Christian U. Blank, MD, PhD, on Melanoma: Potentially Practice-Changing Results From the NADINA Trial
2024 ASCO Annual Meeting
Christian U. Blank, MD, PhD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute, discusses findings of an investigator-initiated phase III trial showing that neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab followed by response-driven adjuvant treatment improved event-free survival in patients with macroscopic, resectable stage III melanoma compared with adjuvant nivolumab (LBA2)
Transcript
Disclaimer: This video transcript has not been proofread or edited and may contain errors.
NADINA is the first phase III, investigator-initiated trial, testing a combination of neoadjuvant checkpoint inhibition against standard of care adjuvant therapy. NADINA showed that neoadjuvant ipilumumab plus nivolumab is superior to adjuvant nivolumab in the event free survival, showing that 83% at one year are rent-free in case of treated neoadjuvant versus only 57 treated with the standard of care adjuvant therapy.
Special about NADINA is also that it has a personalized adjuvant part. Patients achieving a deep response, what we call major pathologic response after the neoadjuvant part, didn't receive any subsequent other therapy, no adjuvant therapy, and started the follow-up at once, and this was the case in nearly 60% of the patients. And despite of only this six weeks of treatment, these patients have an excellent outcome with an event-free survival of 95% at 12 months.
Therefore, NADINA established for the first time a neoadjuvant combination scheme for macroscopic melanoma, but it also shows that we should personalize these neoadjuvant therapies, saving toxicity and resources for patients, achieving an excellent response after the neoadjuvant therapy. In that way, it establishes a really novel concept in macroscopic melanoma.
Related Videos
The ASCO Post Staff
Narjust Florez, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and David R. Spigel, MD, of Sarah Cannon Research Institute, discuss phase III findings showing that durvalumab as consolidation treatment after concurrent platinum-based chemoradiotherapy improved survival outcomes compared with placebo in patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer. According to Dr. Spigel, these data support durvalumab as a new standard of care in this population (Abstract LBA5).
The ASCO Post Staff
Xavier P. Leleu, MD, PhD, of France’s Université de Poitiers and Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Poitiers, discusses phase III findings showing that isatuximab in combination with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone deepened responses and increased the rate of measurable residual disease negativity vs isatuximab with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma (Abstract 7501).
The ASCO Post Staff
Thomas Powles, MD, PhD, of Barts Cancer Institute and the University of London, and Jonathan E. Rosenberg, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, discuss clinical outcomes of sacituzumab govitecan-hziy after prior exposure to enfortumab vedotin-ejfv in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma, as well as the safety and efficacy of fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan-nxki in patients with HER2-expressing bladder tumors (Abstracts 4502 and 4509).
The ASCO Post Staff
Pauline Funchain, MD, of Stanford University, and Caroline Robert, MD, PhD, of Gustave Roussy, discuss phase II findings showing that combining encorafenib and binimetinib followed by ipilimumab and nivolumab vs ipilimumab and nivolumab can improve progression-free survival in patients with BRAF-V600E/K-mutated melanoma characterized by high lactate dehydrogenase and liver metastases (Abstract LBA9503).
The ASCO Post Staff
Thierry Facon, MD, of the University of Lille and Lille University Hospital, discusses phase III findings showing for the first time that isatuximab, an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, when given with the standard of care (bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone, or VRd) to patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are transplant-ineligible, may reduce the risk of disease progression or death by 40.4% vs VRd alone (Abstract 7500).
