Melanoma Updates for the Dermatologist

David M. Miller, MD, PhD

2026-09-19

Three melanoma updates that matter in 2026

Three melanoma updates that matter in 2026
The 2025–2026 signal
01
Predict better
MERLIN_001 brings prospective, blinded evidence to CP-GEP–informed sentinel-node risk assessment.
02
Appreciate how far we’ve come
CheckMate 067 reaches 10 years: durable survival is now a defining feature of modern metastatic melanoma care.
03
Have another option after PD-1
RP1 + nivolumab receives accelerated approval for PD-1–refractory unresectable advanced cutaneous melanoma.
A 15-minute update: one decision at diagnosis, one decade-long survival story, and one new treatment after PD-1 failure.
Abbreviations: CP-GEP, clinicopathologic gene expression profile; PD-1, programmed death 1.

Section

01
Early-stage melanoma
Can molecular biology sharpen the SLNB conversation?
MERLIN_001 is the strongest prospective test yet of CP-GEP as a sentinel-node risk tool.

What was MERLIN_001?

What was MERLIN_001?
Study design
A prospective, blinded, multicenter study testing whether CP-GEP could refine the SLNB decision in T1–T3 melanoma.
Core study workflow
The study was designed to test CP-GEP prospectively without changing management.
01 Enroll

9 academic centers
Clinically node-negative T1–T3 melanoma

02 Assay

Primary biopsy tissue
CP-GEP → low risk or high risk

03 Procedure

Standard SLNB
Performed for all patients

04 Compare

CP-GEP result
Compared with observed SLN status

Who was eligible?

Clinically node-negative T1–T3 melanoma; pT1a permitted only with selected high-risk features.

What is CP-GEP?

8-gene expression signature + Breslow thickness + age → low-risk or high-risk result.

Primary question

Could a low-risk result define a group that could safely forgo SLNB? Prespecified bar: upper 95% CI <5%.

Design facts worth remembering
Study type Prospective, blinded, prognostic study
Setting 9 academic melanoma centers
Analysis cohort 1,761 patients with successful CP-GEP and SLNB
Secondary objective Prognostic value after negative SLNB — not yet reported
Bottom line: MERLIN_001 was a true prospective test of whether CP-GEP could add decision support beyond standard clinicopathologic selection.
Hieken et al., JAMA Surg. 2025;160:1358–1366.

MERLIN missed its primary endpoint. Did it still matter?

MERLIN missed its primary endpoint. Did it still matter?
The MERLIN story
The prespecified endpoint was not met — but the prospective dataset still changed the conversation.
2024 · Society for Melanoma Research
Prespecified primary objective

Identify a CP-GEP “low-risk” group with an actual SLN positivity rate

<5%
Observed in CP-GEP low-risk group
7.1%
Primary endpoint not met
Contemporary coverage characterized the trial as having “failed” its clinical-validity endpoint.
But the same study also showed…
37%classified low risk
7.1%SLN positive if low risk
23.8%SLN positive if high risk
The assay did not identify a “no-SLNB” population.

It did identify a substantially lower-risk population.
Prediction ≠ proof that omission is safe. But prediction can still be clinically useful when it moves a patient across a decision threshold.
Hieken et al., JAMA Surg. 2025;160:1358–1366.

It depends on the question you ask.

It depends on the question you ask
Interpretation
MERLIN_001 did not prove that SLNB can be omitted. It did prospectively refine the probability of a positive sentinel node.
Question 1
Can CP-GEP identify a group in whom SLNB can simply be omitted?
MERLIN_001 answer
Not from these data.

Low-risk SLN positivity was 7.1%, above the <5% threshold used to define a “no-SLNB” group.

Re-frame
Question 2
Can CP-GEP refine risk enough to change the SLNB conversation?
MERLIN_001 answer
Yes — in selected patients.

A low-risk result placed the group at 7.1% SLN positivity — squarely in the guideline 5–10% discussion / consideration zone.

Prediction ≠ proof that omission is safe. But prediction can still be clinically useful when it moves a patient across a decision threshold.
Hieken et al., JAMA Surg. 2025;160:1358–1366.

