Five-year survival with neoadjuvant therapy in melanoma: updated pooled analysis from the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium (INMC)

IF 52.5 1区 医学 Q1 BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Georgina V. Long, Inês Pires da Silva, Kristen A. Perry, Jurriaan Romano, Serigne N. Lo, Piyush Grover, Paolo A. Ascierto, Rodabe N. Amaria, Tina J. Hieken, Caroline Robert, Lucie Heinzerling, Shahneen Sandhu, Milton Barros, Tara C. Mitchell, Zeynep Eroglu, Igor V. Samoylenko, Lukas Flatz, Céleste Lebbé, Douglas B. Johnson, Piotr Rutkowski, Eva Muñoz-Couselo, Omid Hamid, Claudia Trojaniello, Domenico Mallardo, Matthew S. Block, Naima Hammoudi, Naima Benannoune, Dirk Tomsitz, Yang Wang, Cigdem Dinckal, Angelina Kuzmenko, Andrea Forschner, Matteo S. Carlino, Mathilde Jalving, Michael A. Postow, P. Francesco Ferrucci, Ellen Kapiteijn, Astrid A. M. van der Veldt, Karijn P. M. Suijkerbuijk, Laetitia da Meda, Hannah Burnette, Anna Czarnekca, Inderjit Mehmi, Geke Hospers, Sarah Lochrin, Alexander C. J. van Akkooi, Hussein A. Tawbi
{"title":"Five-year survival with neoadjuvant therapy in melanoma: updated pooled analysis from the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium (INMC)","authors":"Georgina V. Long, Inês Pires da Silva, Kristen A. Perry, Jurriaan Romano, Serigne N. Lo, Piyush Grover, Paolo A. Ascierto, Rodabe N. Amaria, Tina J. Hieken, Caroline Robert, Lucie Heinzerling, Shahneen Sandhu, Milton Barros, Tara C. Mitchell, Zeynep Eroglu, Igor V. Samoylenko, Lukas Flatz, Céleste Lebbé, Douglas B. Johnson, Piotr Rutkowski, Eva Muñoz-Couselo, Omid Hamid, Claudia Trojaniello, Domenico Mallardo, Matthew S. Block, Naima Hammoudi, Naima Benannoune, Dirk Tomsitz, Yang Wang, Cigdem Dinckal, Angelina Kuzmenko, Andrea Forschner, Matteo S. Carlino, Mathilde Jalving, Michael A. Postow, P. Francesco Ferrucci, Ellen Kapiteijn, Astrid A. M. van der Veldt, Karijn P. M. Suijkerbuijk, Laetitia da Meda, Hannah Burnette, Anna Czarnekca, Inderjit Mehmi, Geke Hospers, Sarah Lochrin, Alexander C. J. van Akkooi, Hussein A. Tawbi","doi":"10.1038/s41591-026-04677-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are standard of care for resectable stage IIIB–D melanoma, but knowledge gaps remain regarding optimal treatment type, long-term survival, postsurgical management and clinical, histopathological or molecular subgroups. We analyzed 1,038 patients treated with neoadjuvant ICIs (n = 735), BRAF and MEK inhibitors (BRAF/MEKis; n = 119) or ICI plus any targeted therapy (ICI + TT; n = 184) from 26 international sites in both trial (755, 72.7%) and nontrial (283, 27.3%) settings. ICI regimens included anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) alone (PD-1 alone; n = 242) and anti-PD-1 plus other immuno-oncology agent(s) (PD-1 + IO; n = 489). Outcomes included major pathological response (MPR), recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). An MPR was achieved in 57.8% of patients with ICIs, 51.4% with BRAF/MEKis and 44.6% with ICI + TT. PD-1 + IO elicited higher MPR rates than PD-1 alone (61.4% versus 49.5%). The 5-year RFS rate was 61.0% with PD-1 alone, 73.9% with PD-1 + IO, 37.4% with BRAF/MEKis and 76.4% with ICI + TT; the 5-year OS rates were 83.3%, 87.5%, 69.8% and 83.9%, respectively. ICI-treated patients with MPR had 5-year OS rates of 98.8% with PD-1 alone and 97.9% with PD-1 + IO and gained no benefit from continuing ICIs into the adjuvant setting. Neoadjuvant ICIs were active in BRAF-mutant melanoma (MPR, 46.3%), acral melanoma (38.1%), in-transit metastases (66.7%) and oligometastases (41.2%), although subgroup sizes and relative effectiveness varied. Survival outcomes were excellent with neoadjuvant ICIs, particularly in patients achieving MPR, but poor with BRAF/MEKis and mixed with ICI + TT. Predictive biomarker-driven trials, effective adjuvant strategies and subgroup-specific research are needed for nonresponders.","PeriodicalId":19037,"journal":{"name":"Nature Medicine","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":52.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-026-04677-z","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are standard of care for resectable stage IIIB–D melanoma, but knowledge gaps remain regarding optimal treatment type, long-term survival, postsurgical management and clinical, histopathological or molecular subgroups. We analyzed 1,038 patients treated with neoadjuvant ICIs (n = 735), BRAF and MEK inhibitors (BRAF/MEKis; n = 119) or ICI plus any targeted therapy (ICI + TT; n = 184) from 26 international sites in both trial (755, 72.7%) and nontrial (283, 27.3%) settings. ICI regimens included anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) alone (PD-1 alone; n = 242) and anti-PD-1 plus other immuno-oncology agent(s) (PD-1 + IO; n = 489). Outcomes included major pathological response (MPR), recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). An MPR was achieved in 57.8% of patients with ICIs, 51.4% with BRAF/MEKis and 44.6% with ICI + TT. PD-1 + IO elicited higher MPR rates than PD-1 alone (61.4% versus 49.5%). The 5-year RFS rate was 61.0% with PD-1 alone, 73.9% with PD-1 + IO, 37.4% with BRAF/MEKis and 76.4% with ICI + TT; the 5-year OS rates were 83.3%, 87.5%, 69.8% and 83.9%, respectively. ICI-treated patients with MPR had 5-year OS rates of 98.8% with PD-1 alone and 97.9% with PD-1 + IO and gained no benefit from continuing ICIs into the adjuvant setting. Neoadjuvant ICIs were active in BRAF-mutant melanoma (MPR, 46.3%), acral melanoma (38.1%), in-transit metastases (66.7%) and oligometastases (41.2%), although subgroup sizes and relative effectiveness varied. Survival outcomes were excellent with neoadjuvant ICIs, particularly in patients achieving MPR, but poor with BRAF/MEKis and mixed with ICI + TT. Predictive biomarker-driven trials, effective adjuvant strategies and subgroup-specific research are needed for nonresponders.

