Physician discussion, October 23–25
Physician posts on X, October 23–25.
| # | Trial | Physician posts | Physicians posting | ESMO 2026 slot |
|---|
| 1 | INTerpath-001 | 109 | 70 | Presidential Symposium I, LBA1 |
| 2 | NADINA (3-year update) | 11 | 8 | Rapid oral, 2076RO |
| 3 | STARBOARD | 4 | 3 | Proffered paper, 2071O |
| 4 | IOV-COM-202 (cohort 1A) | 3 | 3 | Proffered paper, 2072O |
| 5 | GC101 TIL (MIZAR-003) | 3 | 3 | Proffered paper, LBA55 |
| 6 | PLUG-IN GEM 2301 | 3 | 2 | Rapid oral, 2074RO |
| 7 | IMA203CD8 (melanoma cohort) | 2 | 2 | Phase 1, all PRAME+ solid tumors |
| 8 | FS222 | 2 | 1 | Rapid oral, 2075RO |
| 9 | HERTHENA-PanTumor01 (melanoma) | 1 | 1 | Rapid oral, 2073RO |
| 10 | HBI-8000-303 | 1 | 1 | Proffered 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)
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
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
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
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 ↗
#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
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.
NADINA event-free survival, neoadjuvant vs adjuvant. Sonja J. Witteveen, ESMO 2026, 2076RO. Photo posted by
@YGaritaonaindia.
Near-pCR and the adjuvant question
🔥🎯 #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 ↗
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
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 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.
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
👑 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 ↗
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
🔥 #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.
STARBOARD PFS per BICR. Dirk Schadendorf, ESMO 2026, 2071O. Photo posted by
@MarioBalsaMD.
Strong PFS, open questions on the comparator and OS
🔥 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 ↗
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 ↗
🔥 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.
IOV-COM-202 cohort 1A efficacy. Andrew J. Furness, ESMO 2026, 2072O. Photo posted by
@MarioBalsaMD.
TIL moves to first line
🔥 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 ↗
🚨#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
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.
GC101 TIL vs chemotherapy: PFS and OS. Lu Si, ESMO 2026, LBA55. Photo posted by
@MarioBalsaMD.
Less toxic TIL, softer comparator
🔥 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 ↗
🚨 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.
IMA203CD8 tumor reduction by indication. Antonia Busse, ESMO 2026. Photo posted by
@sophiawongyn.
Cell therapy beyond TIL
💉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 ↗
🔥 #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.
HBI-8000-303 PFS, normal-LDH subgroup. Nikhil I. Khushalani, ESMO 2026, LBA54. Photo posted by
@MarioBalsaMD.
A PFS result, with toxicity questions
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 ↗ STARBOARD, IOV-COM-202, GC101 TIL, IMA203CD8 and HBI-8000-303 slides on the melanoma slide page.
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 @MarioBalsaMDmedical 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 ↗
“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 ↗
“Practice-changing? For a population, yes.”
Read the full post on X ↗
“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 ↗
“This hazard ratio puts it in the company of the most paradigm-changing adjuvant trials in oncology history”
Read the full post on X ↗
“Nobody cured melanoma this week.”
Read the full post on X ↗
“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.
| When | Session | Presentation | Speaker |
|---|
| Mon Oct 26, 08:30–08:45 | Challenge 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 melanoma | Georgina V. Long |
| Mon Oct 26, 08:45–09:00 | Same session | Cracking the code: multi-omics for advanced melanoma | Rebecca Lee |
| Mon Oct 26, 09:00–09:15 | Same session | Discussion led by the chair | Bart Neyns |
| Mon Oct 26, 10:20–10:25 | Rapid oral 2: Basic science and translational research (Cordoba Auditorium, Hall 4) | 4250RO: High affinity FcγR3A germline SNP impairs outcome upon anti-PD1 in melanoma | Steven Wijnen |
| Mon Oct 26, 10:25–10:30 | Same session | 4251RO: Humoral immunity against melanocytic differentiation antigens associates with benefit from immune checkpoint blockade in melanoma | Lukas Flatz |
| Tue Oct 27, 10:00–10:20 | Scientific Congress Highlights 1 (Almeria Auditorium, Hall 9) | Congress highlights: Melanoma and other skin tumours | Sapna 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).
Related ESMO 2026 pages