MERLIN: the signal is strongest where the decision is hardest.

MERLIN: the signal is strongest where the decision is hardest
Prospective validation
Blinded · multicenter · 1,761 patients with T1–T3 melanoma who underwent SLNB
37% classified low risk
7.1% SLN-positive in low-risk group
23.8% SLN-positive in high-risk group
Low-risk classification fell sharply with increasing T category
T1
68.2%
T2
32.9%
T3
2.8%
Practical implication: the test is unlikely to “rescue” an obviously high-risk T3 melanoma into a low-risk category.
Where could this matter?
5–10% SLN-risk zone

A low-risk CP-GEP result places many patients into the range where guidelines support discussion and consideration of SLNB rather than an automatic recommendation.

Prediction ≠ proof that omission is safe
The value of the test is concentrated in patients whose clinicopathologic risk already sits near a decision threshold.
Hieken et al., JAMA Surg. 2025;160:1358–1366.

From “failed study” to clinical decision support

From “failed study” to clinical decision support
What changed
The endpoint did not change. The clinical interpretation did.
2024
SMR presentation
Primary hypothesis misses
7.1%

Low-risk CP-GEP did not reach the prespecified <5% SLN-positivity threshold.

Initial framing: “failed primary endpoint.”
2025
JAMA Surgery
Prospective signal holds up
3.4×

High-risk results carried a 3.4-fold higher risk of SLN metastasis; low-risk patients clustered below 10%.

Interpretation shifts from omission to risk refinement.
2026
NCCN v2.2026
Decision support enters guidance
T1b ± T2a

NCCN language recognizes CP-GEP for selected patients to support shared decision-making around SLNB.

Use selectively — not as a blanket no-SLNB rule.
The lesson is not that a “failed” endpoint became positive. It is that clinically useful information can survive a negative primary hypothesis.
Dermatology Times 2024; Hieken et al., JAMA Surg. 2025; NCCN v2.2026 wording as reproduced in SkylineDx press release (Feb 19, 2026) — verify against the current NCCN guideline before final presentation.

MERLIN matters only if it changes the SLNB decision

MERLIN matters only if it changes the SLNB decision
Clinical integration
Order early enough, by the right team, so the result arrives before the SLNB plan is locked.
A workable timeline
Best fit: before the first definitive SLNB discussion.
1
Diagnosis

Biopsy proves melanoma

2
Candidate identified

Dermatology or surgery recognizes an SLNB-eligible patient

3
Merlin ordered

Existing biopsy tissue used; no new procedure

4
Result back

Result returns before SLNB is finalized

5
Shared decision

Result incorporated into the SLNB conversation

Who should order it?
Less important than having a clear local pathway.
Dermatologist Works well if dermatology owns the initial staging discussion.
Surgical oncologist Works well if surgery is the main SLNB decision-maker.
What has to work?
If these fail, the assay adds noise rather than useful decision support.
Tissue The biopsy block/FFPE sections must be easy to request and send.
Timing The result must return before surgery is already scheduled and accepted.
Communication Someone must explain what a low-risk result changes — and what it does not mean.
Bottom line: MERLIN should sit upstream of the SLNB decision — not after it.
Hieken et al., JAMA Surg. 2025;160:1358–1366; Merlin physician/patient materials.

Section

02
Advanced melanoma
Ten years later: what did checkpoint blockade actually change?
CheckMate 067 turns a once-short-term response story into a decade-long survival story.

CheckMate 067: durable survival at 10 years

CheckMate 067: durable survival at 10 years
10-year follow-up
Previously untreated advanced melanoma · minimum follow-up 10 years
43%
alive at 10 years with nivolumab + ipilimumab
Median overall survival: 71.9 months

A decade ago, this degree of long-term survival was not the expected natural history of metastatic melanoma.