Abstract Image

黑色素瘤新辅助治疗的5年生存率:来自国际新辅助黑色素瘤联盟(INMC)的最新汇总分析
新辅助免疫检查点抑制剂(ICIs)是可切除的IIIB-D期黑色素瘤的标准治疗方法,但关于最佳治疗类型、长期生存、术后管理和临床、组织病理学或分子亚群的知识差距仍然存在。我们分析了1038名接受新辅助ICIs (n = 735)、BRAF和MEK抑制剂(BRAF/MEKis, n = 119)或ICI加任何靶向治疗(ICI + TT, n = 184)的患者,这些患者来自26个国家的试验(755例,72.7%)和非试验(283例,27.3%)。ICI方案包括单独使用抗程序性细胞死亡蛋白1 (PD-1, n = 242)和抗PD-1联合其他免疫肿瘤药物(PD-1 + IO, n = 489)。结果包括主要病理反应(MPR)、无复发生存期(RFS)和总生存期(OS)。57.8%的ICIs患者、51.4%的BRAF/MEKis患者和44.6%的ICI + TT患者实现了MPR。PD-1 + IO诱导的MPR率高于单独PD-1(61.4%比49.5%)。PD-1组5年RFS为61.0%,PD-1 + IO组为73.9%,BRAF/MEKis组为37.4%,ICI + TT组为76.4%;5年总生存率分别为83.3%、87.5%、69.8%和83.9%。接受ici治疗的MPR患者,单独接受PD-1治疗的5年OS率为98.8%,PD-1 + IO治疗的5年OS率为97.9%,并且在辅助治疗中继续接受ici治疗没有获益。新辅助ICIs在braf突变黑色素瘤(MPR, 46.3%)、肢端黑色素瘤(38.1%)、转移中转移瘤(66.7%)和寡转移瘤(41.2%)中有活性,尽管亚组大小和相对有效性各不相同。新辅助ICIs的生存结果非常好,特别是在实现MPR的患者中,但BRAF/MEKis和ICI + TT混合的生存结果较差。无应答者需要预测性生物标志物驱动试验,有效的辅助策略和亚组特异性研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Nature Medicine
Nature Medicine 医学-生化与分子生物学
CiteScore
100.90
自引率
0.70%
发文量
525
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Nature Medicine is a monthly journal publishing original peer-reviewed research in all areas of medicine. The publication focuses on originality, timeliness, interdisciplinary interest, and the impact on improving human health. In addition to research articles, Nature Medicine also publishes commissioned content such as News, Reviews, and Perspectives. This content aims to provide context for the latest advances in translational and clinical research, reaching a wide audience of M.D. and Ph.D. readers. All editorial decisions for the journal are made by a team of full-time professional editors. Nature Medicine consider all types of clinical research, including: -Case-reports and small case series -Clinical trials, whether phase 1, 2, 3 or 4 -Observational studies -Meta-analyses -Biomarker studies -Public and global health studies Nature Medicine is also committed to facilitating communication between translational and clinical researchers. As such, we consider “hybrid” studies with preclinical and translational findings reported alongside data from clinical studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书