least one cycle of anti-PD-1 (nivolumab or pembrolizumab) or dabrafenib + trametinib as adjuvant therapy. Most of patients included into the analyses harbor BRAV600E mutation (66.4%) and had a stage IIIC melanoma (63.7%). Immunotherapy was administered in 48.7% of patients, whereas targeted therapy in 51.3% At data cut-off, median RFS was not reached with 12-and 24-months RFS of 81% and 64%, respectively. No new adverse events were registered. Thirty patients (26.5%) relapsed, mainly at distant sites. Patient treated with IO recurred mostly during adjuvant treatment (ON-treatment) while patients treated with TT relapsed at the end of treatment (OFF-treatment). At relapse, surgery, radiotherapy and systemic therapy were used alone or in combination. Among patients who started a first-line therapy, an excellent response switching to a different treatment was observed. Real-world outcomes and safety of adjuvant treatment for resected stage III melanoma appear comparable to clinical trials data. Moreover, management of recurrences depends on type of relapse (loco-regional vs distant) and timing (during vs OFF treatment). Furthermore, patients who relapse after adjuvant TT respond well to subsequent anti-PD1 based therapy.
Background: Liquid biopsy is a potentially useful tool for melanoma patients, also for detecting BRAS/NRAS mutations, even if the tissue analysis remains the current standard. Methods: In this work, we tested ctDNA on plasma samples from 56 BRAF-V600/NRAS mutant stage III/IV melanoma patients using a real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR)-based platform. The study population was divided into two cohorts: the first including 26 patients who had undergone radical resection (resected cohort) and the second including 30 patients who had unresected measurable disease (advanced cohort). Moreover, for 10 patients in the advanced cohort, ctDNA assessment was repeated at specified timepoints after baseline testing. Data were analyzed and correlated to the clinicopathologic characteristics and outcomes. Results: In the baseline cohort, a higher tissue–plasma concordance was seen in patients with high burden of disease (sum of diameters ≥30 mm, ≥2 metastatic sites, elevated LDH levels); furthermore, monitoring of these patients through ctDNA analysis was informative for therapeutic responses. On the other hand, the low sensitivity of this technique did not allow for clinically valuable prediction of relapses in radically resected stage III/IV patients. Conclusions: Overall, our data suggest that qPCR-based ctDNA analysis could be informative in a subset of locally advanced and metastatic melanoma patients with specific clinical–radiological characteristics, supporting further investigations in this setting.
This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.