Sapna P. Patel, MD, on Melanoma: New Data on Pembrolizumab, Adjuvant vs Neoadjuvant Plus Adjuvant
ESMO Congress 2022
Sapna P. Patel, MD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, discusses the latest findings from the SWOG S1801 trial, which showed that using single-agent pembrolizumab as neoadjuvant therapy improved event-free survival compared to adjuvant therapy in high-risk resectable stage III–IV melanoma (Abstract LBA6).
Transcript
Disclaimer: This video transcript has not been proofread or edited and may contain errors.
The rationale behind neoadjuvant immunotherapy for melanoma is that cancer comes in contact with T cells that are inside the tumor. If you remove the tumor, you remove those T cells with it. On the other hand, if you give neoadjuvant therapy while the tumor is still in place and those T cells, you end up generating a larger immune response than if you give the same treatment after the tumor is removed. With that in mind, we designed the SWOG S1801 phase II trial. The study was a randomized one-to-one study for participants with stage IIIB to IV resectable melanoma. Participants on the adjuvant arm were randomized to surgery first followed by 18 doses of adjuvant pembrolizumab, flat-dosed every three weeks. Participants on the neoadjuvant arm received 3 doses of pembrolizumab followed by surgery, and then 15 doses of adjuvant pembrolizumab.
Neoadjuvant therapy with pembrolizumab followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab improves event-free survival in resectable melanoma. Toxicities were well-managed and no new safety signals emerged. In fact, the use of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab did not lead to an increase in surgery events. Compared to the same therapy given entirely after surgery, the use of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab improves event-free survival in patients with resectable melanoma. The next steps for S1801 include central pathologic review on the neoadjuvant specimens to determine a correlation between pathologic response and clinical outcomes. Future neoadjuvant studies can consider S1801 as a benchmark and expand on deescalation of surgery protocols, deescalation of adjuvant therapy, or escalation of neoadjuvant or adjuvant regimens for those whose tumors do not respond.
The ASCO Post Staff
Martin Reck, MD, PhD, of Germany’s Lung Clinic Grosshansdorf, details two trials that included patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer: 3-year survival outcomes in the EMPOWER-Lung 1 study of continued cemiplimab-rwlc beyond disease progression with the addition of chemotherapy, and phase III results from the IFCT-1701 trial of nivolumab plus ipilimumab 6-month treatment vs treatment continuation (LBA54 and Abstract 972O).
The ASCO Post Staff
Paul A. DiSilvestro, MD, of Women & Infants Hospital and the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, discusses overall survival results after a 7-year follow-up of the SOLO1/GOG-3004 trial for patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation who received maintenance olaparib. Dr. DiSilvestro details the increasing role of such PARP inhibitors in ovarian cancer treatment and their benefit to patients (Abstract 517O).
The ASCO Post Staff
Jean-Pascal Machiels, MD, PhD, of Belgium’s Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc (UCLouvain), discusses the primary results of the phase III KEYNOTE-412 study of pembrolizumab plus chemoradiation therapy (CRT) vs placebo plus CRT for patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (Abstract LBA5).
The ASCO Post Staff
Nizar M. Tannir, MD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, discusses phase III findings from the PIVOT-09 study, which compared bempegaldesleukin plus nivolumab with the investigator’s choice of a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (either sunitinib or cabozantinib) in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (Abstract LBA68).
The ASCO Post Staff
Antonio Marra, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, discusses a mutational signature analysis that reveals patterns of genomic instability linked to resistance to endocrine therapy with or without CDK4/6 inhibition in patients with estrogen receptor–positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (Abstract 210O).