Advertisement


Christian U. Blank, MD, PhD, on Melanoma: Potentially Practice-Changing Results From the NADINA Trial

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Advertisement

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

Breast Cancer

Ana C. Garrido-Castro, MD, on Managing Metastatic Breast Cancer in 2024

Ana C. Garrido-Castro, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, discusses recent approvals of multiple novel therapies for metastatic breast cancer, weighing their potential benefits and risks, understanding the mechanisms that drive response and resistance, and exploring how to optimally sequence them to enhance survival and quality of life.

Breast Cancer

Milana Bergamino Sirvén, MD, PhD, on HER2-Positive Early-Stage Breast Cancer: Molecular Profiling, Prognosis, and Treatment Options

Milana Bergamino Sirvén, MD, PhD, of Spain’s Institute of Cancer Research, discusses her findings on molecular profiling of patients with estrogen receptor–positive, HER2-positive early-stage breast tumors after short-term preoperative endocrine therapy. This study suggests that such profiling may help clinicians identify those patients with a favorable prognosis for adjuvant endocrine therapy and those who may require additional treatment (Abstract 560).

Pancreatic Cancer

Efrat Dotan, MD, on Pancreatic Cancer in Older Adults: Defining the Optimal Treatment Approach

Efrat Dotan, MD, of Fox Chase Cancer Center, discusses results from the phase II EA2186 trial, the first prospective study aiming to define the optimal treatment approach for vulnerable older adults with newly diagnosed metastatic pancreatic cancer (Abstract 4003).

Leukemia

Yucai Wang, MD, PhD, on Richter Transformation of CLL: Findings on Combination Therapy With an Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor

Yucai Wang, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic, discusses the increased efficacy of combination therapy with pembrolizumab plus a BCR kinase inhibitor compared with pembrolizumab alone in patients with Richter transformation of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL; Abstract 7050).

Lymphoma

Peter Riedell, MD, on DLBCL: Expert Commentary on the DEB Study

Peter Riedell, MD, of The University of Chicago, discusses phase III results on the use of tucidinostat plus R-CHOP in patients with previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) with double expression of MYC and BCL2. The regimen appeared to improve event-free survival and complete response rates vs R-CHOP in the front-line setting. As this is an interim analysis, longer-term follow-up will be needed to better understand its impact, says Dr. Riedell.

Advertisement

Advertisement




Advertisement