Background: Tebentafusp has recently been approved for the treatment of metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM) after proving to have survival benefits in a first-line setting. Patients and Methods: This retrospective, multicenter study analyzed the outcomes and safety of tebentafusp therapy in 78 patients with mUM. Results: Patients treated with tebentafusp had a median PFS of 3 months (95% CI 2.7 to 3.3) and a median OS of 22 months (95% CI 10.6 to 33.4). In contrast to a published Phase 3 study, our cohort had a higher rate of patients with elevated LDH (65.4% vs. 35.7%) and included patients with prior systemic and local ablative therapies. In patients treated with tebentafusp following ICI, there was a trend for a longer median OS (28 months, 95% CI 26.9 to 29.1) compared to the inverse treatment sequence (24 months, 95% CI 13.0 to 35.0, p = 0.257). The most common treatment-related adverse events were cytokine release syndrome in 71.2% and skin toxicity in 53.8% of patients. Tumor lysis syndrome occurred in one patient. Conclusions: Data from this real-life cohort showed a median PFS/OS similar to published Phase 3 trial data. Treatment with ICI followed by tebentafusp may result in longer PFS/OS compared to the inverse treatment sequence.

The occurrence, second-line management and outcome of sr/sd-irAEs was investigated in patients with skin cancer. All skin cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) between 2013 and 2021 at a tertiary care center were analyzed retrospectively. Adverse events were coded by CTCAE version 5.0. The course and frequency of irAEs were summarized using descriptive statistics. A total of 406 patients were included in the study. In 44.6% (n = 181) of patients, 229 irAEs were documented. Out of those, 146 irAEs (63.8%) were treated with systemic steroids. Sr-irAEs and sd-irAEs (n = 25) were detected in 10.9% of all irAEs, and in 6.2% of ICI-treated patients. In this cohort, infliximab (48%) and mycophenolate mofetil (28%) were most often administered as second-line immunosuppressants. The type of irAE was the most important factor associated with the choice of second-line immunosuppression. The Sd/sr-irAEs resolved in 60% of cases, had permanent sequelae in 28% of cases, and required third-line therapy in 12%. None of the irAEs were fatal. Although these side effects manifest in only 6.2% of patients under ICI therapy, they impose difficult therapy decisions, especially since there are few data to determine the optimal second-line immunosuppression.

Predictive markers for immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy are needed. Thus, baseline blood counts have been investigated as biomarkers, showing that lymphopenia at the start of therapy with (ICI) is associated with a worse outcome in metastatic melanoma. We investigated the relationship between the occurrence of lymphopenia under ICI and disease outcome. Patients with metastatic melanoma who had undergone therapy with ICI were identified in our database. Only patients with a normal lymphocyte count at baseline were included in this retrospective study. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between patients in which lymphopenia occurred during ICI therapy and those who did not develop lymphopenia. In total, 116 patients were analyzed. Lymphopenia occurred in 42.2% of patients, with a mean onset after 17 weeks (range 1–180 weeks). The occurrence of lymphopenia during immunotherapy was significantly associated with a shorter PFS and OS. Patients who developed lymphopenia (n = 49) had a mean PFS of 13.3 months (range 1–67 months) compared to 16.9 months (range 1–73 months) for patients who did not develop lymphopenia (n = 67; p = 0.025). Similarly, patients with lymphopenia had a significantly shorter OS of 28.1 months (range 2–70 months) compared with 36.8 months (range 4–106 months) in patients who did not develop lymphopenia (p = 0.01). Patients with metastatic melanoma who develop lymphopenia during ICI therapy have a worse prognosis with significantly shorter PFS and OS compared with patients who do not develop lymphopenia.

Summary: The prevalence of all cutaneous manifestations directly associated with COVID‐19 infection is unknown, but the number of reports is rapidly increasing and provisional knowledge is rapidly evolving. Skin manifestations reported can be classified into (1) manifestations unspecifically indicating possible infectious diseases, i.e. maculopapular exanthem, urticaria and erythema multiforme, and (2) manifestations more specifically indicating COVID‐19 infection, i.e. varicella‐like, livedo reticularis or chilblain‐like eruptions. The latter appear to be associated with thrombovascular events and vascular pathologies.