Neoadjuvant Nivolumab Research Articles

Impact of select actionable genomic alterations on efficacy of neoadjuvant immunotherapy in resectable non-small cell lung cancer

BackgroundNeoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have improved survival outcomes compared with chemotherapy in resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the impact of actionable genomic alterations (AGAs) on the efficacy...

Tissue and Imaging Biomarkers of Response to Neoadjuvant Nivolumab or Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab in Patients with Resectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Introduction: Perioperative immunotherapy has shown promise in some patients with early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study examined tissue and imaging biomarkers associated with pathologic response in a phase II clinical trial in patients with resectable HCC. Methods: Analysis included 18 patients with biopsy-proven resectable HCC treated with neoadjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone in a phase II clinical trial at MD Anderson Cancer Center (NCT03222076). Liver MRE (to measure tissue fibrosis) and biopsies (to evaluate immune activation markers) were obtained serially pretreatment and after completing neoadjuvant immunotherapy. A major pathologic response (MPR) was defined as tumor necrosis of more than 70%. Data comparing patients with MPR versus those without were summarized using descriptive statistics and compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Results: Patients with MPR after neoadjuvant immunotherapy tended to have larger tumors (mean 9.52 vs. 4.99 centimeters; p = 0.050). They had a significant reduction in tumor size posttreatment (14.67% reduction vs. 9.15% increase in size; p = 0.042) and a nonsignificant decrease in serum AFP (−24.20% vs. −14.00%; p = 0.085). Further, patients with MPR had a greater increase in intratumoral expression levels of CD8 (26.92% vs. −0.04%; p = 0.026), granzyme B (15.56% vs. −2.24%; p = 0.011), and PD-1 (20.17% vs. 0.40%; p = 0.048) but not PD-L1 (7.69% vs. 0.57%; p = 0.26). For imaging biomarkers, tumor and liver fibrosis were comparable before and after neoadjuvant therapy in patients with MPR versus nonresponders. Conclusion: Changes in tumor size, immune cell infiltration, and immune cell activation are candidate predictive markers of pathologic response to neoadjuvant immunotherapy in patients with resectable HCC.

OA01.05 Neoadjuvant Nivolumab with or without Relatlimab in Resectable NSCLC: Additional Analysis and Extended Follow-up

OA01.05 Neoadjuvant Nivolumab with or without Relatlimab in Resectable NSCLC: Additional Analysis and Extended Follow-up

Neoadjuvant nivolumab or nivolumab plus ipilimumab in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer: a phase 2 adaptive trial

Immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) with chemotherapy is now the standard of care for stage II–III triple-negative breast cancer; however, it is largely unknown for which patients ICI without chemotherapy could be an option and what the benefit of combination ICI could be. The adaptive BELLINI trial explored whether short combination ICI induces immune activation (primary end point, twofold increase in CD8+ T cells or IFNG), providing a rationale for neoadjuvant ICI without chemotherapy. Here, in window-of-opportunity cohorts A (4 weeks of anti-PD-1) and B (4 weeks of anti-PD-1 + anti-CTLA4), we observed immune activation in 53% (8 of 15) and 60% (9 of 15) of patients, respectively. High levels of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes correlated with response. Single-cell RNA sequencing revealed that higher pretreatment tumor-reactive CD8+ T cells, follicular helper T cells and shorter distances between tumor and CD8+ T cells correlated with response. Higher levels of regulatory T cells after treatment were associated with nonresponse. Based on these data, we opened cohort C for patients with high levels of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (≥50%) who received 6 weeks of neoadjuvant anti-PD-1 + anti-CTLA4 followed by surgery (primary end point, pathological complete response). Overall, 53% (8 of 15) of patients had a major pathological response (<10% viable tumor) at resection, with 33% (5 of 15) having a pathological complete response. All cohorts met Simon’s two-stage threshold for expansion to stage II. We observed grade ≥3 adverse events for 17% of patients and a high rate (57%) of immune-mediated endocrinopathies. In conclusion, neoadjuvant immunotherapy without chemotherapy demonstrates potential efficacy and warrants further investigation in patients with early triple-negative breast cancer. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT03815890.

The efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy in resectable stage I-III non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy (NICT) is a new treatment method for resectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Network meta-analysis assessed efficacy, safety, and optimal treatment. We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NICT with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and international conferences. Outcomes were surgical resection rate, pathological complete response(pCR),event-free survival (EFS), and Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). RCTs of 3,387 patients, six treatment combinations, and two modalities were included. Meta-analysis showed that NICT yielded higher pCR and EFS rates than NCT. The toripalimab-chemotherapy combination had the highest surgical resection rate (OR = 1.68, 95% CI: 1.05-2.73), pCR (OR = 38.84, 95% CI: 11.05-268.19) and EFS (HR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.28-0.58).This regimen worked well for patients with low programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression or squamous cell pathology. For high PD-L1 expression and patients with NSCLC, neoadjuvant nivolumab with chemotherapy had the most efficacy. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events increased with longer treatment cycles, with perioperative nivolumab combined with chemotherapy showing the worst safety profile (RR = 1.32, 95% CI: 1.00-1.76), while neoadjuvant nivolumab combined with chemotherapy alone had the best safety profile (RR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.68-1.21). Indirect comparison showed no survival benefit for neoadjuvant-adjuvant immunotherapy (HR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.65-1.35). In the indirect comparison between the two immune checkpoint inhibitors(ICIs), although there was no significant difference in EFS (HR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.61-1.08), PD-1 inhibitors may still be the most effective treatment option. NICT effectively and safely treats resectable NSCLC. The optimal treatment combination is typically toripalimab and chemotherapy. Treatment based on PD-L1 expression and pathological type is recommended.

1089P Longitudinal biomarker analysis and outcomes for patients (pts) treated with neoadjuvant nivolumab (nivo) and relatlimab (rela) in surgically resectable melanoma

1089P Longitudinal biomarker analysis and outcomes for patients (pts) treated with neoadjuvant nivolumab (nivo) and relatlimab (rela) in surgically resectable melanoma

Single-arm trial of neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab with chemoradiotherapy in patients with resectable and borderline resectable lung cancer: the INCREASE study

BackgroundIn non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), chemoradiotherapy (CRT) yields pathological complete response (pCR) rates of approximately 30%. We investigated using ipilimumab plus nivolumab (IPI-NIVO) with neoadjuvant CRT in resectable, and...

901P A phase II trial of neoadjuvant nivolumab, docetaxel, and cisplatin therapy followed by surgery and radiation therapy for resectable high-grade salivary gland carcinoma

901P A phase II trial of neoadjuvant nivolumab, docetaxel, and cisplatin therapy followed by surgery and radiation therapy for resectable high-grade salivary gland carcinoma

1207MO Neoadjuvant nivolumab monotherapy for high-risk clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer: A phase II POTENTIAL study

1207MO Neoadjuvant nivolumab monotherapy for high-risk clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer: A phase II POTENTIAL study

1209MO Neoadjuvant nivolumab and nivolumab+ipilimumab in resectable non-small cell lung cancer: Combined analysis of 5-year outcomes from NEOSTAR and CA209-159

1209MO Neoadjuvant nivolumab and nivolumab+ipilimumab in resectable non-small cell lung cancer: Combined analysis of 5-year outcomes from NEOSTAR and CA209-159

A Case of Pleurisy as Immune-related Adverse Events of Neoadjuvant Nivolumab and Chemotherapy After Lobectomy

A Case of Pleurisy as Immune-related Adverse Events of Neoadjuvant Nivolumab and Chemotherapy After Lobectomy

Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: New Challenges with Immune Checkpoint Blockers and Targeted Therapies.

The recent advent of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint blockers (ICBs) in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has dramatically modified treatment strategies by improving the prognosis in this setting. Osimertinib and alectinib, both TKIs, have shown significant improvements in outcomes for patients with resected EGFR- and ALK-positive NSCLC, respectively, changing the standard of care in these subgroups. More recently, the LAURA trial showed the efficacy of osimertinib after chemoradiotherapy in patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations. Numerous trials are still ongoing to investigate neoadjuvant/perioperative TKIs in several oncogene-driven NSCLC. In addition, several ICBs have been tested and approved as adjuvant (atezolizumab and pembrolizumab), neoadjuvant (nivolumab), and perioperative treatments (pembrolizumab) for patients with resectable early-stage NSCLC. Despite these advances, many challenges remain regarding the use of TKIs and ICBs in this setting, including the optimal duration of adjuvant TKI or induction ICB therapy, the role of minimal residual disease to identify patients at high-risk of disease relapse and to guide adjuvant treatment decisions, and the role of adjuvant chemotherapy in resected oncogene-driven NSCLC. Furthermore, potential predictive biomarkers for efficacy are needed to eventually intensify the entire perioperative strategies. This review aims to summarize and discuss the available evidence, the ongoing trials, and the challenges associated with TKI- and ICB-based approaches in early-stage NSCLC.

Comparative Efficacy of Neoadjuvant Nivolumab Plus Chemotherapy versus Conventional Comparator Treatments in Resectable Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

This study aimed to estimate the relative efficacy of neoadjuvant nivolumab in combination with chemotherapy (neoNIVO + CT) compared to relevant treatments amongst resectable non-metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (rNSCLC) patients. Treatment comparisons were based on a network meta-analysis (NMA) using randomized clinical trial data identified via systematic literature review (SLR). The outcomes of interest were event-free survival (EFS) and pathological complete response (pCR). NeoNIVO + CT was compared to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (neoCT), neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (neoCRT), adjuvant chemotherapy (adjCT), and surgery alone (S). Due to the potential for effect modification by stage, all-stage and stage-specific networks were considered. Fixed-effect (FE) and random-effects Bayesian NMA models were run (EFS = hazard ratios [HR]; pCR = odds ratios [OR]; 95% credible intervals [CrI]). Sixty-one RCTs were identified (base case = 9 RCTs [n = 1978 patients]). In the all-stages FE model, neoNIVO + CT had statistically significant EFS improvements relative to neoCT (HR = 0.68 [95% CrI: 0.49, 0.94]), S (0.59 [0.42, 0.82]), adjCT (0.66 [0.45, 0.96]), but not relative to neoCRT (HR = 0.77 [0.52, 1.16]). NeoNIVO + CT (5 RCTs) had statistically significant higher odds of pCR relative to neoCT (OR = 12.53 [5.60, 33.82]) and neoCRT (7.15 [2.31, 24.34]). Stage-specific model findings were consistent. This NMA signals improved EFS and/or pCR of neoNIVO + CT relative to comparators among patients with rNSCLC.

Approaches to Treating High Risk and Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC): Key Trial Data That Impacts Treatment Decisions in the Clinic.

The treatment paradigm for high risk localized and advanced kidney cancer has been characterized by ongoing changes, with the introduction of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR TKIs) and later with immune checkpoint blockade. In this article, we review how current evidence informs our decision-making on post-checkpoint inhibitor systemic therapies, the role of adjuvant and/or neoadjuvant therapies, and the role of cytoreductive nephrectomy in the evolving systemic therapy landscape. While some studies support a post-checkpoint inhibitor benefit from the VEGFR TKIs cabozantinib or axitinib, the benefit of doublet therapies including a VEGF receptor inhibitor and a checkpoint inhibitor remains an area of active investigation, with the combination of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab showing promise but with a Phase III trial of the combination of atezolizumab plus cabozantinib showing no benefit over cabozantinib alone. The role of adjuvant therapy in patients with high-risk disease who have undergone cytoreductive nephrectomy and potentially metastasectomy is also an area of continuing interest. While the S-TRAC study demonstrated a disease-free survival benefit for adjuvant sunitinib, no overall survival benefit was shown, and multiple other studies of adjuvant VEGFR TKI therapy have been negative. Subsequently, adjuvant pembrolizumab has shown a benefit in overall survival, whereas trials of neoadjuvant and adjuvant nivolumab, adjuvant atezolizumab, and adjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab have all been negative. Finally, the role for cytoreductive nephrectomy continues to be an area of active debate. The CARMENA study raised important questions about the role of cytoreductive nephrectomy given the advances in VEGFR TKI therapy but was characterized by accrual difficulties and a significant number of patients not receiving treatment according to the study protocol. Two ongoing studies (NORDIC-SUN and PROBE) seek to further address the role of cytoreductive nephrectomy in the doublet therapy era.

PP01.101 Estimated Cost of Adverse Events and Surgery for Resectable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients Receiving Neoadjuvant Nivolumab Plus Platinum-Doublet Chemotherapy

PP01.101 Estimated Cost of Adverse Events and Surgery for Resectable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients Receiving Neoadjuvant Nivolumab Plus Platinum-Doublet Chemotherapy

Neoadjuvant nivolumab (NIVO) + chemotherapy (chemo) vs chemo in patients (pts) with resectable NSCLC: 4-year update from CheckMate 816.

LBA8010 Background: The phase 3 CheckMate 816 study established neoadjuvant NIVO + chemo as a standard of care for eligible pts with resectable NSCLC. Here, we report the 4-year survival update from this study, representing the longest follow-up among all global phase 3 studies evaluating neoadjuvant or perioperative immunotherapy-based treatments. Methods: Adults with stage IB (≥ 4 cm)–IIIA (per AJCC v7) resectable NSCLC, ECOG PS ≤ 1, and no known EGFR/ ALK alterations were randomized 1:1 to receive NIVO 360 mg + chemo Q3W or chemo alone Q3W for 3 cycles, followed by surgery. Event-free survival (EFS) and pathologic complete response (pCR; both per blinded independent review) were primary endpoints and were both statistically significant. Overall survival (OS) was a key secondary endpoint. Exploratory analyses included efficacy by pCR status and extent of resection. Results: At the 23 Feb 2024 database lock (median follow-up, 57.6 mo), NIVO + chemo continued to improve EFS vs chemo (median, 43.8 mo vs 18.4 mo; HR [95% CI], 0.66 [0.49–0.90]); 4-year EFS rates were 49% vs 38%. EFS favored NIVO + chemo vs chemo regardless of whether pts had lobectomy or pneumonectomy (Table), with 56%–57% vs 40%–43% of pts without disease recurrence at 4 years. NIVO + chemo also continued to show OS improvement vs chemo (HR [98.36% CI], 0.71 [0.47–1.07]; P = 0.0451; median OS was not reached [NR] in both arms, and the significance boundary was not met at this interim analysis). An OS improvement of 13% was sustained over time for NIVO + chemo vs chemo; 4-year OS rates were 71% vs 58%. Pts in the NIVO + chemo arm who had pCR continued to have improved OS vs those who did not (HR [95% CI], 0.08 [0.02–0.34]); 4-year OS rates, 95% vs 63%); a similar trend was seen in the chemo arm, although few pts had pCR with chemo (n = 4). No new safety signals were observed at this update. Additional survival analyses in pt subgroups and by ctDNA levels will be presented. Conclusions: In this 4-year analysis from CheckMate 816, neoadjuvant NIVO + chemo sustained EFS and OS separation vs chemo over time and demonstrated the long-term survival benefit of having pCR in pts with resectable NSCLC. These data provide the first understanding of the long-term benefits of neoadjuvant immunotherapy when added to chemo, reinforcing neoadjuvant NIVO + chemo as a standard of care, and providing a benchmark to assess the benefits of all perioperative immunotherapy-based treatments. Clinical trial information: NCT02998528 . [Table: see text]

Quality of life with neoadjuvant ipilimumab (IPI) and nivolumab (NIVO) versus adjuvant nivolumab in resectable stage III melanoma: 36-week data from the phase 3 NADINA trial.

LBA9584 Background: Neoadjuvant (neoadj) ipilimumab (IPI) + nivolumab (NIVO) showed improved event-free survival compared to adjuvant (adj) NIVO, but at the cost of increased immune related toxicity (irAEs). In the PRADO trial, impairment of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was predominantly driven by the extent of the surgery and not by irAEs. To evaluate the effect of neoadj IPI+NIVO on HRQoL, we report the 36w HRQoL outcomes from the phase 3 NADINA trial. Methods: Eligible patients (pts) with resectable, macroscopic stage III melanoma were randomly assigned to receive 2 cycles of neoadj IPI+NIVO followed by a therapeutic lymph node dissection (TLND; w6) and only in partial- or non-responders, 1y of adj systemic treatment; or TLND (w0) followed by 12 cycles adj NIVO. EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaires (qtn) were digitally collected at baseline, w6, w12 and thereafter q12w. The unadjusted HRQoL scores (scale 0-100) were assessed for pts who completed 39w of follow-up (FU) on January 12, 2024. Results: 261/423 randomized pts had 39w FU at data cutoff. 81% completed the qtn at BL, with thereafter an average compliance of 80%. QLQ-C30 data were available for 107 pts in the neoadj arm and 103 in the adj arm. Physical-, role-, emotional functioning, and pain were comparable between the neoadj and adj arm across all timepoints (Table), as were fatigue and the summary score. A numerical trend towards worsening of physical-, role functioning, and pain was seen at w6 for the adj arm and at w12 for the neoadj arm, representing the post-surgery QoL timepoints. Conclusion: Using fully digitalized data collection, this first HRQoL analysis of neoadj vs adj immunotherapy in stage III melanoma showed comparable results between the neoadj and adj arms. Physical-, role functioning, and pain were impaired in both groups at the first post-surgery timepoint. Clinical trial information: NCT04949113 . [Table: see text]

Neoadjuvant Nivolumab Plus Chemotherapy Followed By Response-Adaptive Therapy for HPV+ Oropharyngeal Cancer

Immune checkpoint inhibitors improve survival in recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck cancer, yet their role in curative human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancer (HPV+ OPC) remains undefined. Neoadjuvant nivolumab and chemotherapy followed by response-adaptive treatment in HPV+ OPC may increase efficacy while reducing toxicity. To determine the deep response rate and tolerability of the addition of neoadjuvant nivolumab to chemotherapy followed by response-adapted locoregional therapy (LRT) in patients with HPV+ OPC. This phase 2 nonrandomized controlled trial conducted at a single academic center enrolled 77 patients with locoregionally advanced HPV+ OPC from 2017 to 2020. Data analyses were performed from February 10, 2021, to January 9, 2023. Addition of nivolumab to neoadjuvant nab-paclitaxel and carboplatin (studied in the first OPTIMA trial) followed by response-adapted LRT in patients with HPV+ OPC stages III to IV. Primary outcome was deep response rate to neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy, defined as the proportion of tumors with 50% or greater shrinkage per the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1. Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Swallowing function, quality of life, and tissue- and blood-based biomarkers, including programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and circulating tumor HPV-DNA (ctHPV-DNA), were also evaluated. The 73 eligible patients (median [range] age, 61 [37-82] years; 6 [8.2%] female; 67 [91.8%] male) started neoadjuvant nivolumab and chemotherapy. Deep responses were observed in 51 patients (70.8%; 95% CI, 0.59-0.81). Subsequent risk- and response-adaptive therapy was assigned as follows: group A, single-modality radiotherapy alone or transoral robotic surgery (28 patients); group B, intermediate-dose chemoradiotherapy of 45 to 50 Gray (34 patients); and group C, regular-dose chemoradiotherapy of 70 to 75 Gray (10 patients). Two-year PFS and OS were 90.0% (95% CI, 0.80-0.95) and 91.4% (95% CI, 0.82-0.96), respectively. By response-adapted group, 2-year PFS and OS for group A were 96.4% and 96.4%, and group B, 88.0% and 91.0%, respectively. Lower enteral feeding rates and changes in weight, as well as improved swallowing, were observed among patients who received response-adapted LRT. Pathologic complete response rate among patients who underwent transoral robotic surgery was 67.0%. PD-L1 expression was nonsignificantly higher for deeper responses and improved PFS, and ctHPV-DNA clearance was significantly associated with improved PFS. This phase 2 nonrandomized controlled trial found that neoadjuvant nivolumab and chemotherapy followed by response-adapted LRT is feasible and has favorable tolerability, excellent OS, and improved functional outcomes in HPV+ OPC, including among patients with high-risk disease. Moreover, addition of nivolumab may benefit high PD-L1 expressors, and sensitive dynamic biomarkers (eg, ctHPV-DNA) are useful for patient selection. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03107182.

Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy in Locally Advanced Mismatch Repair–Deficient Colon Cancer

BackgroundMismatch repair–deficient (dMMR) tumors can be found in 10 to 15% of patients with nonmetastatic colon cancer. In these patients, the efficacy of chemotherapy is limited. The use of neoadjuvant immunotherapy has shown promising results, but data from studies of this approach are limited.MethodsWe conducted a phase 2 study in which patients with nonmetastatic, locally advanced, previously untreated dMMR colon cancer were treated with neoadjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab. The two primary end points were safety, defined by timely surgery (i.e., ≤2-week delay of planned surgery owing to treatment-related toxic events), and 3-year disease-free survival. Secondary end points included pathological response and results of genomic analyses.ResultsOf 115 enrolled patients, 113 (98%; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 93 to 100) underwent timely surgery; 2 patients had surgery delayed by more than 2 weeks. Grade 3 or 4 immune-related adverse events occurred in 5 patients (4%), and none of the patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events. Among the 111 patients included in the efficacy analysis, a pathological response was observed in 109 (98%; 95% CI, 94 to 100), including 105 (95%) with a major pathological response (defined as ≤10% residual viable tumor) and 75 (68%) with a pathological complete response (0% residual viable tumor). With a median follow-up of 26 months (range, 9 to 65), no patients have had recurrence of disease.ConclusionsIn patients with locally advanced dMMR colon cancer, neoadjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab had an acceptable safety profile and led to a pathological response in a high proportion of patients. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb; NICHE-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03026140.)

Neoadjuvant Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Resectable Stage III Melanoma

BackgroundIn phase 1–2 trials in patients with resectable, macroscopic stage III melanoma, neoadjuvant immunotherapy was more efficacious than adjuvant immunotherapy.MethodsIn this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with resectable, macroscopic stage III melanoma to two cycles of neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab followed by surgery or surgery followed by 12 cycles of adjuvant nivolumab. Only patients in the neoadjuvant group with a partial response or nonresponse received adjuvant treatment. The primary end point was event-free survival.ResultsA total of 423 patients underwent randomization. At a median follow-up of 9.9 months, the estimated 12-month event-free survival was 83.7% (99.9% confidence interval [CI], 73.8 to 94.8) in the neoadjuvant group and 57.2% (99.9% CI, 45.1 to 72.7) in the adjuvant group. The difference in restricted mean survival time was 8.00 months (99.9% CI, 4.94 to 11.05; P<0.001; hazard ratio for progression, recurrence, or death, 0.32; 99.9% CI, 0.15 to 0.66). In the neoadjuvant group, 59.0% of patients had a major pathological response, 8.0% had a partial response, 26.4% had a nonresponse (>50% residual viable tumor), and 2.4% had progression; in 4.2%, surgery had not yet been performed or was omitted. The estimated 12-month recurrence-free survival was 95.1% in patients in the neoadjuvant group who had a major pathological response, 76.1% among those with a partial response, and 57.0% among those with a nonresponse. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher that were related to systemic treatment occurred in 29.7% of patients in the neoadjuvant group and in 14.7% in the adjuvant group.ConclusionsAmong patients with resectable, macroscopic stage III melanoma, neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab followed by surgery and response-driven adjuvant therapy resulted in longer event-free survival than surgery followed by adjuvant nivolumab. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and others; NADINA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04949113.)