Ep 13: SWOG S1801

Summary

In this conversation, James Larkin and Sapna Patel discuss the S1801 study, a neoadjuvant study in melanoma. They talk about the background and design of the study, including the decision to compare neoadjuvant therapy to adjuvant therapy using pembrolizumab. They also discuss the efficacy and toxicity of the neoadjuvant approach, as well as the importance of central pathologic review. They mention the NADINA study as the next step in exploring combination therapy in the neoadjuvant setting.

Keywords

neoadjuvant therapy, melanoma, S1801 study, pembrolizumab, adjuvant therapy, efficacy, toxicity, central pathologic review, NADINA study

Takeaways

• The S1801 study compared neoadjuvant therapy to adjuvant therapy using pembrolizumab in melanoma patients.
• The neoadjuvant approach showed a statistically significant improvement in event-free survival compared to adjuvant therapy alone.
• Toxicity was observed in some patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy, but it did not limit the use of single-agent PD-1 therapy.
• Central pathologic review revealed a higher rate of complete pathologic response than local review, highlighting the need for education among pathologists.
• The NADINA study will explore combination therapy in the neoadjuvant setting and may provide further insights into treatment efficacy.

Sound Bites

"The group that took neoadjuvant-adjuvant had a statistically significant improvement in event-free survival."

"Once we did central review, the pathologic (complete) response nearly doubled."

"The NADINA study will tell us if combination therapy in the neoadjuvant setting is highly effective."

Chapters

00:00 Introduction and Background of S1801 Study

07:19 Study Design and Endpoints

13:33 Efficacy and Toxicity Insights