LAUSR

9588 Background: Results from the phase 1b (OpACIN) study comparing neoadjuvant to adjuvant ipilimumab (3mg/kg) plus nivolumab (1mg/kg) demonstrated a high clinical activity of neoadjuvant treatment in high-risk melanoma. However, the toxicity was high, with 90% grade 3 to 4 toxicity. These findings raise questions about long-term quality of life (QoL) in these patients (pts) who were treated with curative intent. Here we present the first analysis of patient-reported outcomes of patients treated with (neo)adjuvant immune checkpoint combination therapy. Methods: Sixteen of 20 pts had completed study treatment and were currently in follow-up (FU). Pts were asked to fill in The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL questionnaire-C30 (QLQ-C30). The QLQ-C30 was used to assess health-related QoL and is composed of functional, symptomatic dimensions and a dimension of global health/QoL. A reference population (controls without a diagnosis of cancer) was obtained from the ‘Patient Reported Outcomes Following Initial treatment and Long term Evaluation of Survivorship’ registry. Pts were individually matched on age, gender, education and marital status with up to 9 controls. Pts and controls were compared on QLQ-30 scores using univariable linear regression analyses. Results: Thirteen out of 16 invited pts (81% response) returned a completed questionnaire. Median FU was 30 months after randomization. Pts scored significantly lower in emotional (std coeff. = -1.0, p = .007), role (std coeff. = -0.7, p = .08), cognitive (std coeff. = -0.8, p = .018) and social (std coeff. = -1.0, p = .014) functioning and higher in symptom burden of fatigue (std coeff. = .9, p = .024) compared to controls, which were all clinically relevant. The physical functioning and global QoL score did not differ between pts and controls. Conclusions: High risk stage III melanoma pts treated with (neo)adjuvant immune checkpoint combination therapy showed significantly lower emotional, role, cognitive and social functioning scores than controls. Pts reported higher levels of fatigue, however, there was no difference on physical functioning and global QoL between pts and controls.