Median overall survival
Nivo + ipi71.9 mo
Nivolumab36.9 mo
Ipilimumab19.9 mo
96%

10-year melanoma-specific survival among patients alive and progression-free at 3 years on nivo + ipi

57%

were not alive at 10 years

Durable benefit is real.
So is treatment resistance.
The triumph of checkpoint blockade creates the next question: what do we offer the patient whose melanoma still progresses after PD-1?
Wolchok/Larkin/Hodi et al., N Engl J Med. 2025;392:11–22. CheckMate 067 final 10-year outcomes. 10-year OS rate from sponsor-reported trial update.

Section

03
PD-1–refractory melanoma
RP1 is no longer “on the horizon.”
On August 6, 2026, FDA granted accelerated approval to RP1 + nivolumab.

RP1 + nivolumab: accelerated approval after PD-1 progression

RP1 + nivolumab: accelerated approval after PD-1 progression
FDA · August 6, 2026
FDA indication

Vusolimogene oderparepvec-wtpg is indicated in combination with nivolumab for adults with unresectable advanced cutaneous melanoma who experienced disease progression on a PD-1–blocking antibody–based regimen.

Genetically modified oncolytic viral therapy + nivolumab
Accelerated approval → confirmatory clinical benefit still required
IGNYTE efficacy-evaluable population
140 treated → 91 with ≥1 noninjected lesion
24.2% objective response rate
14.1 mo median duration of response
Why ≥1 noninjected lesion mattered Tumor shrinkage away from the injection site provides stronger evidence of a systemic antitumor effect than response in a repeatedly injected lesion.
Dermatologist takeaway: tumor accessibility is now part of treatment selection — not just something we describe on exam.
FDA approval notification, Aug 6, 2026; IGNYTE (NCT03767348).

RP1: local injection with systemic intent

RP1: local injection with systemic intent
How to explain the strategy
1
Inject accessible tumor

Intratumoral RP1 starts where the lesion can be reached.

2
Oncolysis + antigen release

Local tumor destruction may broaden antigen exposure.

3
Immune activation

The goal is a systemic antitumor response.

4
Nivolumab maintains PD-1 blockade

Systemic therapy continues while injected lesions provide local immune stimulation.

IGNYTE regimen

RP1 intratumorally every 2 weeks for up to 8 doses; nivolumab started with the second RP1 dose.

Use this as trial-regimen language unless final label details are being quoted directly.
Clinical implication

This is not “just another systemic drug”: lesion selection, injection logistics, and the distinction between injected and noninjected disease are central to the therapy.

IGNYTE regimen as described in trial publications/presentations; FDA approval notification, Aug 6, 2026.

Accelerated approval doesn’t end the evidence discussion

Accelerated approval doesn't end the evidence discussion
RP1 regulatory story
What actually happened?
IGNYTE
Single-arm efficacy signal

PD-1–refractory advanced melanoma

CRL
FDA questions evidence

Reliability / interpretability of efficacy data

July 30, 2026
Advisory Committee

Public discussion and vote

Aug 6, 2026
Accelerated approval

Based on ORR + DOR

Next
Confirmatory trial

Verify clinical benefit

The point for clinicians

Accelerated approval means the response signal was judged sufficient to allow access now — while longer-term clinical benefit still has to be verified.

Approval answers: can this be used?
It does not fully answer: how much benefit will endure?
Why include the controversy?

For an update talk, the debate is not a distraction. It is the lesson: accelerated approval is a regulatory pathway for promising but incomplete evidence.

FDA approval notification Aug 6, 2026; FDA Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee materials, July 30, 2026.

Three things to know on Monday

Three things to know on Monday
Take-home
1 Use molecular risk thoughtfully

MERLIN_001 strengthens the evidence that CP-GEP can refine SLN risk — but predictive performance is not yet the same thing as proven benefit from changing management.

2 Remember the long tail

CheckMate 067 shows that advanced melanoma can have decade-long survival. The first few years matter enormously — but a large unmet need remains.

3 Recognize injectable disease as therapeutic information

RP1 + nivolumab is now FDA-approved after PD-1 progression. Tumor accessibility and noninjected disease are part of the treatment conversation.

Predict better. Appreciate the durable benefit. Know what is new when PD-1 fails.
Summary slide. See preceding slides for references.