Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

Is earlier better for melanoma checkpoint blockade?

Nature Medicine volume 24, pages 1645–1648 (2018)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

A neoadjuvant approach relying on the administration of combined anti-CTLA-4–anti-PD-1 treatment before lymph node surgery is evaluated in two phase 1 trials. Encouraging clinical, pathological and immunological responses to neoadjuvant therapy were observed, suggesting that this concept warrants further exploration; however, any future approach must address the unacceptably high toxicity of the regimens evaluated in these trials.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Rationale for using neoadjuvant versus adjuvant immunotherapy in metastatic melanoma.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Robert, C. et al. N. Engl. J. Med. 372, 30–39 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Robert, C. et al. N. Engl. J. Med. 372, 2521–2532 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Robert, C. et al. N. Engl. J. Med. 372, 320–330 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Robert, C. et al. J. Clin. Oncol. 36, 1668–1674 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Wolchok, J. D. et al. N. Engl. J. Med. 369, 122–133 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Eggermont, A. M. M. et al. N. Engl. J. Med. 378, 1789–1801 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Weber, J. et al. N. Engl. J. Med. 377, 1824–1835 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Amaria, R. N. et al. Nat. Med. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0197-1 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Blank, C. et al. Nat. Med. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0198-0 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Chen, Y. et al. Medicine (Baltimore) 97, e10634 (2018).

  11. MacLean, M. et al. Oncotarget 9, 24470–24479 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Wolchok, J. D. et al. Clin. Cancer Res. 15, 7412–7420 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hodi, F. S. et al. J. Clin. Oncol. 34, 1510–1517 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Liu, J. et al. Cancer Discov. 6, 1382–1399 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Tetzlaff, M. T. et al. Ann. Oncol. 29, 1861–1868 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hellmann, M. D. et al. N. Engl. J. Med. 378, 2093–2104 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Rizvi, N. A. et al. Science 348, 124–128 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Long, G. V. et al. N. Engl. J. Med. 377, 1813–1823 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Amaria, R. N. et al. Lancet Oncol. 19, 181–193 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Gershenwald J. E. et al. CA Cancer J. Clin. 67, 472–492 (2017).

  21. Morton, D. L. et al. N. Engl. J. Med. 370, 599–609 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Paris-Sud University, Kremlin-Bicêtre, France

    Caroline Robert

  2. Oncology Department and INSERM U981, Villejuf, France

    Caroline Robert

Authors
  1. Caroline Robert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Caroline Robert.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Robert, C. Is earlier better for melanoma checkpoint blockade?. Nat Med 24, 1645–1648 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0250-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0250-0

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing