A propensity score-matched analysis comparing first-line regional, systemic, and intralesional treatments for melanoma in-transit metastases in a contemporary patient population.

C Caitlyn Balsay-Patel (Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL) M Michelle Dugan (H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL) S Syeda Mahrukh Hussnain Naqvi (Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL) D David W. Ollila (The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC) T Tina J. Hieken (Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN) W Winan J. van Houdt N Nethanel Asher (Skin Cancer and Melanoma Center, Rabin Medical Center, Beilinson Hospital, Petah Tikva, Israel) K Kristy Kummerow Broman (Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL) H Hayden Snow (Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia) J Jeffrey M. Farma (Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA) J John T. Vetto (Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR) J Jane Yuet Ching Hui (University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN) R Robyn P.M. Saw S Serigne N. Lo G Georgina V. Long L Lars Ny (Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden) Y Youngchul Kim A Alexander Christopher Jonathan van Akkooi (Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI-AVL), Amsterdam, Netherlands) R Roger Olofsson Bagge J Jonathan S. Zager (H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL)

Abstract

9524 Background: Unresectable melanoma in-transit metastases (ITM) can pose a significant clinical challenge. Our recently published data comparing first-line treatments for ITM, isolated limb infusion or perfusion (ILI/ILP), immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and intralesional talimogene laherparepvec (TVEC), found superior outcomes with TVEC. However, TVEC was used more often in patients with lower disease burden and earlier stage (IIIB vs. IIIC/D). Therefore, we sought to better investigate these differences with a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis. Methods: A multi-institutional, international IRB- approved retrospective analysis was conducted for unresectable melanoma ITM from 2016-2022. PSM analysis comparing first-line ILI/ILP, ICI, and TVEC for was performed. Patients were matched for stage, number of ITM, anatomical site, CLND status, gender and age. Kaplan-Meier curves (OS, PFS, DMFS) and Cumulative incidence function (MSS) were used to visualize time-to-event outcomes in the PSM cohort, though both methods do not account for the matched structure. Results: 274 patients were identified, 120 female/154 male; 96 treated with ILI/ILP, 111 with ICI, and 67 with TVEC. Median follow-up was 40 months (range, 1-80). PSM was performed and identified 36 TVEC–ICI pairs and 27 TVEC–ILI pairs. These were combined resulting in a final cohort of 108 observations (45 TVEC, 36 ICI and 27 ILI). The groups were well balanced. No statistical difference was found for metastasis-free survival (DMFS), progression-free survival (PFS), melanoma-specific survival (MSS), and overall survival (OS) between treatment modalities. TVEC was associated with significant improvement in local PFS (median was 2.2 years (y) for ILI/ILP, 1.5y for ICI and not reached for TVEC, p=0.048). While not statistically significant, a clinical benefit was seen in PFS being longer for TVEC (2.1y for TVEC vs. 1.2y for ILI/ILP and 1.1y for ICI; p=0.2) and OS (not reached vs 2.9y for ILI/ILP and 5.2y for ICI; p=0.2). On mixed effect Cox regression proportional hazard model using the matched data set, there were no significant differences in any of the survival and recurrence outcomes. Conclusions: When patients are propensity-matched, there were no significant differences in first-line treatment modalities for unresectable melanoma ITM. Treatment with TVEC did result in clinically meaningful improved overall and local PFS and OS. This supports that selection of ITM therapy should incorporate an individualized approach, incorporating disease distribution, stage, burden, treatment side effects and patient priorities.

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 44, Issue 16_suppl
Published June 01, 2026
Pages 9524-9524
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (20)

C

Caitlyn Balsay-Patel

Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL

M

Michelle Dugan

H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL

S

Syeda Mahrukh Hussnain Naqvi

Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL

D

David W. Ollila

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC

T

Tina J. Hieken

Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN

W

Winan J. van Houdt

N

Nethanel Asher

Skin Cancer and Melanoma Center, Rabin Medical Center, Beilinson Hospital, Petah Tikva, Israel

K

Kristy Kummerow Broman

Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL

H

Hayden Snow

Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia

J

Jeffrey M. Farma

Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA

J

John T. Vetto

Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR

J

Jane Yuet Ching Hui

University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN

R

Robyn P.M. Saw

S

Serigne N. Lo

G

Georgina V. Long

L

Lars Ny

Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden

Y

Youngchul Kim

A

Alexander Christopher Jonathan van Akkooi

Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI-AVL), Amsterdam, Netherlands

R

Roger Olofsson Bagge

J

Jonathan S. Zager

H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL