● LIVE #ESMO26 live from Madrid, Oct 23–27 — today’s highlights, trending trials and physician reactions Follow ESMO 2026 live →

15 min read

ESMO 2026: Top Melanoma Trials and KOL Voices

ESMO 2026: Top Melanoma Trials and KOL Voices
KOL Pulse · ESMO 2026 · Madrid · Melanoma

ESMO 2026: Top Melanoma Trials and KOL Voices

Presenter Georgina Long on INTerpath-001: “The trial showed adding #intismeran autogene, an mRNA based individualised neoantigen therapy, to pembrolizumab reduced the risk of recurrence or death by 42%.” The first open question from the discussant, as posted by Alfredo Addeo: “Will the RFS benefit translate into improved OS?” INTerpath-001 drew 109 physician posts on X from October 23 to 25, more than every other melanoma trial combined. Below: INTerpath-001 with its numbers and slide, the Day 3 NADINA update and post-PD-1 data, five more melanoma readouts physicians posted about, the top physician voices, and the melanoma sessions still ahead on October 26–27.

Physician discussion, October 23–25

Physician posts on X, October 23–25.

#TrialPhysician postsPhysicians postingESMO 2026 slot
1INTerpath-00110970Presidential Symposium I, LBA1
2NADINA (3-year update)118Rapid oral, 2076RO
3STARBOARD43Proffered paper, 2071O
4IOV-COM-202 (cohort 1A)33Proffered paper, 2072O
5GC101 TIL (MIZAR-003)33Proffered paper, LBA55
6PLUG-IN GEM 230132Rapid oral, 2074RO
7IMA203CD8 (melanoma cohort)22Phase 1, all PRAME+ solid tumors
8FS22221Rapid oral, 2075RO
9HERTHENA-PanTumor01 (melanoma)11Rapid oral, 2073RO
10HBI-8000-30311Proffered paper, LBA54

INTerpath-001: intismeran autogene plus adjuvant pembrolizumab

Phase 3, N=1,137 (757 vs 380), resected stage IIB–IV melanoma: intismeran autogene (V940/mRNA-4157, Moderna and Merck), an individualized mRNA neoantigen therapy, plus pembrolizumab vs placebo plus pembrolizumab. RFS HR 0.58 (95% CI 0.45–0.75), two-sided P<0.001; 24-month RFS 82.2% vs 70.0%. DMFS HR 0.62 (0.45–0.85); 24-month DMFS 88.5% vs 80.2%. OS is immature and did not meet its prespecified significance boundary: HR 0.77 (0.45–1.31), P=0.33. (ESMO 2026 LBA1, Georgina V. Long; data cutoff Jun 30, 2026; median follow-up 24.6 months) In a prespecified sensitivity analysis, the RFS HR was 0.99 (0.66–1.49) for months 0–6 and 0.42 (0.30–0.58) after month 6. (LBA1 piecewise HR slide) All-cause grade 3–5 AEs 23.6% vs 20.3%; treatment-related grade 3–5 AEs 14.2% vs 13.4%. All-cause AEs led to death in 8 (1.1%) vs 0 patients; 2 (0.3%) vs 0 were treatment-related, none related to intismeran. (LBA1 AE summary slide) Intismeran is investigational and not approved by the FDA or any other regulator. Merck and Moderna plan to engage regulators on filings. (KOL Pulse INTerpath-001 page)

Katy Beckermann ESMO 2026 slide photo: INTerpath-001 RFS primary analysis, ITT, intismeran plus pembrolizumab vs placebo plus pembrolizumab, 24-month RFS 82.2% vs 70.0%, HR 0.58 (0.45-0.75), presented by Georgina V. Long
INTerpath-001 recurrence-free survival, ITT. Georgina V. Long, ESMO 2026 Presidential Symposium I, LBA1. Photo posted by @katy_beckermann.

Physicians agreed the trial was positive. The debate was the comparator (adjuvant pembrolizumab, when SWOG S1801 and NADINA moved immunotherapy before surgery for macroscopic stage III), the deaths in the experimental arm, OS, and access. The presenter’s post comes first, then the discussant’s points as reported from the room.

Presenter and discussant
Professor Georgina Long AO (Bluesky @gvlongphdmd) @ProfGLongMIA
medical oncologist, Melanoma Institute Australia; INTerpath-001 presenter · Oct 25
It was a great honour to present the results of the phase 3 INTerpath-001 clinical trial at the #ESMO26 Congress in Madrid. This international trial included 1137 patients, across 157 sites, whose melanoma had been surgically removed, but who were at very high risk of it returning. The trial showed adding #intismeran autogene, an mRNA based individualised neoantigen therapy, to pembrolizumab reduced the risk of recurrence or death by 42%. This is the first phase 3 study to show that a treatment built from the unique ‘fingerprint’ of a patient’s own tumour can reduce the risk of recurrence or death from cancer. That fingerprint is read by sequencing the tumour, then a ‘wanted poster’ of the cancer is made as mRNA, showing the immune system exactly what to look for and attack. Having succeeded in melanoma, this proof of concept could mark the beginning of a foundational shift in how we treat cancer. Read more >https://t.co/quxTAFfntb A huge thank you to all patients and teams involved. @myESMO @Sydney_Uni @syd_health @Science_Academy @AAHMS_health @FulbrightAUS @NthSydHealth @ausoftheyear
View post on X ↗
Alfredo Addeo MD
Alfredo Addeo MD @Alfdoc2
medical oncologist, Geneva University Hospitals · Oct 24
Balanced discussion by prof Svane of the phase III INTerpath-001 trial at #ESMO26. Personalized cancer vaccines represent a major step forward, but: 🔹 Will the RFS benefit translate into improved OS? 🔹 Where should adjuvant vaccination fit alongside neoadjuvant ipilimumab/nivolumab? 🔹 Who benefits most? Predictive biomarkers remain urgently needed. 🔹 Manufacturing complexity, treatment delays, costs and access are major challenges. 👏 Compelling data and a milestone for personalized oncology, but clinical positioning and real-world feasibility will be crucial! #ESMOAmbassador #ESMO26 #Melanoma #CancerVaccin
View post on X ↗
Where physicians debated
Yago Garitaonaindía @YGaritaonaindia
medical oncologist; translational research fellow, Copenhagen · Oct 23
Some thoughts on the INTerpath-001 backlash, and the simplistic "neoadjuvant already does better, so why bother" take. I think it misses a few important things. ➡️ First, the neoadjuvant data (S1801, NADINA) come from patients with macroscopic, clinically detectable nodal disease. INTerpath-001 also includes node-negative IIB/IIC and patients whose nodal disease only showed up on sentinel node biopsy. In the big SLN trials, about two thirds of SLN+ patients had deposits ≤1 mm. None of these patients are neoadjuvant candidates. We see the same confusion in #NSCLC all the time, when people compare stage IIIA from adjuvant trials (pathological staging) with stage IIIA from neoadjuvant trials (clinical staging). Same stage on paper, not the same patients. ➡️ Second, INTerpath-001 was designed before NADINA read out, when adjuvant anti-PD-1 was still the default for resected stage III. Judging it against today's practice is a bit of hindsight. ➡️ Third, I suspect the most logical place for a neoantigen vaccine is after neoadjuvant ICI in patients who don't reach pCR. INTerpath-009 is already testing exactly this in NSCLC, so we'll get some hints there. ➡️ And all of this comes with only an absolute ~3% increase in grade ≥3 toxicity, which also belongs in the balance. For macroscopic stage III, the critique lands. I want to see the full data and the stage breakdown at LBA1. But I'd be careful firing at this result before we've even seen it properly. @OncoAlert @Larvol @KolPulseAI @_SEOM @myESMO #Melanoma #ESMO26
View post on X ↗
Yakup Ergün @dr_yakupergun
medical oncologist · Oct 24
#ESMO26 INTerpath-001 8 Grade 5 AEs in the experimental arm, 0 in the control arm. Of course, it could all be pure coincidence! After all, 6 of the 8 events were not considered TRAE Perhaps it was just the excitement of being randomized to the experimental arm? I'm genuinely curious about the independent causality assessment.
View post on X ↗
Day 3: INTerpath-001 next to neoadjuvant therapy
Yago Garitaonaindía @YGaritaonaindia
medical oncologist; translational research fellow, Copenhagen · Oct 25
I don't think anyone in the community is arguing that INTerpath-001 should be the upfront strategy for macroscopic stage III disease (I’m pro neo). But keep in mind that many stage III patients are diagnosed with clinically occult disease, so, as in stage II, they are not candidates for neoadjuvant IO (in stage II, pre-op IO only has proof-of-concept data from a @MelanomaAus study). On top of that, the reported vaccine manufacturing failure rate was <1% (though worth to note pre-randomization attrition).. I agree that this study has its weaknesses: not applicable to macroscopic stage III after neoadjuvant IO, limited generalisability, no validation of the specific neoantigens, and not the best control arm given the COVID vaccine data. But I feel the neoadjuvant vs vaccine debate may be a bit simplistic. The key question in the neoadjuvant space is whether the vaccine can rescue primary resistant patients; INTerpath-009 in lung should give us some clues. On top OS benefit remains to be seen, although no adjuvant anti-PD-1 trial in melanoma has shown an OS benefit either (but either way they became SoC).
View post on X ↗
Free Access · KOL Pulse Intelligence

Track oncology’s top KOLs in your specialty

Create a free account, pick the tumor types you cover, and go beyond the tweet — the intelligence pharma teams use to map influence and prepare for engagement:

  • ✓Enhanced KOL profiles
  • ✓Pharma influence & potential advisory-board patterns
  • ✓2025 Open Payments financial analysis
  • ✓Social-media sentiment & trend signals
Get free access — pick your specialty
Choose the tumor types you follow. No cost, unsubscribe anytime.

Day 3: NADINA at three years and new options after anti-PD-1

Both readouts below came from the melanoma rapid oral session on October 25.

NADINA: neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab vs adjuvant nivolumab, 3-year update

Phase 3 trial (NCT04949113) in resectable macroscopic stage III cutaneous melanoma: neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab, then surgery with response-driven adjuvant therapy, vs surgery followed by adjuvant nivolumab. The 3-year update was presented by Sonja Witteveen (2076RO). (ESMO 2026 program) Three-year EFS was 72.9% vs 50.0%, HR 0.42 (95% CI 0.31–0.59), p<0.0001. (ESMO 2026 2076RO, Sonja J. Witteveen; data cutoff Mar 30, 2026; median follow-up 36 months; KOL Pulse NADINA page) Nivolumab is FDA approved as adjuvant therapy for completely resected stage IIB–IV melanoma, and nivolumab plus ipilimumab for unresectable or metastatic melanoma; neoadjuvant use is not an FDA-labeled indication. (FDA labels for Opdivo and Yervoy) Physicians read the update next to INTerpath-001 and asked whether patients with a near-pathologic complete response still need adjuvant therapy.

Yago Garitaonaindia ESMO 2026 slide photo: NADINA event-free survival, neoadjuvant vs adjuvant therapy in resectable stage III melanoma, presented by Sonja J. Witteveen
NADINA event-free survival, neoadjuvant vs adjuvant. Sonja J. Witteveen, ESMO 2026, 2076RO. Photo posted by @YGaritaonaindia.
Near-pCR and the adjuvant question
Yago Garitaonaindía @YGaritaonaindia
medical oncologist; translational research fellow, Copenhagen · Oct 25
🔥🎯 #ESMO26 NADINA, 3y update Neoadjuvant ipi-nivo vs surgery + adjuvant nivo in macroscopic stage III #melanoma ➡️ 3y EFS 72.9% vs 50.0% | HR 0.42 ➡️ 3y DMFS 75.3% vs 57.4% | HR 0.46 ➡️ 3y RFS: pCR 91% | near-pCR 62% | pPR 88% | pNR 43% ➡️ G≥3 TRAEs 32% vs 16% 🔍 Read it next to the INTerpath-001 hype: in macroscopic stage III, adjuvant PD-1 alone is no longer the bar. ‼️: ~9% relapse after pCR, and near-pCR (no adjuvant) does worse than pPR (adjuvant given). Room for IO in 1-10% RVT? 🧬 RVT carries its own immune biology. @myESMO @OncoAlert @_SEOM @brunolarvol #Melanoma
View post on X ↗
Iván Márquez Rodas 🇪🇦 @ivanpantic1980
medical oncologist, Spain · Oct 25
My personal take on the (again) NADINA up date: we cannot omit adjuvant therapy in near pCR; only in pCR #melanoma #ESMO2026 @GrupoMelanoma . Before making decisions from asumptions from small trials, we should think about how we translate them into confirmatory trials. https://t.co/uRaVb4NV1g
View post on X ↗
Annie Wong 黃毅敏 @anmwongNZ
medical oncologist, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre · Oct 25
Does this data support adjuvant ICI in near pCR, where EFS is even lower than pPR? Looking forward for more data in this subgroup #NADINA #ESMO26 https://t.co/eZUyWCaNXV
View post on X ↗

After anti-PD-1: PLUG-IN GEM 2301, HERTHENA-PanTumor01 and FS222

Three rapid orals tested new options in melanoma that progressed on anti-PD-1 therapy: enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab in PLUG-IN GEM 2301 (Guillermo de Velasco, 2074RO), patritumab deruxtecan (HER3-DXd) in the melanoma cohort of HERTHENA-PanTumor01 (Meredith McKean, 2073RO), and the CD137/PD-L1 bispecific antibody FS222 (Muhammad A. Khattak, 2075RO). Session chair Teresa M. Amaral led the discussion. (ESMO 2026 program) Enfortumab vedotin is FDA approved in urothelial cancer; all three treatments are investigational in melanoma. In the room, physicians noted similar response signals across three different approaches and called for better patient selection, biomarkers and inclusion of acral and mucosal melanoma.

Mario Balsa ESMO 2026 slide photo: discussion slide by Teresa Amaral comparing inclusion criteria of PLUG-IN GEM 2301 (enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab), HERTHENA-PanTumor01 (patritumab deruxtecan) and FS222 in melanoma after anti-PD-1
Discussion: inclusion criteria across the three post-PD-1 trials. Teresa M. Amaral, ESMO 2026 melanoma rapid oral session. Photo posted by @MarioBalsaMD.
Discussion first, then the presenting team
Mario Balsa
Mario Balsa @MarioBalsaMD
medical oncologist, melanoma, Hospital Clínic Barcelona · Oct 25
👑 Brilliant discussion by @TeresaSAmaral (the BEST!!!!!!) at #ESMO26 on the evolving post–PD-1 melanoma landscape. Three very different strategies, remarkably similar signals: ▪️EV + pembro: ORR 32% ▪️HER3-DXd: ORR 21% ▪️FS222: ORR 36% But the real message: ORR 30% is no longer enough! We need smarter trial populations, earlier referral, meaningful biomarkers and better representation of acral/mucosal melanoma. @OncoAlert @OncoReporte @myESMO @_SEOM @GrupoMelanoma
View post on X ↗
Pablo A. Ballesteros @pabloteros
medical oncologist, Hospital 12 de Octubre, Madrid (PLUG-IN presenting center) · Oct 25
A special moment for our team: PLUG-IN trial presented by @g_develasco at #ESMO26! 🇪🇸 EV + pembrolizumab: 25% ORR in PD-1 refractory melanoma (33.3% acral). Nectin-4: higher cytoplasmic expression; no link to response. Next: transcriptomics to explore the biology. Stay tuned! https://t.co/5J7plOnbgw
View post on X ↗
Mario Balsa @MarioBalsaMD
medical oncologist, melanoma, Hospital Clínic Barcelona · Oct 25
🔥 #ESMO26 | FS222 in PD-1–resistant melanoma! A tetravalent CD137/PD-L1 bispecific with encouraging activity in a difficult setting! 👥 N=42 💥 ORR 36% | mDOR 5.5 mo | mPFS 3.7 mo ▪️ 8/15 responders had primary resistance to prior IO ▪️ >10× ↑ CD8+ T-cell proliferation & IFNγ Safety was manageable, although G≥3 TRAEs occurred in 45.2%…mainly immune-mediated hepatic/hematologic events @OncoAlert @OncoReporte @myESMO @_SEOM @GrupoMelanoma
View post on X ↗

Other melanoma readouts physicians posted about

STARBOARD: encorafenib + binimetinib + pembrolizumab, first-line BRAF V600-mutant melanoma

Randomized, double-blind Phase 3 of the triplet vs placebo plus pembrolizumab in unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600-mutant melanoma, presented by Dirk Schadendorf (2071O). (ESMO 2026 program) Encorafenib plus binimetinib is FDA approved for BRAF V600E/K-mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma; the triplet with pembrolizumab is investigational. Physicians called the PFS result impressive and questioned the control arm (pembrolizumab alone rather than ipilimumab-nivolumab) and the immature OS.

Mario Balsa ESMO 2026 slide photo: STARBOARD PFS per BICR, encorafenib plus binimetinib plus pembrolizumab vs control, presented by Dirk Schadendorf
STARBOARD PFS per BICR. Dirk Schadendorf, ESMO 2026, 2071O. Photo posted by @MarioBalsaMD.
Strong PFS, open questions on the comparator and OS
Yago Garitaonaindía @YGaritaonaindia
medical oncologist; translational research fellow, Copenhagen · Oct 23
🔥 STARBOARD at #ESMO26: enco + bini + pembro vs placebo + pembro, 1L BRAF V600 melanoma (n=220) 🖋️ Dirk Schadendorf ➡️ ORR 70% vs 33% | mPFS 33.0 vs 3.4 mo, HR 0.33 | OS HR 0.71 (90% CI 0.48-1.05) 
☣️ G3-4 TEAEs 70% vs 39% | enco/bini discontinuation 43% My two issues:
⚠️ Was pembro mono the right control? Fit BRAF-mutant pts get ipi-nivo 
⚠️ Too few events for OS at 31 mo FU, though the trend favours the triplet @myESMO @_SEOM @OncoAlert @LARVOL
View post on X ↗
Mario Balsa @MarioBalsaMD
medical oncologist, melanoma, Hospital Clínic Barcelona · Oct 23
My top 🥈💎 #Melanoma #ESMO26 STARBOARD - Triplet therapy in BRAF V600 melanoma: enco + bini + pembro vs pembro alone in 1L. 💥 ORR: 70% vs 32.7% || mPFS: 33.0 vs 3.4 mo ▪️G3/4 TEAEs: 70% vs 39% OS: positive trend, but immature after early trial closure. Impressive PFS! But STARBOARD has not reached the OS shore yet⚓ @OncoAlert @OncoReporte @myESMO @_SEOM @GrupoMelanoma
View post on X ↗
Mustafa Özdoğan, MD
Mustafa Özdoğan, MD @ozdogan_md
medical oncologist, Türkiye · Oct 23
🔥 THE RESULT IS IMPRESSIVE. THE COMPARATOR IS THE REAL QUESTION. In BRAF V600 melanoma, upfront BRAF/MEK + anti–PD-1 delivered striking disease control. But does beating anti–PD-1 monotherapy answer today’s first-line question? Presented by Dirk Schadendorf. #ESMO26 #Melanoma
View post on X ↗

IOV-COM-202 cohort 1A: lifileucel + pembrolizumab in ICI-naive advanced melanoma

Final results from the lifileucel (TIL) plus pembrolizumab cohort, presented by Andrew J. Furness (2072O). (ESMO 2026 program) Lifileucel (Amtagvi) is FDA approved for advanced melanoma after anti-PD-1 therapy; first-line use with pembrolizumab is investigational. Physicians noted the responses and durability, and raised toxicity and the choice of comparator for the Phase 3 trial.

Mario Balsa ESMO 2026 slide photo: IOV-COM-202 cohort 1A efficacy, lifileucel plus pembrolizumab, investigator-assessed response waterfall plot, presented by Andrew J. Furness
IOV-COM-202 cohort 1A efficacy. Andrew J. Furness, ESMO 2026, 2072O. Photo posted by @MarioBalsaMD.
TIL moves to first line
Yago Garitaonaindía @YGaritaonaindia
medical oncologist; translational research fellow, Copenhagen · Oct 23
🔥 IOV-COM-202 1A at #ESMO26: lifileucel + pembro, 1L melanoma (n=24) 🖋️ Andrew Furness ➡️ ORR 62.5% | CR 29% | mPFS 19.8 mo | mDOR NR (26.9 mo FU) My key points:
⚠️ Known toxicity limiting generalizability
⚠️ Phase 3 vs pembro mono, not ipi-nivo. This toxicity has to pay off
⚠️ IL-2-sparing, low-intensity lymphodepletion approaches (e.g. OBX-115) coming from behind
💡 Resection after 1st pembro dose? @myESMO @_SEOM @OncoAlert @LARVOL
View post on X ↗
Mario Balsa @MarioBalsaMD
medical oncologist, melanoma, Hospital Clínic Barcelona · Oct 23
🚨#ESMO26 IOV-COM-202: bringing TILs upfront! Lifileucel + pembrolizumab in ICI-naïve advanced melanoma. 💥 ORR 62.5% | CR 29.2% ▪️ mPFS 19.8m | mDOR NR | 13/15 responses ≥12m Now TILVANCE-301 has to advance the signal 👀 @OncoAlert @OncoReporte @myESMO @_SEOM @GrupoMelanoma https://t.co/tdb3PQfpij
View post on X ↗
Dr Sophia Wong @sophiawongyn
medical oncologist, National Cancer Centre Singapore · Oct 23
Great 2 final abstracts presented on #TIL @ajsfurness showed an ORR 62.5% in treatment naive melanoma with 1L Lifileucel + Pembro IOV-COM-202 @IovanceBio with interesting translational data while Lu Si showed an ORR 44% with GC101 TIL with IL-2 free infusion post cells in heavily pretreated mostly mucosal/acral melanoma with low dose LD chemo. But devil is in the details and questions - what exactly is GC101 TIL compared to Lifileucel? How does doses of TIL, IL-2 free, low dose LD impact? #ESMO26 @myESMO
View post on X ↗

GC101 TIL (MIZAR-003): IL-2-free TIL in anti-PD-1-resistant melanoma

Extended follow-up of a randomized, open-label, pivotal phase II trial of GC101 TIL vs chemotherapy, presented by Lu Si (LBA55). (ESMO 2026 program) Most patients had acral or mucosal melanoma. GC101 TIL is not FDA approved. Physicians focused on the IL-2-free, lower-intensity lymphodepletion approach, the chemotherapy comparator and how GC101 compares with lifileucel.

Mario Balsa ESMO 2026 slide photo: GC101 TIL survival vs investigator's choice chemotherapy, PFS primary and sensitivity analyses and OS, MIZAR-003, presented by Lu Si
GC101 TIL vs chemotherapy: PFS and OS. Lu Si, ESMO 2026, LBA55. Photo posted by @MarioBalsaMD.
Less toxic TIL, softer comparator
Yago Garitaonaindía @YGaritaonaindia
medical oncologist; translational research fellow, Copenhagen · Oct 23
🔥 MIZAR-003 update at #ESMO26: GC101 TIL (no IL-2, low-intensity lymphodepletion) + sintilimab vs chemo, anti-PD-1 refractory melanoma (n=101, randomized phase 2) 🖋️ Lu Si ➡️ mPFS 4.4 vs 1.6 mo, HR 0.44 | ORR 44% vs 8% | G≥3 TRAEs 42% vs 31%
Benefit holds in acral and mucosal 🔍TIL tackling its toxicity problem, plus impressive recruitment and execution in China 🇨🇳 (101 pts randomized in ~15 months) ⚠️ But: open-label, chemo is a soft comparator, mPFS still short @myESMO @_SEOM @OncoAlert @LARVOL
View post on X ↗
Mario Balsa @MarioBalsaMD
medical oncologist, melanoma, Hospital Clínic Barcelona · Oct 23
🚨 My top 4 #Melanoma #ESMO26 GC101 TIL: TILs without the full toxicity baggage? Randomized phase II in >=2L anti-PD-1-resistant melanoma! Notably 73% acral/mucosal!!! ▪️PFS: 4.37 vs 1.61m (HR 0.44) 💥 ORR: 44% vs 8% -Acral: ORR 45% vs 8% -Mucosal: ORR 50% vs 0% IL-2-free + reduced-intensity lymphodepletion 👀 and the discussant questioned whether 50% dose sintilimab really changes much… @OncoAlert @OncoReporte @myESMO @_SEOM @GrupoMelanoma
View post on X ↗

IMA203CD8: PRAME-directed TCR T cells, phase 1

Phase 1 trial in HLA-A*02:01-positive, PRAME-positive solid tumors, including a melanoma cohort, presented by Antonia Busse. (presented slide) IMA203CD8 is investigational. Physicians highlighted durable responses in heavily pretreated patients.

Sophia Wong ESMO 2026 slide photo: IMA203CD8 tumor reduction across dose levels during dose escalation by indication, gynecologic, melanoma, synovial sarcoma and other, presented by Antonia Busse
IMA203CD8 tumor reduction by indication. Antonia Busse, ESMO 2026. Photo posted by @sophiawongyn.
Cell therapy beyond TIL
Dr Sophia Wong @sophiawongyn
medical oncologist, National Cancer Centre Singapore · Oct 23
💉IMA203CD8, a co-transduces a CD8αβ co-receptor alongside the PRAME TCR showing impressive ORR 51% in 90 and durability in heavily pre-treated patients of >3L including melanoma, gynaecological, sarcomas. Well tolerated with CRS mostly G1-2. Many congratulations to Antonia Busse, investigators and Immatics 👏🏼 #ESMO26 #TCRTherapy #CellTherapy @myESMO
View post on X ↗
Mario Balsa @MarioBalsaMD
medical oncologist, melanoma, Hospital Clínic Barcelona · Oct 23
🔥 #ESMO26 IMA203CD8: PRAME-directed TCR therapy Phase I in heavily pretreated HLA-A*02:01+, PRAME+ solid tumors. 💥ORR 51% | cORR 41% -Melanoma: ORR 52% -Synovial sarcoma: 67% -Higher-dose gynecologic tumors: ORR 60%, cORR 55% Responses ongoing beyond 2.5 years 👀 Is PRAME ready for PRIME time? @OncoAlert @OncoReporte @myESMO @_SEOM @GrupoMelanoma
View post on X ↗

HBI-8000-303: HBI-8000 + nivolumab in advanced melanoma

Randomized Phase 3 of nivolumab plus HBI-8000 or placebo, presented by Nikhil I. Khushalani (LBA54). (ESMO 2026 program) HBI-8000 plus nivolumab is investigational in melanoma. One physician post discussed it, raising toxicity and OS.

Mario Balsa ESMO 2026 slide photo: HBI-8000-303 progression-free survival in the normal LDH subgroup, HBI-8000 plus nivolumab vs placebo plus nivolumab, presented by Nikhil I. Khushalani
HBI-8000-303 PFS, normal-LDH subgroup. Nikhil I. Khushalani, ESMO 2026, LBA54. Photo posted by @MarioBalsaMD.
A PFS result, with toxicity questions
Mario Balsa @MarioBalsaMD
medical oncologist, melanoma, Hospital Clínic Barcelona · Oct 23
My TOP 3 🥉#Melanoma #ESMO26 HBI-8000 + nivolumab in advanced melanoma - phase III vs nivolumab alone. ▪️ mPFS: 11.7 vs 7.4 mo | HR 0.73 💥 ORR: 41.4% vs 32.3% (p=0.0569) 🔴 G3/4 TRAEs: 54.8% vs 17.9% ⚠️ 4 treatment-related deaths with HBI-8000 ☝🏼Benefit seemed strongest in lower-burden/normal-LDH disease! A PFS win, yes. A new standard? OS? @OncoAlert @OncoReporte @myESMO @_SEOM @GrupoMelanoma
View post on X ↗

KOL Voices: top physicians in melanoma at ESMO 2026

From the melanoma tab of the Top KOLs leaderboard on the conference page. One verbatim line each, labeled with the trial it is about; follow the link for the full post.

Melanoma leaderboard, October 25
Mario Balsa @MarioBalsaMD
medical oncologist, melanoma, Hospital Clínic Barcelona · leaderboard #1, 31.0K impressions, 36 posts · Oct 24
“A clinically meaningful new mechanism, but the real question now is positioning”
Read the full post on X ↗
Balazs Halmos @BalazsHalmosMD
thoracic oncologist · leaderboard #2, 13.4K impressions, 9 posts · Oct 24
“Indeed a landmark trial for precision medicine and hopefully not too Long before we see confirmation in nsclc/other trials!”
Read the full post on X ↗
Yago Garitaonaindía @YGaritaonaindia
medical oncologist; translational research fellow, Copenhagen · leaderboard #3, 11.7K impressions, 15 posts · Oct 24
“Practice-changing? For a population, yes.”
Read the full post on X ↗
Professor Georgina Long AO (Bluesky @gvlongphdmd) @ProfGLongMIA
medical oncologist, Melanoma Institute Australia; INTerpath-001 presenter · leaderboard #5, 10.0K impressions, 2 posts · Oct 25
“Having succeeded in melanoma, this proof of concept could mark the beginning of a foundational shift in how we treat cancer.”
Read the full post on X ↗
Mark Yarchoan @MarkYarchoan
physician-scientist, Johns Hopkins · leaderboard #7, 5.9K impressions, 2 posts · Oct 22
“This hazard ratio puts it in the company of the most paradigm-changing adjuvant trials in oncology history”
Read the full post on X ↗
Yannick Buccella MD @YannickBuccella
GI and molecular oncologist, Zurich · leaderboard #8, 5.6K impressions, 3 posts · Oct 23
“Nobody cured melanoma this week.”
Read the full post on X ↗
Eric D Whitman, MD
Eric D Whitman, MD @Melanoma_doctor
melanoma surgeon and IO specialist, Atlantic Health System · leaderboard #9, 4.2K impressions, 2 posts · Oct 23
“Actually, neoadjuvant pembro is not necessarily the standard for resectable Stage III; based on the NADINA study and on clinical judgement, ipi/nivo combo neoadjuvant therapy is often used instead of single agent pembro.”
Read the full post on X ↗

What’s yet to come: melanoma at ESMO 2026, October 26–27

Times are Madrid time.

WhenSessionPresentationSpeaker
Mon Oct 26, 08:30–08:45Challenge your expert: Too big to scale? NGS in the setting of melanoma (Oviedo Auditorium, Hall 5; chair Bart Neyns)Mastering the mutation: BRAF as the sole biomarker of use in early melanomaGeorgina V. Long
Mon Oct 26, 08:45–09:00Same sessionCracking the code: multi-omics for advanced melanomaRebecca Lee
Mon Oct 26, 09:00–09:15Same sessionDiscussion led by the chairBart Neyns
Mon Oct 26, 10:20–10:25Rapid oral 2: Basic science and translational research (Cordoba Auditorium, Hall 4)4250RO: High affinity FcγR3A germline SNP impairs outcome upon anti-PD1 in melanomaSteven Wijnen
Mon Oct 26, 10:25–10:30Same session4251RO: Humoral immunity against melanocytic differentiation antigens associates with benefit from immune checkpoint blockade in melanomaLukas Flatz
Tue Oct 27, 10:00–10:20Scientific Congress Highlights 1 (Almeria Auditorium, Hall 9)Congress highlights: Melanoma and other skin tumoursSapna P. Patel

No melanoma late-breaking abstracts are scheduled for October 26–27. Regulatory next step on INTerpath-001: Merck and Moderna plan to engage regulators on filings. INTerpath-001 OS follow-up is ongoing. Physician posts on these sessions will appear on the ESMO 2026 trials page and the melanoma slide library.

FAQ

Which melanoma trials did physicians discuss most at ESMO 2026?

By physician posts on X on October 23-25, INTerpath-001 led by a wide margin (109 posts from 70 physicians), followed by NADINA (3-year update), STARBOARD, IOV-COM-202, GC101 TIL (MIZAR-003), PLUG-IN GEM 2301, IMA203CD8, FS222, HERTHENA-PanTumor01 and HBI-8000-303.

What did INTerpath-001 show?

Adding intismeran autogene to adjuvant pembrolizumab in resected stage IIB-IV melanoma gave an RFS HR of 0.58 (95% CI 0.45-0.75); 24-month RFS was 82.2% vs 70.0%. DMFS HR was 0.62. OS is immature (HR 0.77, P=0.33) (ESMO 2026 LBA1, data cutoff June 30, 2026).

What was presented on NADINA at ESMO 2026?

A 3-year update of the phase 3 NADINA trial of neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab vs surgery and adjuvant nivolumab in resectable macroscopic stage III melanoma, presented by Sonja Witteveen (2076RO) on October 25. Neoadjuvant use is not an FDA-labeled indication.

Is intismeran autogene approved?

No. Intismeran autogene is investigational and not approved by the FDA or any other regulator. Merck and Moderna plan to engage regulators on filings.

What melanoma sessions remain at ESMO 2026?

On October 26: a Challenge your expert session on NGS in melanoma (Georgina V. Long, Rebecca Lee, chair Bart Neyns) and two translational rapid orals (4250RO, 4251RO). On October 27: congress highlights for melanoma and other skin tumors (Sapna P. Patel).

KOL Pulse tracks what oncologists and hematologists post on X. Posts quoted here are shown in full and verbatim, or as marked excerpts, and link to their source. Trial figures come from KOL Pulse trial pages, with the source and data cutoff in parentheses.