The COVID-19 pandemic had a severe impact on medical care. Our study aims to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on advanced melanoma care in the Netherlands. We selected patients diagnosed with... Show moreThe COVID-19 pandemic had a severe impact on medical care. Our study aims to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on advanced melanoma care in the Netherlands. We selected patients diagnosed with irresectable stage IIIc and IV melanoma during the first and second COVID-19 wave and compared them with patients diagnosed within the same time frame in 2018 and 2019. Patients were divided into three geographical regions. We investigated baseline characteristics, time from diagnosis until start of systemic therapy and postponement of anti-PD-1 courses. During both waves, fewer patients were diagnosed compared to the control groups. During the first wave, time between diagnosis and start of treatment was significantly longer in the southern region compared to other regions (33 vs 9 and 15 days, P-value <.05). Anti-PD-1 courses were postponed in 20.0% vs 3.0% of patients in the first wave compared to the control period. Significantly more patients had courses postponed in the south during the first wave compared to other regions (34.8% vs 11.5% vs 22.3%, P-value <.001). Significantly more patients diagnosed during the second wave had brain metastases and worse performance status compared to the control period. In conclusion, advanced melanoma care in the Netherlands was severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. In the south, the start of systemic treatment for advanced melanoma was more often delayed, and treatment courses were more frequently postponed. During the second wave, patients were diagnosed with poorer patient and tumor characteristics. Longer follow-up is needed to establish the impact on patient outcomes. Show less
Simple Summary: The survival of advanced melanoma patients has improved significantly over the last decade due to the introduction of new systemic therapies. It is unknown whether survival outcomes... Show moreSimple Summary: The survival of advanced melanoma patients has improved significantly over the last decade due to the introduction of new systemic therapies. It is unknown whether survival outcomes of advanced melanoma patients differ between melanoma centers in the Netherlands. This research aimed to assess center variation in treatments and 2-year survival probabilities of advanced melanoma patients diagnosed between 2013 and 2017 in the Netherlands. Significant center variation in 2-year survival probabilities of patients diagnosed in 2014-2015 was observed after correcting for case-mix and treatment with new systemic therapies. The different use of new systemic therapies partially explained the observed variation. From 2016 onwards, no significant difference in 2-year survival was observed between centers. This study shows the added value of quality monitoring with a national registry that enables the study of variation between centers.Background: To assure a high quality of care for patients treated in Dutch melanoma centers, hospital variation in treatment patterns and outcomes is evaluated in the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. The aim of this study was to assess center variation in treatments and 2-year survival probabilities of patients diagnosed between 2013 and 2017 in the Netherlands. Methods: We selected patients diagnosed between 2013 and 2017 with unresectable IIIC or stage IV melanoma, registered in the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Centers' performance on 2-year survival was evaluated using Empirical Bayes estimates calculated in a random effects model. Treatment patterns of the centers with the lowest and highest estimates for 2-year survival were compared. Results: For patients diagnosed between 2014 and 2015, significant center variation in 2-year survival probabilities was observed even after correcting for case-mix and treatment with new systemic therapies. The different use of new systemic therapies partially explained the observed variation. From 2016 onwards, no significant difference in 2-year survival was observed between centers. Conclusion: Our data suggest that between 2014 and 2015, after correcting for patient case-mix, significant variation in 2-year survival probabilities between Dutch melanoma centers existed. The use of new systemic therapies could partially explain this variation. In 2013 and between 2016 and 2017, no significant variation between centers existed. Show less
Glas, N.A. de; Bastiaannet, E.; Bos, F. van den; Mooijaart, S.P.; Veldt, A.A.M. van der; Suijkerbuijk, K.P.M.; ... ; Kapiteijn, E.W. 2021
Simple Summary: Trials suggest no differences in immunotherapy treatment between older and younger patients, but mainly young patients with a good performance status were included in these trials.... Show moreSimple Summary: Trials suggest no differences in immunotherapy treatment between older and younger patients, but mainly young patients with a good performance status were included in these trials. The aim of this study was to describe the treatment patterns and outcomes of "real-world" older patients with metastatic melanoma. We included 2216 patients aged >= 65 years from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry and described outcomes of immunotherapy. The study showed that responses and severe side effects did not differ from previously reported younger populations and randomized trials, even in the oldest patients and in patients with other diseases. However, patients aged >= 75 discontinued treatment due to toxicity more often, resulting in fewer treatment cycles. We therefore conclude that immunotherapy seems to have similar effects in older patients compared to younger patients, but the impact of less severe toxicity on quality of life should be further studied as older patients are more likely to discontinue treatment.Background: Previous trials suggest no differences in immunotherapy treatment between older and younger patients, but mainly young patients with a good performance status were included. The aim of this study was to describe the treatment patterns and outcomes of "real-world" older patients with metastatic melanoma and to identify predictors of outcome. Methods: We included patients aged >= 65 years with metastatic melanoma from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. We described the reasons for hospital admissions and treatment discontinuation. Additionally, we assessed predictors of toxicity and response using logistic regression models and survival using Cox regression models. Results: We included 2216 patients. Grade >= 3 toxicity was not associated with age, comorbidities or WHO status. Patients aged >= 75 discontinued treatment due to toxicity more often, resulting in fewer treatment cycles. Response rates were similar to previous trials (40.3% and 43.6% in patients aged 65-75 and >= 75, respectively, for anti-PD1 treatment) and did not decrease with age or comorbidity. Melanoma-specific survival was not affected by age or comorbidity. Conclusion: Response rates and toxicity outcomes of checkpoint inhibitors did not change with increasing age or comorbidity. However, the impact of grade I-II toxicity on quality of life deserves further study as older patients discontinue treatment more frequently. Show less
Kooij, M.K. van der; Suijkerbuijk, K.P.M.; Aarts, M.J.B.; Berkmortel, F.W.P.J. van den; Blank, C.U.; Boers-Sonderen, M.J.; ... ; Kapiteijn, E. 2021
Background: Because immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) can cause immune-related adverse events (irAEs) mimicking immunologic diseases, patients with preexisting autoimmune disease (AID) have been... Show moreBackground: Because immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) can cause immune-related adverse events (irAEs) mimicking immunologic diseases, patients with preexisting autoimmune disease (AID) have been excluded from clinical trials.Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of ICI in patients with advanced melanoma with and without AID.Design: Nationwide cohort study.Setting: The Netherlands.Patients: 4367 patients with advanced melanoma enrolled in the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR) between July 2013 and July 2018 and followed through February 2019.Measurements: Patient, clinical, and treatment characteristics; irAEs of grade 3 or higher; treatment response; and survival.Results: A total of 415 patients (9.5%) had AID, categorized as rheumatologic AID (n = 227), endocrine AID (n = 143), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) (n = 55), or "other" (n = 8). Of these, 228 patients (55%) were treated with ICI (vs. 2546 [58%] without AID); 87 were treated with anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4), 187 with anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD-1), and 34 with the combination. The incidences of irAEs of grade 3 or higher in patients with AID were 30% (95% CI, 21% to 41%) with anti-CTLA-4, 17% (CI, 12% to 23%) with anti-PD-1, and 44% (CI, 27% to 62%) with combination therapy; for patients without AID, the incidences were 30% (CI, 27% to 33%) (n = 916), 13% (CI, 12% to 15%) (n = 1540), and 48% (CI, 43% to 53%) (n = 388), respectively. Patients with AID more often discontinued anti-PD-1 treatment because of toxicity than patients without AID (17% [CI, 12% to 23%] vs. 9% [CI, 8% to 11%]). Patients with IBD were more prone to anti-PD-1-induced colitis (6/31 = 19% [CI, 7% to 37%]) than patients with other AIDs (3% [CI, 0% to 6%]) and patients without AID (2% [CI, 2% to 3%]). The objective response rate was similar in patients with versus without AID who were treated with anti-CTLA-4 (10% [CI, 5% to 19%] vs. 16% [CI, 14% to 19%]), anti-PD-1 (40% [CI, 33% to 47%] vs. 44% [CI, 41% to 46%]), or the combination (39% [CI, 20% to 59%] vs. 43% [CI, 38% to 49%]). Survival did not differ between patients with and those without AID (median, 13 months [CI, 10 to 16 months] vs. 14 months [CI, 13 to 15 months]).Limitation: Information was limited on AID severity and immunosuppressive treatment.Conclusion: Response to ICI with anti-CTLA-4, anti-PD-1, or their combination for advanced melanoma and overall incidence of any irAEs of grade 3 or higher were similar in patients with and without preexisting AID. However, severe colitis and toxicity requiring early discontinuation of treatment occurred more frequently among patients with preexisting IBD, warranting close follow-up. Show less
Breeschoten, J. van; Wouters, M.W.J.M.; Wreede, L.C. de; Hilarius, D.H.; Haanen, J.B.; Blank, C.U.; ... ; Eertwegh, A.J.M. van den 2021
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate treatment patterns and overall survival (OS) of patients with BRAF(V600) wild-type and BRAF(V600)-mutant advanced melanoma in the Netherlands.... Show moreObjective: The aim of this study was to evaluate treatment patterns and overall survival (OS) of patients with BRAF(V600) wild-type and BRAF(V600)-mutant advanced melanoma in the Netherlands. Methods: We selected patients of 18 years and over, diagnosed between 2016 and 2017 with unresectable stage IIIC or IV melanoma, registered in the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. To assess the association of BRAF(V600)-mutation status with OS we used the Cox proportional-hazards model. Results: A total of 642 BRAF(V600) wild-type and 853 mutant patients were included in the analysis. Median OS did not differ significantly between both groups, 15.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 13.2-19.2) versus 20.6 months (95% CI: 18.3-25.0). Survival rates at 6 and 12 months were significantly lower for BRAF(V600) wild-type patients compared with BRAF(V600)-mutant patients, 72.0% (95% CI: 68.6-75.6) and 56.0% (95% CI: 52.2-60.0) versus 83.4% (95% CI: 80.9-85.9) and 65.7% (95% CI: 62.6-69.0). Two-year survival was not significantly different between both groups, 41.1% (95% CI: 37.2-45.3) versus 47.0% (95% CI: 43.6-60.6). Between 0 and 10 months, BRAF(V600) wild-type patients had a decreased survival with a hazard ratio for OS of 2.00 (95% CI: 1.62-2.46) but this effect disappeared after 10 months. At 12 months, BRAF(V600)-mutant patients had started with second-line systemic treatment more often compared with BRAF(V600) wild-type patients (50% vs. 19%). Conclusion: These results suggest that advanced BRAF(V600) wild-type melanoma patients have worse survival than BRAF(V600)-mutated patients during the first 10 months after diagnosis because of less available treatment options. Show less
Breeschoten, J. van; Wouters, M.W.J.M.; Hilarius, D.L.; Haanen, J.B.; Blank, C.U.; Aarts, M.J.B.; ... ; Eertwegh, A.J.M. van den 2021
Background Anti-PD-1 antibodies and BRAF/MEK inhibitors are the two main groups of systemic therapy in the treatment of BRAF(V600)-mutant advanced melanoma. Until now, data are inconclusive on... Show moreBackground Anti-PD-1 antibodies and BRAF/MEK inhibitors are the two main groups of systemic therapy in the treatment of BRAF(V600)-mutant advanced melanoma. Until now, data are inconclusive on which therapy to use as first-line treatment. The aim of this study was to use propensity score matching to compare first-line anti-PD-1 monotherapy vs. BRAF/MEK inhibitors in advanced BRAF(V600)-mutant melanoma patients. Methods We selected patients diagnosed between 2014 and 2017 with advanced melanoma and a known BRAF(V600)-mutation treated with first-line BRAF/MEK inhibitors or anti-PD-1 antibodies, registered in the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Patients were matched based on their propensity scores using the nearest neighbour and the optimal matching method. Results Between 2014 and 2017, a total of 330 and 254 advanced melanoma patients received BRAF/MEK inhibitors and anti-PD-1 monotherapy as first-line systemic therapy. In the matched cohort, patients receiving anti-PD-1 antibodies as a first-line treatment had a higher median and 2-year overall survival compared to patients treated with first-line BRAF/MEK inhibitors, 42.3 months (95% CI: 37.3-NE) vs. 19.8 months (95% CI: 16.7-24.3) and 85.4% (95% CI: 58.1-73.6) vs. 41.7% (95% CI: 34.2-51.0). Conclusions Our data suggest that in the matched BRAF(V600)-mutant advanced melanoma patients, anti-PD-1 monotherapy is the preferred first-line treatment in patients with relatively favourable patient and tumour characteristics. Show less
Jochems, A.; Kooij, M.K. van der; Fiocco, M.; Schouwenburg, M.G.; Aarts, M.J.; Akkooi, A.C. van; ... ; Kapiteijn, E. 2019
